Hand plane preferences?

[Robby Phelps]

Plane question
<HR style="COLOR: #d1d1e1" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->I am getting going in the hand tool realm. Being trained in my uncles power tool dominate shop, has left me quite ignorant to the joys of hand tools. I picked up my first block plane two years ago and it has been very useful and fun to use. I then picked up a set of spokeshaves and they have become my favorite tools in the shop especially when i make my rocking chairs. I now want to expand my tool arsenal with some more planes and wanted to ask the group wether they prefer the metal type planes (Lie Nielson) or the wooden type. I was reading Mark Singer's post about the purple heart plane he recieved from Steve Knight. I used to live in the portland area and have seen his planes and they are beautiful and feel wonderful in the hand. I am leaning towards the wooden planes but wanted to get everyones opinion.

Thanks in advance.

[Derek Cohen]

Robby

I do not think that you will go wrong with any of Steve's planes. I'd buy them if I lived in the States but, since I live in Oz, I enjoy my HNT Gordon planes (sold in the USA as well). My favourites are the Smoother and the Try Plane. OK, the shoulder planes too! They are remarkable planes and excel (with the best in the world) in planing the trickiest interlocked timber around.

For wooden planes, second to the HNT Gordon planes but ooooh such a bargain (!!!!!) are the Mujingfang planes (available from a few USA stores, including Lee Valley). Amazing value for money!

Among the iron planes, my favourites in the new planes (so I am not including vintage planes here) are the LV LA smoother (particularly with a 64 degree cutting angle) and LV LA Jack. There is a jointer length LV LA planes coming out soon. These three planes could do everything possible to do with a bench plane, and do it superbly (as good as the best).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tim Sproul]

I wouldn't limit myself to one or the other.

I have many Knight planes (from small polishing plane to 32 inch x 3 inch jointers/trys) as well as many Veritas planes. I've kinda settled on Knight woodies for bevel down bench planes and Veritas for my "specialty" bench planes. Namely, I have the LA block, LA smoother, LA jack and the scraper plane amongst the metal planes.

[Mike Holbrook]

Could someone leave a link for the Knight planes. I have no idea where to go to check them out.

[Mark Singer]

I would agree to be open and try to get a varity. The LN planes are excellent as are the LV. I have the LV LA jack and their Med. Shoulder. I also have the ECE Primus collection including the Reform smoother , the Try. Jack, and others. The Knight plane seems excellent. I would probably use it for difficult woods and use one of the oters more often. I will find the link.
http://www.knight-toolworks.com/

[Steve Kubien]

I'll put in a good word for Knight planes. I've got a coffin smoother and jointer (well, and a plough which I haven't had time to test drive) and these are my go-to planes. I haven't touched my Stanley's in quite some time. I don't even remember the last time I picked up my jack plane.

Warmest regards,

Steve Kubien
Ajax, Ontario

[Tom Saurer]

Have a basic stanley #4 and the ECE scrub plane. I enjoy them both.

[Ken Garlock]

A couple of months ago I ordered from Lie Nielsen two videos on planes and sharpening there of. The first was by Bob Cosman and the second(2 DVDs) by the English gentleman David Charlesworth.

Bob Cosman's recommendation regarding the purchase of planes is that, as a basic set, you need four: 1) #60 1/2 low angle adjustable mouth block, 2) #60 1/2-R low angle adjustable mouth rabbet, 3) #4 1/2 smoother, and lastly a 4) #7 jack. Of course all were L-N planes :)

David Charlesworth recommended the #5 smoother instead of the 4 1/2.

I recommend both videos. You can see two methods of using water stones for sharpening that are similar but still a little different.

Disclaimer: I am not a hand tool aficionado, but I do have a #60 and a #4 1/2.

[Robby Phelps]

Thanks everyone for your input. I was wondering though do the two different types of planes (wood/metal) have advantages or disadvantages over each other. I am still leaning towards purchasing Steve Knights planes. There is just somthing about a wood plane that speaks to me. Can't really explain it but i want to make the best choice and if the Lie Nielson or metal planes is the answer then so be it.

