Hello Guys

[Everett Fulkerson]

And gals, my name is Everett but everyone calls me Rhett. I've been working in wood, fulltime, for the last 15 or so years. Some of that time was spent in North Carolina as the head cabinet maker of a very established and high end shop. By high end, I mean 6 digit cabinet jobs for celebrities and athletes, all over the state. My boss was 72 at the time and has been running his shop now for over 45 years.

This "paid education" not only taught me to be a good woodworker, it taught me to be an efficient woodworker. It's the second part that has allowed me to stay in business, even through the housing burp in 2008.

I've recently paid to become a "friend" here, simply to be able to make this post about my hand plane company. I would love to say I will be on here often to chat it up with fellow wood cutters, but time spent on the computer is time spent NOT in the shop, and I prefer to be in my shop. I'll stop in as time allows.

There are no active links in this post so this shouldn't be deleted like my last one. Just look for the guy making planes in the Friends of the Creek directory. We are making planes from ash wood and they are nice.

[Jim Koepke]

Rhett,

Welcome to the Creek. You may want to put your location in your profile. Though you do mention North Carolina, a year from now many will have missed or forgotten that information.

As to your plane making, I think you can also post your web site information in your profile so people can find it by clicking on your name that is at the top of your posts.

jtk

[george wilson]

I can't seem to find you in the friends section. No listing of plane maker,and just 1 listing of tools(screwdriver maker).

[Mark Dorman]

Check here (http://www.niceashplanes.com/) took a couple minutes to find but I think this is him.

[george wilson]

So,how are the cross pins held in? I can't see that they go clear through the sides of the plane,at least on the side I can see. If they don't go through either,and the plane isn't built up,how are the holes drilled for it? And,why are you using ash? Maybe so you can use lots of sexual innuendo?:)

[Greg Wease]

So,how are the cross pins held in?

In ash-holes?

[Paul Saffold]

Everett, welcome to the creek. With your experience I'm sure you might have some helpful suggestions and advice to offer when you are out of the shop.
A few questions about your planes. Are the blades tapered? What is the bedding angle?

Thanks, Paul

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

I was curious as well, George. From his Facebook page, it looks like he's using a method like Steve Knight did, with a body laminated out of two pieces rather than three. Cut out with an over-arm router.

From his specs page, look like he's using 1/4" O1 blades - doesn't seem look it's tapered, but it doesn't say.

[george wilson]

After examining some of the pictures,I made out that the plane is sawn right down the middle and glued back together.

[Everett Fulkerson]

Yes, it is a simple two piece construction with a captured 1/4" stainless cross pin. It was designed specifically to be made quickly and accurately, while at the same time staying within a $100 price point. I am also offering partially completed blanks to be finished in your shop by you.

The bladess are flat O1 steel, precision heat treated and tempered by an outfit in Winchester.

I did a five part blog on the making of these planes and it is on a site for lumber jocks. There are also three seperate reviews there.

If this plane does nothing more than motivate you to go into your shop and try to make your own, that is fine by me. The whole idea is to get people in the shop. I think everyone here can agree, if more people spent more time in the shop , the world would be a better place.

Be Good

[Everett Fulkerson]

And,why are you using ash? Maybe so you can use lots of sexual innuendo?:)

Ash is a very dense and stable hardwood that is relatively inexpensive. It was actually suggested by James Krenov as good wood, to use for a plane. The name just kind of fell into place and worked out perfectly for brand recognition purposes.

[george wilson]

I do make my own. And some for others too. It was my job as toolmaker in Williamsburg. I am not actively taking orders now. The best image won't enlarge.

[Everett Fulkerson]

Those are beautiful planes, George, I love the infills. Definately an entirely different catagory than what I am offering.

That's quite the fleet of planes, there at the bottom.

[george wilson]

Well,I certainly can't offer them for $95.00! You are filling a needed niche.

[David Weaver]

Couple of things. None of which will cost you money, well, maybe a little.
* some of the planes have the wood oriented upside down. The bark side should be toward the sole of the plane
* it's hard to find what the pitch of these planes might be. If they are single iron, I would restrict the smoothers to 55 degrees bedded. It would be a lot cheaper than offering a double iron setup (which would be better, but more expensive)
* there should be options for wider irons (or the planes should be made only with wider irons), especially with the jointer - someone using the jointer should be able to match plane two 4/4 boards. 2" wide would be a practical minimum, and that's probably the size that should be in the smoother and fore planes.

It's early on, easier to make changes now than later. Maybe you can fill the void that steve knight left.

[george wilson]

I agree,David.

[Joe Bailey]

Interesting discussion ...
David - can you explain why the wood should be oriented in the way you've suggested?
George - those are magnificent infills.

[David Weaver]

Traditionally, especially in beech planes, the wood was oriented bark side out because the sole is more wear resistant that way. I have seen (in a WPINCA book) that the bark side of a beech is also harder, I don't know about ash. Even if it's not, limiting the exposure of the growth rings on the bottom of the plane as much as possible is still going to be more durable, and in some woods substantially so (cocobolo, etc). Bark side out orientation will limit the exposure of the rings on the bottom of the plane.

[george wilson]

Yes,the grain is oriented as David said. Old planes can have variations in the tilt of the grain,but it is always oriented with the bark side towards the sole of the plane. The most perfect was to have the grain perfectly horizontal to the sole,bark side towards the sole. We spent 2 weeks in the middle of Winter cutting 5000 bd. feet of beech wood for plane making,and making a wide range of other tools as well. Beech is not easy to find commercially these days. The British used it for tools as well as cheaper lines of furniture. I think it was a plentiful wood for them to use.

