Japanese planes

[Mike Holbrook]

I know that some of the more experienced posters here have gravitated to these planes. On the surface, however, they certainly exhibit classic simplicity. I have been wondering what makes these planes special? Certainly the Japanese ability to make exceptional steel comes into play in plane blades. The plane bodies are anything but exotic though.

I have a vested interest, as I may be ordering plane kits that incorporate bodies that are more like traditional Japanese wooden plane bodies than the larger block, razee or coffin body styles.

Hoping to make my planes as serviceable as possible.

[Terry Beadle]

The kana body is a precise piece of engineering. It does have simple lines but the subtly tuned blade seat and the carefully shaped sole make these some thing other than simple. Yes, the blade steel quality and materials are the exceptional element of the planes. However, the white oak and red oak die's are aged cured and hand crafted by specialists. I think Pam Neidermyer can answer your interest better than I. Stan in Toykyo has a bit to say too...hoot!

The thing is you can incorporate the steel technology into your own planes using the Galoot blades.
http://www.galoot-tools.com/life/blades.html

I recommend the middle grade blade. I have one in a Steve Knight smoother made from Bloodwood. It's a pleasure to use and the view isn't bad either...hoot!

Good luck with your plane projects and keep us on the slope informed.

[Frank Drew]

In my experience, good quality Japanese planes, well-tuned by skillful users, can handle with ease the most difficult-to-plane timbers, but of course they require careful sharpening of the blade, and, unlike iron planes, quite frequent tuning of the plane sole to function optimally. They can be really wonderful tools, but are "high maintenance" compared to many other planes. Think super model... :D

[David Weaver]

I had two galoot tool irons. they were not similar in quality to a good japanese iron. They were OK, but I also got them in knight planes and wish I would've just gotten two standard irons instead. In my opinion, steve's O1 irons are better than the galoot tools irons (tougher and less prone to chipout - both of my GT irons had chipout issues). In fact, steve's O1 irons were as good as any that I have seen. I recognize that other folks have had better experience than I have had with them, but I also recall steve telling me that he got a lot back with chipout. Maybe they were inconsistent.

I would make sure if you want to get into japanese tools, that you buy japanese tools. Tsunesaburo makes blue steel western plane irons for very reasonable prices. I get the sense that they will soon be making more stuff for western tools, and maybe more western irons in different shapes and sizes.

Frank's comments are correct, especially with smoothers. It takes longer to sharpen a japanese iron than it does to sharpen a thin microbevel on a western iron, especially on a very hard japanese iron. Still, maybe five minutes of time on good stones. If I wasn't concerned with how they look, maybe i'd use a tormek for them - which is harmless since it has a much larger radius than a bench grinder and doesn't threaten how the backing iron works.

I use both western and eastern planes. Japanese planes make an excellent jack plane - one iron, tearout isn't too bad, angle is low and it's very easy to pull the plane through the wood. With a leather belt, it takes no longer to sharpen them than a western plane (different than a smoother), maybe less, because there's no assembly to put back together. Just run the cambered iron on a loaded belt for a minute and pop the iron back in the plane and go.

The dai itself isn't so complex, but there is a matter of precision in the bedding of the iron that maybe goes unnoticed - much more precision than krenov style plane. It is not hard to deal with if the dai is made properly, though. Actually, I haven't had any issue with it in 8 or so planes (or more, maybe), even the cheaper ones (which were probably machine cut) were fine.

The funjii planes that JWW sells are a decent place to start cheaply (60 bucks or something) if you want to try a full-sized japanese plane shaped object, and you can get a "real" one if you decide you like it. Their only drawback is the iron is not perfectly prepared like a high quality japanese iron. they are not any harder to prepare than a western iron that isn't perfect, though, and that comment is one I'd make only because the irons that come from the high quality blacksmiths are pretty much flat and sharp when you get them, unlike most western tools - they are really choice stuff.

Maybe more on this later, maybe. No reason to stay away from the things, and no reason to believe that they can't be part of a good stock preparation rotation or group of user tools. They are really enjoyable to use, especially in agreeable wood.

