Fancy infill planes

[Matthew N. Masail]

Ok, so those things are gorgeous! but in actuality, they perform the same as any other premium plane (LN, LV, properly made woodie), right?

[Dave Schwarzkopf]

Matthew,

I only have a few infill planes to compare to my LN/LV/Woodies. To be honest, I find that it really just depends. I can get by 99% of the time w/ the LN/LV, and just break out the infills when I am feeling froggy. Have I ever met a board that I couldn't get by without the infills? Not yet; though I have switched to my higher pitched HNT Gordons on several really cranky boards. These comments probably aren't helping, I guess I could sum it up like this: Do you *need* an infill or will it make you a better woodworker? No. I don't think Krenov owned one, and he certainly made some top notch furniture without!

As I said previously though, I only own a few infills, so even I don't trust my opinion completely on the subject, so I'll point you to a 'higher power' if you will:

If you're asking if there is a huge improvement over the LN/LV, even Karl Holtey (the top of the food chain when it comes to plane makers, IMHO) recommends Lie Nielsen and Veritas planes, here's the quote:

"I have seen poor quality copies of my A13 design; any plagiarism borne out of my revisions has missed the original Norris design, and has used my ideas instead. My advice to those wanting a good quality lower cost plane would be to avoid these copies, save money and consider a Lie Nielsen or Veritas, who are excellent value for money and whom I have no hesitation in recommending."

Yes, they are 'lower cost planes' when compared to planes which cost 2500-7000 pounds.

Dave,

Who's still saving for his first Holtey 982, sure hope I get there before they are no longer made...

[Matthew N. Masail]

Hi Dave. so what I thought it's the pleasure of owning such a work of art. it really has little to do with working wood. BTW "only a few infills" cost more than all my hand tools combined and possibly the power ones too. but it must be real nice (-:

[Dave Schwarzkopf]

Matthew,

You'll find die-hards on different sides of the camp. Some folks like to spend countless hours rehabbing pre WWII Stanleys and scoff at the price of new LN/LV, some folks swear by woodies, others can't get enough infills. To each their own; there's definitely worse habits to have than tool collecting, I mean woodworking, yeah, woodworking. I think most of it just boils down to a well fettled/tuned plane and reading grain direction.

Dual income no kids. The Navy doesn't overpay me, but I don't spend much time at the pub, and I'm not funding anyone's first car or college education, so this is what I do.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I think the major thing an infill offers over other planes is a thicker iron, a tighter mouth, higher cutting angles, and more mass. The first two are readily obtainable with a quality LN or LV plane. The third is easily obtained with back bevels, bevel up planes, or LNs high angle frogs. The last one, more mass - I'm not sure if it's actually important - sometimes having a heavy plane you can throw through the cut is nice, sometimes extra weight is frustrating; but I've never used something as heavy as an infill for a long time. Some folks prefer the norris style adjuster on some of these planes over a bailey one, although some of the LV planes have that. The thing that appeals to me with some of them is having a metal bodied plane with a hammer-only adjustment. Maybe it's because I've never had a plane with real nice Bailey style adjuster, but I prefer hammer tapping to set blade depth and lateral adjustment.

[Joel Moskowitz]

There are simply sublime infill planes out there, as well as crappy ones. Was for angle - Spiers bedded their planes at 45 degree. Norris's vary from 45-48 and I bet there are even more variations. A nice light wooden plane is far lighter than a stanley or norris - and they can be sublime also.

Generalizing just doesn't work. I have used crappy planes of all designs and a crappy infill planes just as poorly as a crappy Stanley design.
The trick is really finding a style of plane that speaks to you.

[David Weaver]

They all perform the same way, but a properly made infill is nicer to use than any other plane in hardwoods, especially if they're figured. It's also something you can make with relatively few tools.

[Jack Curtis]

They all perform the same way, but a properly made infill is nicer to use than any other plane in hardwoods, especially if they're figured. It's also something you can make with relatively few tools.

Did you really intend to make that pronouncement? If so, more documentation, please.

[David Weaver]

Just take a look at handplane.com

Some scribing tools, files and a good quality hacksaw (and some flat stock) and you pretty much have what you need to make an infill plane.

There are fairly inexpensive kits if you are adventurous, too (sometimes, it's easier to go from scratch, but the kits definitely take less time).

It does take quite a bit of time to scratch make one of decent quality, and it's not cheap to make one. I tried to drum up some excitement a few years ago when I made two and then put together a shepherd kit, but there wasn't a lot of interest. As soon as I get through with the rash of stuff I have to make due to spouse demands, I'll make a few more, and maybe post it. Making them is enjoyable, documenting it online is not.