Thanks again for all your input.

[Mark Singer]

I would go slow....buy one and see if you like it. Another tip...Steve Discounts them on Ebay....just do a search for his name, or Knight Plane
Thanks everyone for your input. I was wondering though do the two different types of planes (wood/metal) have advantages or disadvantages over each other. I am still leaning towards purchasing Steve Knights planes. There is just somthing about a wood plane that speaks to me. Can't really explain it but i want to make the best choice and if the Lie Nielson or metal planes is the answer then so be it.

Thanks again for all your input.

[Roy Wall]

Bob Cosman's recommendation regarding the purchase of planes is that, as a basic set, you need four: 1) #60 1/2 low angle adjustable mouth block, 2) #60 1/2-R low angle adjustable mouth rabbet, 3) #4 1/2 smoother, and lastly a 4) #7 jack. Of course all were L-N planes :)


Wow!! I feel like I made a "pro decision" - and I'm not even a pro!!:) Those are the exact planes I "logically" started with. I also added the LN LA #62....

[Rob Millard]

Robby,

I have both wood and metal planes, and despite my traditional leanings, I prefer the metal ones, especially for a smooth plane. Metal planes, are easier to adjust ( although wooden plane aren't difficult to adjust), and their weight is a benefit, in most cases. The LN planes are great planes, I own 4 of them, but the Lee Valley planes look just as good and cost less. The only place the LN planes are superior to the Lee Valley is they are available with high angle frogs. I'm a firm believer that a York pitch is the key to getting a fine cut in difficult grain. No one else has mentioned the wooden Planes by Clark and Williams. I have one of their 30 inch jointers that I use often.
Rob Millard

[Mark Singer]

Robby,
Another great woodie is the ECE 711....John M. just put one on SMC classifieds...

[Mike Holbrook]

The LV, LA planes are available with a "high angle" blade which, with a simple blade switch, converts them to a York pitch. The blade switch only works on the LA planes but seems like a simpler, less costly solution to this novice.

I have been wondering if there is some advantage to standard bench planes with frogs that I am not aware of? I have a couple old Record bench planes and a similar Paragon plane from Garret Wade that need to be restored, so far I have not found much about their frogs that appeals to me. The reversed blades and adjustment system on the LV's, however, seems simpler and more versatile.

[Robby Phelps]

Thanks again for all of the imput everyone. I did have a question though and please forgive my ignorance. I was wondering what is a York Pitch? Rob Millard (who I really admire) mentioned it and said it worked in really difficult grain. I do work with a lot of exotics and highly figured woods. Is this an iron sharpening and or bed angle that works paticularly well with these types of challenging woods?

I really also feel I am a little over my head with these hand tools. Can anyone reccommend a good book that describes the proper and efficient use of these tools. I have taught myself how to sharpen and feel that I have become good at that process and I am happy with my results. I just do not know how to use planes and especially what each one is for. Any help is greatly appreciated.

[Alan Turner]

Robby,
A York pitch frog has a bedding angle of 50 degrees, whereas a standard bench plane has the frog at 45 degrees. The steeper angle means that with a tight mouth, the downhill grain fibres are broken right off instead of "running" into a tearout. My HNT Gordon is bedded at 60 degrees, and will do curly maple from either direction. But, a metal plane is quicker and easier for me to adjust. It is only on the most difficult of woods that I reach for the Gordon.

The Handplane Book, bu Garrett Hack, is probaby the standard text on handplanes.

[Rob Millard]

Robby,

I'm sorry that I switched terminology. York pitch is just another way of describing a bed angle of 50 degrees. I think this also applies to a bed angle of 55 degrees, but I'm not sure about that. The steeper bed angle helps the plane overcome difficult grain, by making more of a scraping cut. 5 degrees doesn't seem like much, but it makes a noticeable improvement. I have no experience with low angle planes, but many knowledgeable people swear by them, and they could be more versatile with only a blade change necessary to go from low angle to high angle work.