[Mike Holbrook]

More details may be in order here. I had been talking to Steve Knight about plane kits before he took down his site for Razee plane kits. I believe we have struck a package deal for several wooden plane kits reverting back to the more Japanese type plane bodies he use to make. I wanted a small project I could work on at night until I get some construction projects finished up for my business/home and can tackle bigger hard wood projects I have planed. Steve will be cutting rough shapes with his cnc router and I will be finishing the planes up. So I was just curious about the "finer" points of this type of wooden plane construction.

[Jorge Rico]

Mike,
The huge difference is that to use a Japanese plane you pull it towards yourself as opposed to getting behind the plane and pushing away from you, just like the saws. Sometimes this takes getting used to and may not always be successful with a benchtop of western height. A really good japanese plane can also be finicky and is often frustrating to learn at first, especially fettling the bed. However, once you get used to its personality you can take amazingly long and fine shavings. Incidently, I use both western and japanese planes.

[Pam Niedermayer]

Steve doesn't make Japanese planes, and phrases like "in the style of" are diversionary at best. Not that Steve intends that. I think he started out trying to make Japanese like planes without what he and many other western planers consider obstructions, such as the hollow on the blade back (he had them ground away) and construction from a solid block of Japanese white oak or Hon red oak and non-flat soles and landings, etc.

I bought one of his first planes, figuring that even if it didn't work I could take the blade and use it to make a Japanese plane (I'd already planned to attend an Inomoto-san dai making seminar at Hiraide); but, nnnnnooooooo, without the hollow you can't make a Japanese plane. In the class I found out at least a little about what comprised a Japanese plane; and these things are, as others have said, subtle and invisible unless one looks very closely.

So I'd suggest either buying a cheaper Japanese plane and examining it in rigorous detail, or buy some kits from Steve and make some planes that will probably work fine, knowing that they are not under any circumstances Japanese plane like.

Pam

[Chris Fournier]

Steve doesn't make Japanese planes, and phrases like "in the style of" are diversionary at best. Not that Steve intends that. I think he started out trying to make Japanese like planes without what he and many other western planers consider obstructions, such as the hollow on the blade back (he had them ground away) and construction from a solid block of Japanese white oak or Hon red oak and non-flat soles and landings, etc.

I bought one of his first planes, figuring that even if it didn't work I could take the blade and use it to make a Japanese plane (I'd already planned to attend an Inomoto-san dai making seminar at Hiraide); but, nnnnnooooooo, without the hollow you can't make a Japanese plane. In the class I found out at least a little about what comprised a Japanese plane; and these things are, as others have said, subtle and invisible unless one looks very closely.

So I'd suggest either buying a cheaper Japanese plane and examining it in rigorous detail, or buy some kits from Steve and make some planes that will probably work fine, knowing that they are not under any circumstances Japanese plane like.

Pam

I am curious as to why you can't make a Japanese plane without a hollow back on the iron Pam.

[Stuart Tierney]

Hi Mike,

Take a read of this; Kanna Anatomy (http://www.toolsfromjapan.com/store/index.php?main_page=page&id=9&chapter=5).

Yes, it's at my store site, but it details most, if not all, of the aspects of kanna along with the whys and hows of all the finer details. It's still a work in progress, but at the moment it's fairly complete.

The simplicity is nothing of the sort, but in the end it's all designed to make them easy to use, all the time.


There's no reason why you can't incorporate some of these details into your own planes, and they should make a small difference. But to get the full effect, the plane really does need to include all the details, and to get them all, it needs to be a kanna. Kind of 1+1+1+1=5.


Good luck with it, and if you need any more info, here is as good a place as any so everyone can have a read.


(FWIW, I get most of my information from folks who've got more kanna as their regular 'stock' than planes Steve Knight ever made. If only Steve was still going at it, things might be certainly more interesting and exciting now. Oh well...)

[Pam Niedermayer]

I am curious as to why you can't make a Japanese plane without a hollow back on the iron Pam.

Read Stu's kanna article, very well done. In my case for that particular class, it sufficed that both Harrelson and Inomoto-san said so. Since they were giving the class, I ponied up the dollars for a new blade set. :)

Pam

[David Weaver]

I am curious as to why you can't make a Japanese plane without a hollow back on the iron Pam.