[Jack Curtis]

David, I was questioning your "but a properly made infill is nicer to use than any other plane in hardwoods, especially if they're figured" statement, not that they can be made with a standard tool kit.

[Mark Baldwin III]

I'll be able to answer this for myself pretty soon. I have two infills in the shop right now that I'm closing in on finishing. A miter plane and a smoother. I'll have to weigh the miter plane to know for sure, but it is heavier than several of my planes combined. I would consider that a plus for shooting end grain.
One of the things that probably attracts people to infills is that they are a great combination of form and function. 'Cuz they sure are pretty!

[Derek Cohen]

Ok, so those things are gorgeous! but in actuality, they perform the same as any other premium plane (LN, LV, properly made woodie), right?

Hi Matthew

There are good, mediocre and poor infills, just like there are any other type of plane construction.

The magic does not lie in the design or even the type of construction, per se. Perhaps it might be better to view the infill as a "custom-built" plane. In this context attention can be focussed on designing it to perform optimally for the desired circumstances.

There are indeed advantages of greater mass, but this needs to be added to other important features of design, such as angle of attack, stability of blade, etc, etc. I have a well restored Spier, and it performs well, but is limited in its ability on hardwood by its common cutting angle. It is no better than a LN with a common cutting angle.

I do not believe that there is "magic" in the wood infill. What is true is that these planes can mix exotic woods and steels and become part art and part tool. For this they are prized by many.

When you view them as a custom designed plane you will include the wood as part of the design, rather than see it as the design itself.

An easy way of gaining an infill smoother is to either restuff a derelict shell (which is what I did). Another is to use the shell of an existing plane, such as a Stanley. I built a small BU smoother out of a #3. This has a 25 degree bed to make it easy to create a half-pitch cutting angle. It has proved to be a superb performer, easily one of the best planes I have used. I put this down to getting a number of factors right, not simply that it is infilled with wood.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/My%20planes/GalootSmootherII_html_3ddb6b0a.jpg

http://inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/GalootSmootherII.html

Hey David, please post pics of your plane here. Pretty please :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Matthew N. Masail]

Derek, that is too cool.... I'm so much of a novice I'm just overwhelmed by the options and ideas that lay ahead.

[David Weaver]

David, I was questioning your "but a properly made infill is nicer to use than any other plane in hardwoods, especially if they're figured" statement, not that they can be made with a standard tool kit.


Well, it's hard to describe what it's like to use a properly made infill compared to a bench plane. You have to use one to see what I mean. I would suggest anyone who is ever on the fence about whether or not to push one of Ron Brese's smoothers at a show, just go do it, see what it feels like. My full-size smoother is a semi copy of Ron's (and has one of ron's caps and irons in it, anyway).

I don't really have a dog in the fight to describe what is better than what else, save just a couple of parts, I have made two of my infills and the third (a panel plane) is a kit that I had to remake parts of (it was actually more trouble than scratch built, but less time). So the extent of my skin left so far is only about $1000 for 3 of them.

I wouldn't advocate getting them for the budget conscious - I wouldn't even advocate building them for the budget conscious if you really want to use nice materials. Stuff like brass bar stock costs a lot of money, and even precision ground O1 stock, and a couple of swiss files adds up (you can use cheaper steel stock if you have a mill, but..).

However, I sold off all of my premium bench planes that were not jointers or low angle when I was done, including an LN 4 1/2, LN 6 and a BUS, and only after I'd had the chance to use everything side by side for a while. If I have something where a woody isn't suitable, then

My smoother is the same weight as a LN 4 1/2 (which is a super fine plane, don't get me wrong), so it isn't purely a weight issue. The panel plane is the same length as a 6, weighs around 8 1/2 pounds and can pretty much handle everything between jack and smoother (and it does quite a nice job smoothing). Important to keep paraffin around, but for someone who dimensions boards by hand, an incredibly great and useful plane to have around.

The mouth is carefully filed to around 9 thousandths, so it will let thick chips through, but it is tight enough that I can plane an x pattern on a board being flattened regardless of grain direction, and without crossing to the other side of the bench (which in my shop, is against the wall). That means no twist and no wind, I don't even need to get out winding sticks unless a board is narrow.

A LN 6 should be made to do the same thing, but the infill is set up exactly that way no matter what the user does. If you put the iron in it, it works that way, no fiddling.

The adjuster is finer with less slop than even an LN adjuster, too. Though the same type of adjuster is in the LV planes, it is short and is not as nice to use as a full length norris adjuster.