A good book is the Taunton Press "Hand Plane" by Garrett Hack.

[Frank Pellow]

...
Can anyone reccommend a good book that describes the proper and efficient use of these tools. I have taught myself how to sharpen and feel that I have become good at that process and I am happy with my results. I just do not know how to use planes and especially what each one is for. Any help is greatly appreciated.
I have not used planes much recently, but I do plan to purchase a few soon. In order to be able to make an informed decision, I have been reading this book: http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=&p=32667&cat=1,46096,46107

[Derek Cohen]

Look, forget all the other book recommendations - just get "The Handplane Book" by Garrett Hack!

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Dan Moening]

Another book that doesn't get alot of recommendation for some reason but is a great resource is:

Planecraft, by C.W. Hampton and E. Clifford.

Available at Woodcraft for ~$12.

It lacks the pretty pix of Mr. Hacks book, but is hard to beat at that price.

[Greg Mann]

Some months ago, I ran into the following post on an Aussie forum (one to which Derek so eloquently contributes). I copied it to my desktop for reference as I learned about what it is that makes planes do what they do. At the time I did not know who Rob Lee was, but I thought he was pretty articulate. Rob, since you posted it there I am sure you won't mind me pasting it here.

Greg




"Hi -
It's not about the planes - it's about the wood, and how the wood fails.

A plane is a carrier for a blade used to induce controlled wood failure.

Much of the confusion over which plane is best, or which angle is best really comes down to which wood are you using... tougher, more "failure resistant" woods can be well worked with a low angle plane....

Y'all have have a bunch of tough, failure resistent woods down there - which may run contrary to the experiences N Americans and Europeans have with their common domestics.

Wood failure generally falls into two types - Type 1 and Type 2 chip formation (creative naming, eh?). Type 1 is typical at lower bevel angles (angle between the bevel and the wood), and involves having the wood "splinter" ahead of the blade...usually evidenced by tear-out... For a really tough wood - this may not happen!

Type 2 chip formation is where the wood fails right at the cutting edge - essentially, the wood fibres are severed by the blade before they fracture. Type II chip formation (or behavior) is what we strive for, for a clean surface..

Now, there will be some exception woods to all of this...

Really soft/fragile woods can be difficult to get Type 2 failure .... so now we have to discuss Type 3. This is where the blade actually pushes the wood fibres ahead of the blade, inducing a compression failure - often leaving a fuzzy or furry surface. It looks a lot like the way a snow plow pushing sticky snow does....you can picture that, eh? (couldn't resist!)

This is why softer pines don't scrape well.... there's compression failure....

So - now we come to plane geometry...

Standard angle planes have a 45 degrees effective cutting angle, and are generally bevel down - a generic "best" angle for NA and European domestic woods...Keep in mind too, that planes were developed a century ago, when the quality of wood used was far better (more plentiful, old growth woods, and lots of mahogany) - today we work generally more "demanding" woods....

Low angle planes are generally below 45 degrees, and are typically bevel up...

High angle planes are generally 45 degrees plus, and bevel down...

So why bevel up/bevel down? Well - there are engineering constraints imposed by each method of construction... If you want an adjustable mouth - then there's a limit to how small an included bed angle you can have. Using a frog – it’s larger. Using an adjustable sliding plate ahead the blade – it’s smaller. With a low bed angle – a bevel up configuration gives a cut angle of “bed angle + bevel angle” – with modern blade steels – this can effectively be as low as 12+20 , or as high as 12+ 78… (a 58 degree range)

A higher bed angle – with a bevel down blade – is fixed at 45 degrees (or whatever the bed angle is). In order to increase the effective cut angle – we have to introduce the concept of a “back-bevel”…. Using back-bevels – the effective cutting angles can range from “ bed angle” to 90 degrees … (a 45 degree range for standard planes). Additionally – using a back bevel has the advantage of strengthening the edge on the blade – as the included angle on the blade tip is greater.