Clearly, you could make one and put a mild back bevel on it to save yourself effort. In terms of use, it'd be a lot quicker than an old iron where you have to do uradashi, and it wouldn't threaten the taper. The bigger key to making the whole thing work nicely is that taper. Most western manufacturers have no interest in making an iron with a taper, especially not a fairly significant one like a japanese iron. Nor are they interested in making a wooden body that would fit an iron precisely like a dai fits an iron, especially not if it means higher class planes would have to both have a hand-done body AND still be a reasonable price.

As far as having no hollow, though, woe be to the person who got a 70mm+ wide iron hardened to 66 that had a belly on the back, though. That'd be a job. The two GT irons that I got from steve knight had some belly of their own - both of them were fairly significant to the point that I had to go to 3x sandpaper to do the job way back when (i would use diamonds now). The 800 king brick that I was using proved to be far too slow.

I think steve stopped using japanese irons because they were:
* relatively expensive compared to the price of his planes (which were just about downright cheap in price in the early years)
* difficult to get in a long flat iron where the iron had to fit in the plane instead of the plane being fit to the iron
* hard to get in a steady supply and timely

He can correct me on that, it's remnants of what I recall from a conversation probably more than 3 years ago. Maybe closer to 4 or more.

[Chris Fournier]

It seems that the defense of Japanese handtools always comes down to a French defense:

They're just so "je ne sais quoi."

This is a legitimate defense when it comes to l'amour but not so much when it comes to tools!

[David Weaver]

Being non-canadian and too lazy to use google translate, I can only guess at what that means.

And only to add, they're pleasant to use, and if any of us were going to make a big contention about how fast hand tools have to be - we'd only be using them for a little bit of joinery and maybe to remove planer chatter.

Plus, I don't know of anything else that will leave a finish as nice on a softwood as a japanese plane, and the low angle makes for a great jack plane (easy to pull / easy to hog) as long as the wood tolerates (maybe not such a great idea on a burl).

[Pam Niedermayer]

It seems that the defense of Japanese handtools always comes down to a French defense:

They're just so "je ne sais quoi."

This is a legitimate defense when it comes to l'amour but not so much when it comes to tools!

Chris, I don't think you're being very fair here. I didn't explain why the hollow because I thought Stu had done so in his article. After scanning that, I'd also like to say that I think the hollow and blade curve work somehow to sort of spring the blade and dai, push it up against the front abutments with a little more force than would otherwise be possible, thus allowing the dai to hold the blade more firmly. My comment above, that it was so because Harrelson and Inomoto-san said so, was intended to be amusing, a joke on me; and it's unfair to take it for more than that.

Pam

[Mike Holbrook]

I appreciate all the good information. I am in a situation where I am not sure how much time I will be devoting to working with hard wood. Until I get more experience I am not comfortable spending the kind of money the good Japanese planes cost, or any of the better planes for that matter. I want a project to do that entails interesting work with smaller quantities of wood, plane building seems to fit my interest. I'm just trying to garner as much information as I can to enable me to turn out a better plane.

I was not trying to imply that Steve makes "Japanese" planes, only that the wooden bodies seemed closer to that style of plane than the razee planes he was offering on his site. I would place them somewhere closer to Gary Blum's planes in body form but with obvious major differences in the blades and blade adjustment system.

Thanks for the link Stu, exactly the kind of information I was curious about. The Japanese certainly have a way of refining tools to a degree that defies comparison. It will be interesting to see if I can apply any of those subtleties to my cruder work.

[Terry Beadle]

A couple of follow up comments:

As far as maintenance goes, my kana only needs about 10 min a year. I check the recessed area of the sole, that area just in front of the blade and about 3/8ths wide, that dips just slightly ( about 1 ~ 2 thou ) to the trailing edge also about 3/8th's wide. I have a standing iron plane to re-work the recessed area if it needs it but I find I have better control with a cabinet scraper. Other than a slightly looser blade in the winter, I've not had to do much maintenance on the dai. The blade is set at 47 1/2 and using water stones takes very little time to sharpen. It takes less time to sharpen than say my A2 LN block plane blades. This is because you only have to sharpen a very small 1/4 inch of just the end of the blade on the back and since it's already polished and only sees the 8000 grit stones and above, needs very little attention. Mostly just to remove the burr from sharpening the bevel side. The bevel side takes the most time to sharpen but there again my experience is that it's about the same as a A2 but more than Steve Knights O1.