It's little things, but at the same time, if you're trying to improve on an LN or LV plane, there are only little things left, anyway.

[David Weaver]

Hi Matthew

Hey David, please post pics of your plane here. Pretty please :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

I cringe a little, because I know i've posted it several times, and I don't want to be "that guy", you know? I'll dig it up, I know it's attached to something here.

EDIT:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?139402-Finished-a-New-Plane-Today

It seems longer ago that I finished it, and to my eye now there are things I don't like about it, but I hadn't talked to george a lot before I made it and a "wanted a smoother really bad", you know that kind of itch where you just start mashing things together instead of planning too much.

I did talk to Ron and Raney a fair bit making sure that regardless of cosmetics, that I'd gotten the issues that are required for performance down (the mouth and the bed).

I was wrong about the wood. I believe it is bois de rose and not cocobolo (it was from an antique billet). It is miles nicer wood than cocobolo, I kind of wished I'd have known what it was, I would've just put cocobolo in this plane. (I also kind of wish I would've cleaned up the inside cheeks of the plane, defined the lines on the wood better, thought out the bun a little more, been more tidy with the metal work and used a cap screw that didn't come from mcmaster carr, but ...well, I wanted a smoother to use really bad and for a fair amount of it, i didn't know better).

The only non-woodshop and common tool box tools that I used for the plane were a metal scriber and punch, dykem, a sander (for the metal, of course) and a cordless drill. The experience with the wandering cordless drill was enough to get me to purchase a drill press, but that was after the fact.

It does work more nicely ( in function and in feel to the user ) than the LN 4 1/2 that I've since sold off. I used that as the bar for performance when i did the test infill and fitting, and it is a high bar. The balance point in this plane is higher, it is faster to be back to work after sharpening, the mouth generally tighter and the feel smoother, though. It's like a point and shoot camera.

[David Keller NC]

Ok, so those things are gorgeous! but in actuality, they perform the same as any other premium plane (LN, LV, properly made woodie), right?

Matthew - I have a lot of planes by most folk's standards, including Norris, Spiers and Mathieson infills (these are the antiques, made anywhere from 1860 or so through about 1930). I also have a set of 3 made for me by Konrad Sauer - one 15" ebony panel plane in naval brass/steel, one 8" ebony "Norris - style" A6 in naval brass/steel, and an ebony unhandled smoother in naval brass/steel. All of the KS planes have a bed angle of about 48 degrees, and a mouth opening of approximately 3 thousandths of an inch when the blade is set for a smoothing cut.

To compare to these, I've a fleet of L-Ns, a fleet of 18th and 19th century British-design woodies, some restored antique Stanleys and a few Lee Valleys. Obviously, one does not need anywhere near this number of planes. In fact, one can do superb woodwork in all sorts of woods for the rest of one's career with 3 planes (a smoother, a jointer, and a fore plane) and a card scraper.

Here is what I can tell you about an infill - if it is a modern infill made to high standards, yes, it will perform far better than any L-N, L-V, or wooden plane in certain difficult circumstances. I emphasize these 2 ifs because if you're working mild-grained domestic hardwood, you will never notice a significant difference between a properly set up L-N and an infill.

Where a properly made and tuned infill is stunningly different is in getting a tear-out free, burnished surface that is ready for finish from the final swipe of the plane in highly figured curly maple, cocobolo, or other very difficult to plane figured and very hard woods. There are many reasons for this - the first is that an infill by the nature of its design is a locked unit - there is a very large bearing surface for the back of the iron, and when the lever cap is correctly tightened, there is virtually no chance of chatter. This feature, combined with the high mass of an infill (about 7 pounds for a Norris A-6 design), makes finish-planing really hard woods much, much easier than a Bailey design plane. The second reason for the performance of an infill in the circumstances mentioned above is the mouth opening. If made by a modern maker that makes them one at a time and properly tunes each plane, mouth openings of as little as 1 thousandths of an inch is possible. While that small of a mouth opening is probably too small to make the plane practical even by smoother standards, a mouth opening of about 3 thousandths will significantly improve a plane's performance in figured wood.

I would be cautious about drawing conclusions about infills vs. other designs, however, if someone is doing comparisons with unrestored and untuned British antique infills, or with inexpensive modern infills. These planes often have mouth opening considerably greater than a couple of thousandths, and performance vs. mouth opening isn't a linear curve - there's very little performance difference between a mouth opening of 7-8 thousandths and 25 thousandths when taking a smoothing shaving. It's possible to restore a British antique to this level of performance, but it's a good deal of work, takes a fair amount of skill, and will ruin the plane's collector value. Typically, one needs to replace the (already replaced by a dealer, or perhaps by a long-ago user) blade with one that is thick enough so that the mouth is completely closed, properly bed the blade to the bed of the plane by the carbon-black method (the wood on most antique infills has moved sufficiently in the last 100 years to require a re-bed of the blade), and file the mouth open (very carefully!). The blade bedding/filing the mouth needs to be done iteratively to ensure that the blade is bedded over 95% plus of the back and the mouth is consistent side-to-side at about 2-3 thousandths of an inch.