So for bed angles – there are also performance differences. Lower bed angles make the plane sole more susceptible to distortion – as tightening the lever cap can exert enough force to cause sole deflection. This is commonly observed in LA shoulder, rabbet (rebate) block planes etc., and is a technique often used purposefully to “adjust” blade projection.

Low bed angles do have the advantage that the blade is held in an orientation more in-line with the force applied – with should resist chatter more effectively than a higher bed angle plane made to the same tolerances.


A list of “truisms” (not really rules) I’d put forth would be:

1 - A back bevel works at least as well as a change in bed angle - and possibly better if the blade is not perfectly bedded, as a blade more in-line with the applied force can resist chatter better. (note - an adjustable mouth is usually necessary if using back bevels)

2 - A bevel up plane will work at least as well as a bevel down plane with the same effective cut angle - same reason as above...

3 – a low bed angle (bevel up) plane gives you the widest range of cut angle choices (rapidly changeable, if you have extra blades!)

4 – A narrow mouth with a light blade feed may allow a plane to “emulate” type 2 chip formation by reducing the possibility of the wood tearing-out (the sole ahead of the blade reduces the magnitude of, or stops the type 1 chip)

5 – how the wood you’re using fails is really the most important factor in determining which cut angle is best…

All of these factors (and there are more - like skewing a plane to reduce the effective cut angle) can make for a real witches brew when it comes down to interpreting why one configuration works, and another doesn't...but it's really about the wood...

Cheers -

Rob"

[Steve knight]

I would go slow....buy one and see if you like it. Another tip...Steve Discounts them on Ebay....just do a search for his name, or Knight Plane
no more planes on ebay. if you want a discount you ahve to come directly to me.

[Steve knight]

Robby,
A York pitch frog has a bedding angle of 50 degrees, whereas a standard bench plane has the frog at 45 degrees. The steeper angle means that with a tight mouth, the downhill grain fibres are broken right off instead of "running" into a tearout. My HNT Gordon is bedded at 60 degrees, and will do curly maple from either direction. But, a metal plane is quicker and easier for me to adjust. It is only on the most difficult of woods that I reach for the Gordon.

The Handplane Book, bu Garrett Hack, is probaby the standard text on handplanes.
I find the higher the angle the less the mouth matters atleast in my woodies and infills. myself maple is not much of a challenge for any decent woody like it is for a metal plane I can do curly maple at 45 with or against the grain. but cherry or walnut is harder with figure.

[James Owen]

Thanks again for all of the imput everyone. ..... I really also feel I am a little over my head with these hand tools. Can anyone reccommend a good book that describes the proper and efficient use of these tools. I have taught myself how to sharpen and feel that I have become good at that process and I am happy with my results. I just do not know how to use planes and especially what each one is for. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Here's a list of some of my favorite books on hand tools, with a few comments on each book:


Hand Tools (Aldren Watson) great info and descriptions of hand tool and their uses; a classic; one of my favorites.

Old Ways of Working Wood (Aldren Watson) focuses a bit more on traditional woodworking techniques, but has much useful info on hand tool use.

Dictionary of Woodworking Tools (R. A. Salaman) comprehensive in scope, with extensive descriptions and drawings of hand tools; another classic.

The Handplane Book (Garrett Hack) probably the best general book on hand planes available; lots of lovely photos; tool-porn at its best.

Furniture Making Techniques [Vol 1 & 2] (David Charlesworth) great information on some of the subtlties of hand tool prep and use; excellent!

Choosing and Using Hand Tools (Andy Rae) another classic, with great info on a wide range of hand tools and their methods of use; another of my favorites.

Restoring, Tuning, and Using Classic Handtools (Mike Dunbar) a MUST HAVE book if you're going to buy vintage tools and restore them to usable condition; very detailed; the chapters on planes -- wooden and metal -- are particularly good.

Traditional Woodworking Handtools (Graham Blackburn) another of my favorites; excellent information on a wide range of hand tools and their uses.

The Woodworker's Guide to Hand Tools (Peter Korn) similar to Andy Rea's book in scope and thoroughness; very good info.