The other comment is about the plane projects that started this thread. My suggestion of using a GT blade was an idea that that is the only non-Japanese blade that has the laminated steel design but is not a full blown Japanese blade. I agree with David Weaver's comments and his experiences with GT blades are the same as mine. I upgraded the the mid-priced GT blade and paid a reasonable up grade cost, to get past the cheapest GT blades chip out problems. The mid-priced blade that I received has performed and sharpened flawlessly. Steve Knights customer service with this issue was superb. He really stands behind his product. For the "Japanese influenced aspects" of the plane projects, and I was building them, I'd use a Japanese blade. They are just the best hand made blade. I wouldn't buy a real expensive blade but some where in the $150 would yield IMO a great plane. I also don't think you would have to spend a lot of time making the plane bed exactly match the blade. If you adopted a lever cap design like Steve Knights, I think it would create more than enough pressure to secure the blade in working conditions. I also think Steve's mouth adjuster gate piece that mounts in the plane mouth just in front of the blade works great and eliminates the need for a cap iron. YMMV. If you carefully shape the side dado's for the blade to match the wedge shape of the Japanese blade, that would further secure the blade.

Mr. Holbrook, I hope you have a great time with your "plane engineering" and I certainly think it won't be a plain experience...hoot!

Enjoy the shavings !

[Chris Fournier]

"And only to add, they're pleasant to use, and if any of us were going to make a big contention about how fast hand tools have to be - we'd only be using them for a little bit of joinery and maybe to remove planer chatter.

Plus, I don't know of anything else that will leave a finish as nice on a softwood as a japanese plane, and the low angle makes for a great jack plane (easy to pull / easy to hog) as long as the wood tolerates (maybe not such a great idea on a burl). " Quote: David Weaver

"My comment above, that it was so because Harrelson and Inomoto-san said so, was intended to be amusing, a joke on me; and it's unfair to take it for more than that." Quote: Pam Niedermayer

David, I think that you hit the nail on the head with "pleasant to use" and "nice finish on softwood." These are excellent reasons to use this type of plane and they don't require a technical treatise.

Pam, I was having fun too, no insult intended.

[Stuart Tierney]

David, I think that you hit the nail on the head with "pleasant to use" and "nice finish on softwood." These are excellent reasons to use this type of plane and they don't require a technical treatise.




Funny, I have 4 brand spanking new kanna sitting within arms reach here, and only one was intended to see softwood, the other three are unlikely to ever touch anything but hardwood (2 specified for oak, one generic off the shelf for beech, cherry and maple), and from the way their bodies are made to the steel in their blades, all made solely to be used with hardwood.

I don't know who trumped out the idea that kanna are only suitable for softwoods, but I'd dearly love to take them out back and beat them senseless with a large chunk of wood. Preferably hardwood, fresh planed.

Very, very annoying...

Stu. Who has heaps of hardwood stashed away, no softwood.

[David Weaver]

It's not that they're only intended for softwood.

it's that they will not match a 9 pound infill plane running through a burl of something very hard and the "penalty" (in tearout) is greater than an infill if you guess wrong on grain direction than it is with an infill. I can't remember if I said anything about panel planes, but I have my bench against the wall. I can plane a cross-pattern on a board after jacking with an infill panel plane from one side of the bench, which on a board reasonably wide, allows you to ignore using winding sticks - it will be flat when you're done, it's physically impossible for it to not be. What I mean by that is that I intentionally plane back into the grain in one part of the X pattern, no matter how nasty the wood is. I will not get much tearout because the mouth of the infill is barely bigger than the shaving. If I do that with a bench plane without setting the chipbreaker, with an old woody, or with a kanna, I will often run into nasty tearout. That kind of thing is where a western designed plane is at a big advantage - a metal mouth that is very tight and wears very slowly.

I cannot convince someone who is proficient with western planes that they will gain anything in hardwoods by using a japanese planes. Rather, it will take them longer to do the same work when sharpening, etc is accounted for if they have a reasonable sharpening regimen for western planes, unless they are willing to use microbevels and back bevels on their japanese planes (but they will still not be able to achieve the same tolerance with the mouth of the plane, which is the real risk reducer at the bench).