Don't get me wrong - a Lie Nielsen plane is a fine thing, and I use one or more of them on every stage of just about every project. But it's exceedingly difficult to close the mouth on even a L-N copy of the Bailey design to 2 or 3 thousandths, and by the very nature of its adjustability, that design (that all L-Ns are patterned after) cannot exhibit the "locked into one unit with no possibility of chatter" characteristics of a well-made and tuned infill plane.

And a restored Stanley isn't a Lie-Nielsen, no matter how many of us might wish them to be. The parts are much thinner, and weren't made to anywhere close to the tolerances of a Lie-Nielsen. That's partly why Lie-Nielsens sell like hotcakes, even though they're 3-5 times the price of restoring a Stanley and substituting a modern, high quality blade.

So does a beginner/novice really need a $3500 Konrad Sauer copy of a Norris A5? In a word, absolutely not. If that novice truly wants to develop their woodworking skills, their time/money needs to be spent on the 97% of the woods, designs and circumstances that make an infill an unnecessary luxury. If one wants to buy one for their aesthetic beauty, so be it, but it really won't improve one's capabilities measurably in all but a few situations.

[Jack Curtis]

....Where a properly made and tuned infill is stunningly different is in getting a tear-out free, burnished surface that is ready for finish from the final swipe of the plane in highly figured curly maple, cocobolo, or other very difficult to plane figured and very hard woods. There are many reasons for this - the first is that an infill by the nature of its design is a locked unit - there is a very large bearing surface for the back of the iron, and when the lever cap is correctly tightened, there is virtually no chance of chatter. This feature, combined with the high mass of an infill (about 7 pounds for a Norris A-6 design), makes finish-planing really hard woods much, much easier than a Bailey design plane. The second reason for the performance of an infill in the circumstances mentioned above is the mouth opening. If made by a modern maker that makes them one at a time and properly tunes each plane, mouth openings of as little as 1 thousandths of an inch is possible. While that small of a mouth opening is probably too small to make the plane practical even by smoother standards, a mouth opening of about 3 thousandths will significantly improve a plane's performance in figured wood. ...


Well, we're clearly going to have to have a plane-off. I was all hot to get into infills until I experienced quality Japanese planes/blades, which also create great burnished surfaces ready to be not finished if one prefers. I won't dispute the claims about LN/LV/Stanley. If a $3000 plane weren't better, I'd be really, really irritated if I'd bought several.

[David Weaver]

And a restored Stanley isn't a Lie-Nielsen, no matter how many of us might wish them to be.

Ditto that, though most beginners can get an awful lot out of a bailey plane in tough circumstances if they can sharpen it properly and fit the second iron to fit cleanly and leave only a couple of thousandths of iron protruding.

But, certainly, an LN plane is a much better plane. Flatter, closer to square, more stable, better adjuster, better iron, better second iron.

[David Weaver]

If you don't want to spend the money on one to try it out, just make one - a simple one with a single iron and a really tight mouth. That'll tell you what you need to know. Maybe Ron still sells irons and lever caps - if he does, the rest of the build is pretty easy to execute well enough, even if it is time consuming.

As Dave described, it is hard to find an older plane with the attributes that you want to have to make absolutely sure that you're going to be able to outperform a mass-produced premium plane.

Planes are sort of like stones. You only need one type, and to learn to use it. The attributes differing between all of them can be overcome elsewhere, they are minimal (i.e., it's not hard to avoid the types of woods that an infill is nicer to use on by far vs. other planes, and it's not hard to get very close to the surface quality of a japanese plane with a common bench plane if you pay attention to the details).

Experimentation and familiarity (there's no substitute for really really knowing your tools) sort of leads to the varation of the grass is greener saying....."the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but the grass on your side might be just as green if you spent the same amount of time watering it".

[Matthew N. Masail]

LOL, good saying. Thank you everyone for all the replies, it has been most informative and interesting, I think I'm going to try make a thumb screw cap for my woodies VS a wedge, I think it would be much more convenient and I like the fact that it has sure contact with the part on the blade near the cutting edge, making the blade more stable.