Classic Hand Tools (Garrett Hack) similar to his hand plane book, except that it covers other tools; again, great photos.

Planecraft (C.W. Hampton & E. Clifford) sometimes reads like a 250-page ad for Record planes, but full of information, techniques, and decent photos/drawings; very useful info, much of which is not readily available elsewhere.

Hope these will give you a useful starting point for your research on hand planes and hand tools.

[Terry Beadle]

You hit on an interesting point about the difference between wood and metal planes. I agree that the feel of a woody is more ...well..woody. It has texture and a lighter feel. They won't work you as hard as metal but there's metal planes that work so smoothly they are almost effortless. Look at those planes Derek reviews and you'll see grace, beauty and product beyond wishes....but pricey (ouch!) Can pain be nice?

What is the answer? I think it's a combination of the exact wood you are working, how twisted the grain, it's density etc. You can not beat the Steve Knight ipe soled, variable mouthed, razee jack for the price. At the same time, the LN planes are totally a pleasure to use. I wouldn't trake my LN low angle jack for working in rock maple to any other plane but to finish the piece, a few strokes with a japanease smoother with blue iron is a breath of peace. Just neat.

So, if you are wanting to work in curly cherry, I recommend a woody jack from Steve Knight and a top off of either the LN or LV bevel down smoothers. For those prices, you will be well served.

[Garth Thompson]

I just yesterday pick up a purpleheart jointer from Steve and I must say it is sweet. I have arthritis in both shoulders and I find for me wood plane seem to give me less trouble.


Garth

[Wayne Morley]

I am just getting back into woodworking after many years and I have been considering getting a Knight smoothing plane, based on the happy users found here. I am curious about the blade configuration though. In the photos it doesn’t look like it has a chip breaker. Is that the case? Does the thick blade make a chip breaker unnecessary?

[Steve knight]

I am just getting back into woodworking after many years and I have been considering getting a Knight smoothing plane, based on the happy users found here. I am curious about the blade configuration though. In the photos it doesn’t look like it has a chip breaker. Is that the case? Does the thick blade make a chip breaker unnecessary?
never had anyone say they needed one. same with clark and williams planes. makes life easier.

[Chuck Nickerson]

it's ok not to have a chip breaker, try this. A chipbreaker performs two functions: prevents blade chatter, and helps break the chip before the chip fractures up the grain. With a smoother you're shooting for a .001 shaving. That amount of wood shouldn't cause chatter or running chips.

[Steve knight]

it's ok not to have a chip breaker, try this. A chipbreaker performs two functions: prevents blade chatter, and helps break the chip before the chip fractures up the grain. With a smoother you're shooting for a .001 shaving. That amount of wood shouldn't cause chatter or running chips.
but in reality thicker blades don't chatter even in a jack plane. plus with a woodie the iron is bedded better and the wood absorbs the vibrations. when I was using ron hock irons I never found a difference with or without a chipbreaker.
though they are handy to keep the shavings away from the wedge.

[Wayne Morley]

but in reality thicker blades don't chatter even in a jack plane. plus with a woodie the iron is bedded better and the wood absorbs the vibrations. when I was using ron hock irons I never found a difference with or without a chipbreaker.
though they are handy to keep the shavings away from the wedge.

Thank you Chuck and Steve. In a past life, I was an engineer, so I do like my analytical explanations. I looked at the Clark and Williams web site, and they have a page that discusses Single Irons vs. Double Irons, that is informative. http://www.planemaker.com/articles/dblirn.html (http://www.planemaker.com/articles/dblirn.html)

Steve I don’t see why a plane iron can’t be bedded in a metal plane just as well as it can be in a wood plane. I believe it’s just a matter of good design and accurate machining.

[Steve knight]

(http://www.planemaker.com/articles/dblirn.html)

Steve I don’t see why a plane iron can’t be bedded in a metal plane just as well as it can be in a wood plane. I believe it’s just a matter of good design and accurate machining.
I think it is the metal to metal contact thats the issue not how well they both are machined and matched. put some vibration asorbing material betweeen them and see what happens.