I think I *can* convince just about anyone that they will make gains with a japanese plane in softwoods and probably even as part of a rough lumber preparation regimen - especially given that when your elbows feel like they might explode and your dominant arm is tired, you can still easily pull a plane and continue working. If you do half of the work pushing, and half pulling, you can work without taking breaks.

If we start talking about leaving projects totally without finish, then surface quality is of the utmost importance and maybe balancing tearout risk with surface quality should be skewed toward better surface quality with higher risk. If there is going to be anything on the surface, even just oil and wax, then I can't tell the difference in the finished project, and after rough removal with a jack, the precisely made infills walk all over everything in the hardwoods for ease of use and speed. You just can't get into much trouble with them, especially not on woods most people use. I guess you could set up an LN plane the same way - super tight, and get similar performance. I'm too lazy for that. I'd rather have a plane that is set up correctly no matter what.

(none of that should be interpreted to mean you can't use a japanese plane on hardwoods - can you use them on hardwoods? Of course you can. even a cheap japanese white #2 smoother will work fine on moderate hardwoods.)

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for those targeted thoughts Terry. I'm not trying to produce something that even approaches the subtleties of the traditional Japanese planes, at my experience level. I do want to learn as much from the experience as possible and challenge myself to refine my skills with those hand tools I will be making the planes with. I'm getting excited about the project. I spent a fair amount of time restoring old hand tools in the last 6 months, this project will have some similarities but finally get me working some interesting wood.

I appreciate the information on the GT blades and the thoughts about using Japanese plane blades with Steve's plane kits. Steve and I did have a limited discussion about my using "other", particularly Japanese blades, with his plane kits. I believe the issue is matching the blade & plane body. I'm just getting acquainted with the Japanese plane blades and have not been able to determine if there are sizes available that would work in Steve's planes. Sounds like you may have had some success in this regard? As I think you eluded to earlier it is probably a little tough for Steve to justify spending as much or more for a blade to be used in his plane kit as the kit cost itself. I'm not saying such an expenditure is not justifiable. I just doubt that the majority of Steve's clients would share the same level of appreciation for those blades. Those who have that sort of knowledge and appreciation may gravitate towards Japanese made planes making it tough for Steve in that market.

[Chris Fournier]

Funny, I have 4 brand spanking new kanna sitting within arms reach here, and only one was intended to see softwood, the other three are unlikely to ever touch anything but hardwood (2 specified for oak, one generic off the shelf for beech, cherry and maple), and from the way their bodies are made to the steel in their blades, all made solely to be used with hardwood.

I don't know who trumped out the idea that kanna are only suitable for softwoods, but I'd dearly love to take them out back and beat them senseless with a large chunk of wood. Preferably hardwood, fresh planed.

Very, very annoying...

Stu. Who has heaps of hardwood stashed away, no softwood.

No one trumped out that idea, at least in this thread. I do think however that David's response was well considered and accurate.

I'm interested in hearing about the design and material diferences between the hardwood planes that are destined for oak rather than beech and maple!

[Frank Drew]

I was having trouble getting a good finish while planing a hard, difficult walnut crotch with a Japanese plane; one of the Japanese carpenters I was working with took the plane I was using, sighted down the sole, tuned it up a bit, adjusted the blade, then took some strokes on the walnut and it cut like a dream, with no tearout at all. It seemed that as far as he was concerned, there aren't any woods that are too ornery to plane, just some planes that aren't correctly tuned yet.

Also, if you're using your plane all day, that is, doing nothing but planing wood the whole work day (which is not uncommon in Japanese carpentry), I'd be very surprised if you didn't need to tune up the sole at some point, if not at several points, during the day; plus resharpen/hone your blade. At least that was my experience.

Japanese carpenters are fanatics about keeping their tools in absolutely top working order and breaks in the work for that kind of maintenance are very common.

[Stuart Tierney]

The difference between the run-of-the-mill kanna and one built for hardwood is not great. More often that not, different steel better able to resist blunting (but with less ability to be made 'sharp!') is used, and a slightly higher bedding angle for the blade. For exotic woods, again increase the bedding angle (beyond 45 degrees is steep) and make the blade with a more abrasion resistant alloy steel.

For very soft woods, the bedding angle is reduced and steel that is more able to take a keener edge is used. As the blade is not going to be subject to the same levels of abrasion in softwood, often these blades will be plain carbon steel.

Of course, either one will work with either wood, but where LN and LV offer maybe 10 different planes, and a few different blades to smooth out wood, someone like Tsunesaburo offers about 20 different planes, 4 widths of each type, and you specify the body to suit the job. Just for general purpose planing, there's over 1000 different ways to get there.

But most of the time, a well tuned plain-Jane kanna will get the job done nicely. Even a poorly tuned kanna tends to still get the job done pretty well. Been there, done that, keep it under your hat!


I think they key thing to think of is in the case of a low angle smoothing plane, you might have a few different blades set up to tackle nice woods, difficult woods and impossible woods. With a kanna you'd have one blade, and several bodies to accomplish the same end result. Ultimately, neither is 'better' or 'worse', just a different way to get there.

Just wish I had more time available to 'get there' than to just think about it... :(

[David Weaver]

It's my opinion that everyone should have one. I know whatever you type on here can be taken several different ways, and I don't want my words earlier to make people who are just jumping into this think that having a roughing plane and two infills is a necessity. they are expensive. They are also pure joy to use.

Same with japanese planes, except they aren't expensive, but they are a joy to use.

I think everyone should have one, learn to set them up and tune them (it really doesn't take much, especially if the dai is good quality and close already), grip them right, and then use them. What may seem counterintuitive at first (pulling with your left hand instead of generally pushing with your right) is not so much so after just 15 minutes or so, and it's such a nice change of pace if you're doing a lot of plane work.

I just wish there were more western irons with japanese steel in them...I would LOVE to have a blue steel iron or specialty blue steel iron in my shepherd panel smoother. it would be like a combination of rolls royce and freight train.

[Pam Niedermayer]

The difference between the run-of-the-mill kanna and one built for hardwood is not great. More often that not, different steel better able to resist blunting (but with less ability to be made 'sharp!') is used, and a slightly higher bedding angle for the blade. For exotic woods, again increase the bedding angle (beyond 45 degrees is steep) and make the blade with a more abrasion resistant alloy steel....

One of the reasons I wanted to learn how to make dai, aside from just the enjoyment, was to be able to make dai with different bedding angles for different woods. Here's a starting list:

33-37° kiri (paulownia)
35-37° sugi (Japanese cedar)-soft wood, western red cedar
38-39° hinoki (Japanese cypress), matsu* (pine)-common or ordinary wood
40-41° kuri (chestnut), tsuga (hemlock spruce, boxwood)
40° Birch soft, cypress, pine, medium soft woods
40-42° walnut
41° willow
41-42° maple soft
42-43° keyaki (zelcovia), sakura (cherry), elm
42-45° oak
43° beech, birch hard, maple hard, keyaki (zelcovia), sakura (cherry)-hard wood
43-45° chestnut
45° teak
52° ebony, rosewood kokutan (ebony), shitan (rosewood)-hardwood-kyubobai
(steep slope)

*Note, matsu or pine in Japanese includes white pine, red pine, black pine and silver fir

Pam

[Chris Fournier]

Stu and Pam, thanks for your replies to my question!

[David Weaver]

Stu - when are the hap 40 full sized planes going to go up?

[Stuart Tierney]

As soon as I can get to them!

Got a little more than I can handle right now to be honest, but I'm working on it. I took over 200 photographs last Thursday, with instructions for several dozen more to be taken, and was handed a price list that is going to change a few things as well.

First time I saw the new price list, I was most pleased I can tell you that much. ;)


Chris, no problem at all. All I hope to do is to make it known that there is nothing worrisome or scary about kanna, and if anything, they're actually a nice arrow to have in the quiver on occasion. Even if you only have one, they do make their presence felt.

[Mike Holbrook]

If a person without a great deal of plane experience wanted to try a Japanese plane out where might one start? We can make the assumption, in this case, that said person has stones capable of sharpening the blades.

[David Weaver]

What's the budget?
What wood is the plane going to work?

There's a no-man's-land area between 100 and 200 that I'd avoid. I'd also avoid any white #2 planes that cost more than $100. Chances are they aren't nearly the value of a decent blue #1 plane, and though white #2 can be made hard and durable with skill and work (the skill is unlikely to be applied to a plane that cheap - good white steel planes cost money), they are more likely to disappoint you once you've gotten your hands on a decent plane.

If you want to start really cheap, one of the 65mm funjii planes would give you something to fit the dai on and do more prep than you would have to with a better plane. If you ruined the dai, no big deal.

At the 200+ level, blue #1 planes are a good way to go, and as much as I don't like japan woodworker, their special cutting steel 70mm yamamoto plane is probably one of the best deals going, but it is a bit harder to sharpen than blue #1. Plus, you get little flexibility with JWW, and pay more to take their one pre-decided option.

I *didn't* screw up bedding my first planes, but they were funjii's, both of them. I use one of them as a jack now. You could probably get away with skipping them if you wanted to go with a decent blue #1 plane.

[Pam Niedermayer]

If a person without a great deal of plane experience wanted to try a Japanese plane out where might one start? We can make the assumption, in this case, that said person has stones capable of sharpening the blades.

I'd go with a smaller plane, such as 54mm or even less, maybe 42mm, as they will be significantly cheaper. There's a guy on the bay right now selling a couple of these new for less than $60 or so, including shipping. Or check out Hida Tool for Koetsu planes and spokeshaves (they're a lot like planes), even Koetsu finger planes, something fun that you probably wouldn't buy in a western style. Forget about steels for the moment.

Pam

[Jim Belair]

I had no experience with Japanese planes and went the Fuunji (from JWW) route as David suggests. It was a good learning exercise fitting the blade, conditioning the sole, and the plane cuts like nobody's business. I'm still not ready to make the plunge to the pull side but if I decide to this was a worthwhile endeavor and I got a decent plane out of it for under $60.

Jim B

[Mike Holbrook]

I saw some for auction a week or so ago but without knowing anything about what I would be buying...

I was checking out Stu's Tools From Japan planes but for a single learning plane it probably isn't worth the shipping & trouble. The sizes were throwing me at first, not realizing they were blade sizes. The Japanese plane system is about the opposite of the system I just learned, blades being the key component and the "bodies" being the more replaceable component. I believe Stu's site suggests starting with a small plane too, as there is less work to shaping the

The thing i have not figured out yet is how you grip a Japanese plane exactly. Guess I will go read a little more on Stu's site.

[Stuart Tierney]

Mike, in my humble experience (yeah, right!) the smaller planes only need sharpening, adjust the blade, get to work.

There's at least twice as much fooling around with any iron plane, and I'm being kind to the iron planes there.

It's the bigger, heavier stuff that frequently needs adjusting, and even then you can avoid a lot of that by buying the right plane. ;)

Says I, slowly working on a new 60mm that I bought just the heck of it. Don't need it, don't even want it, but it's here and I'll make it sing, just because you can't have enough planes, right? :)

Stu.

[Mike Holbrook]

Ok I'll bite, what in your humble opinion might be the/a right smaller plane Stu? So far you have steered me down a splinter-less path with no tear out.

All these things have strange foreign names, I have enough trouble remembering a few words of dog german, like Auss! ( turn loose, don't grab it in your mouth ), good one to know with big GSDs.

[Mike Holbrook]

Yea, looks like we are back.

So an update. Steve Knight was closing out his old plane kit business and offered me a deal for closing out his kit supplies. I just received the materials for: 26" jointer, 15.5 jack, 2- 7.5" smooth planes (one 45 one 55). The kit bodies are plain rectangular shapes 1 3/4"+ thick. The bodies are all Purple Heart. At Steve's suggestion I have placed the bodies out in the shop, for a week or two, to adjust to the humidity there. The bodies are two pieces, both in one piece of wood at the moment. I was also sent: 13 wedges, 3 totes, 8-10 dowels, a board with 11 movable wooden throats, 12 plane blades (1/4 inch thick, 2" wide, varying lengths).

The plane blades were in rough form so I started grinding a few of them on the Tormek. I found the backs of the plane blades to be quite concave when I started to "flatten" them. I left the backs concave, for now, only leveling the edges a little on the side of the Tormek wheel as I ground the bevels. I plan to try to find more out about the plane blades from Steve. Since all the blades are 2" wide all the planes are built to contain that size blade. So for now I am grinding blades and smoothing edges on totes, while I wait for the wood for the bodies to acclimate.

I did get a copy of Steve's instructions for building his plane kits from his site before it closed. There are a few things I am not certain of though. The first question I have relates to separating the two halves of the plane for glue up. It appears Steve left an outside rim of wood attached to both sides of the bodies during glue up, sawing both pieces from the edges of the plane after the glue dried. He mentioned leaving the edges, which I suspect would mean only removing the wood that protrudes above the top and bottom of the planes sides leaving the plane wider by 2x the width of the rim. Leaving the jointer, for instance, wider might leave enough room for adapting the body to a larger plane blade. There is the issue of the adjustable mouths being cut to 2 1/8". The wood the adjustable mouths were routed in is not Purple Heart but some chestnut brown hardwood. I guess my Inca band saw will serve to saw the bodies although I do have a tendency to wander a little with it.

[Jim Matthews]

To get an inexpensive "feel" for this, draw a large jointer toward you over a long edge.

It's amazing how much control you get this way, as your arms can be extended with your legs and back exerting the force.
There are excellent examples out there, that don't cost a fortune.

I do not recommend the cheapos from LV, they are coarse, and hard to handle by comparison.

[Mike Holbrook]

Jim, I think you are addressing the pull design of many "Asian" planes versus the totes on traditional large Western planes? I had a talk with Stu via PM and have plans to order a small plane to try out the Japanese style planes. Maybe you are sitting on the ground, in a more traditional Japanese posture, if you are using your back & legs, although I can also see how those larger muscles might be better utilized even with the work clamped in a western style bench?

I suppose I have the option of not putting totes on these planes. I am unclear if the body design, particularly the location/design of the plane mouth, might mean the direction of use and handle type are part of the design? I believe the smaller planes are better without totes as there is not a very good way to attach a tote to the small body anyway. I have thought about the option of drilling a hole for the traditional handle bar used for pulling versus using a tote, especially in the large planes. I do know experienced plane users who prefer the totes though. I can certainly see where someone who uses large planes for long hours might prefer the multiple grip options provided by body designs without totes.

If I use the plane kits as designed the large planes get smaller 2" wide blades. The relatively narrow blade may reduce the force necessary to operate the planes to the point that handle design is a smaller issue?

[Pam Niedermayer]

...I suppose I have the option of not putting totes on these planes. I am unclear if the body design, particularly the location/design of the plane mouth, might mean the direction of use and handle type are part of the design? I believe the smaller planes are better without totes as there is not a very good way to attach a tote to the small body anyway. I have thought about the option of drilling a hole for the traditional handle bar used for pulling versus using a tote, especially in the large planes. I do know experienced plane users who prefer the totes though. I can certainly see where someone who uses large planes for long hours might prefer the multiple grip options provided by body designs without totes.

If I use the plane kits as designed the large planes get smaller 2" wide blades. The relatively narrow blade may reduce the force necessary to operate the planes to the point that handle design is a smaller issue?

First, I'd need to see a photo or two to understand protruding edges and to see how Steve is shipping blades these days. I tried to access his web site for this, but no go.

Second, for Steve's very long planes (say longer than 20") like jointers, I'd go with totes, otherwise they're the devil to move through wood. Japanese planes generally don't come that long, although I do have a Chinese rebate plane that's about 3' long. Of course, I haven't a clue how that plane works, it's eye candy with a very bad blade.

Third, I'd also use a narrower blade in the long planes, for the same reason: easier to move through wood.

Pam

PS Please ignore the photo below. At first I intended to talk about ura, flat backs, and Steve's blades, but changed my mind. Can't seem to delete the photo, though.

[Mike Holbrook]

Was checking back on this thread to find some information. I notice Pam mentioned pictures of the plane's parts. Since I have a drawing and actual pictures now I thought I would post them:

Here is a picture of most of the parts for my kits:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16891057@N05/6062853737/in/photostream
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/16891057@N05/6062853737/in/photostream)
At this stage I had just sawn the two halves of each plane from the boards. I am testing the pieces and ordering bolts, insertable nuts, washers...to hold the sliding mouth piece and totes in place...So far the wood seems to be holding shape well. I have worked two handles into comfortable shapes and sanded the surfaces to be glued. I hope to glue the bodies up tomorrow.

Here is a drawing of the design for the jointer:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16891057@N05/6062441322/in/photostream

The black line along the plane bed represents the groove the wedge for the blade resides in.