If I couldn't get beech(purely for traditional reasons),I'd choose hard maple,which is better than beech,and harder. Hard to find in 4"x4" these days. That large plane I posted above is made from an old bed post 4x4,probably 100 years old.

[Everett Fulkerson]

I am not trying to claim a title of "master plane-maker". Simply trying to bring affordable quality to the market. Everyone wants to complain that no one makes anything in this country and that craftsmanship in dying. Well, this is me trying to do something. Its two blocks of wood glued together with a steel pin. This design makes these planes affordable, but far from cheap. Its a game of numbers and the more we make, the cheaper they are to make.

I don't care if people buy these or not. If they do nothing more than motivate you to build your own, that's a win in my book.

In regards to the chipbreaker. Ron Brese does not use them in his world renouned smoothers, he uses thick metal to control the harmonic resonance. Someone please tell him to put a chipbreaker in his planes.


I do my best to keep the growth rings correct and orient the grain so it runs with the plane. If I cherry picked only the "100% correct wood for plane making according to XXXXX", we would not be able to hit our price point.

These are the planes we offer and we are 100% confident in our product and it's ability to plane lumber. If you buy it and don't like it, send it back.

Ofcourse you can buy a more expensive, traditionally made plane, crafted by a "master plane-maker" but you better add another zero to our price.

Only a fool tries to compare an apple to an orange.

Be Good
Rhett

[Everett Fulkerson]

* there should be options for wider irons (or the planes should be made only with wider irons), especially with the jointer - someone using the jointer should be able to match plane two 4/4 boards. 2" wide would be a practical minimum, and that's probably the size that should be in the smoother and fore planes.


2" wide irons will be available soon

[David Weaver]

You can't really expect to tout an initial design of your planes on a forum in ad fashion without suggestions, and it would be to your benefit to at least research them - especially if they come from someone like George. It is like getting free advice from the people who don't buy your plane (as in, it might be something that could swing you toward making those people buyers, or at least describing why they're not). Nobody is saying that you said you're master planemaker, we're offering advice that would be helpful, especially regarding things that would be free to do.

The key element in Ron Brese's design that goes along with the single iron is a mouth that is barely greater than the size of the shaving, coupled with a steeper than common pitch. The long-term precision of the mouth is afforded by the use of metal. the lack of a chipbreaker is a simplification, but it relies on other things then, things that aren't common or long lasting in wooden planes unless they are very precisely made, like Larry Williams' planes.

You might think that we don't know what we're talking about, or we're being unreasonably harsh. That's OK, but we are definitely not fools, and there are several people on this forum who have used hand tools exclusively at least some point in their life. You might recognize who I leaned heavily on in terms of design when I made this plane. It has a mouth that is in the neighborhood of 4 thousandths of an inch, and it's bedded at 55 degrees. The former is critical if the bed is not at least 55 degrees.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=149710&d=1272827485

Now, having built that plane, I do believe that while it's a complete piece of cake to use (complete with a brese lever cap and iron), I still prefer the bailey style smoother because I can set it for a heavier shaving and still never have tearout. Because of the chipbreaker/cap iron/second iron - whatever you'd like to call it. Its function is to reduce tearout, certainly it also applies pressure right at the edge of the iron and eliminates chatter if it's used correctly, but the suggestion has to do with tearout reduction, it is critical for that and the information floating around out there that a second iron is only to reduce chatter is completely false. That is the only way you'll get functional and practical tearout reduction if you have common pitch and a relatively large mouth opening.

[David Weaver]

2" wide irons will be available soon

Good deal, it'll be interesting to see how the purchases go with 2" vs. 1 1/2". The first infill I built was 1 1/2". I wish I would've made it two, I probably never would've built the one that I pictured above if I had.

I don't want to single out ron hock (but I guess that's what I'm doing), but I couldn't ever figure out why a 1 1/2" smoother would be the main kit plane. Maybe it's because 8/4 wood is more plentiful than 12/4, who knows?

Anyway, steve knight sold a LOT of 2" planes and there is a market out there dying for you to make something similar to what steve made. There will be customers looking for a $150-$200 plane from you, too, one with an adjustable mouth insert at a 50 degree bed. Not something complicated, but a moving piece milled out with a pin router. I'm sure people will start asking for certain things, and if 10 in a row do, you know there's another hundred thinking it.

[Chris Griggs]

Hi Rhett. Cool planes and I like idea to keep them simple in an effort to keep them in a certain price point. I like the 2 piece lamination method for planes that are relatively quick and simple to make(its what I used the one time I made a plane). I also agree with others that you could really fill a hole left by Steve Knight. I like that you kept the shaping simple too. They look comfy as is, but easily customizable too.

I do hope you consider Dave and Georges feedback. I can assure its intended to be constructive...up to you whether you ultimately incorporate it or not, and I'm not saying all feedback should be incorporated. At the price point your aiming for its clear that you've thought a lot about through the cost/benefit of various design features, and perhaps its all stuff you've considered already, but it never hurts to consider constructive criticism.

I wish you luck! If nothing else you may repopularize a design variation of laminate planes, and get more people making their own, which like you said is a success!

[Noah Wagener]

David,

You wrote that a single iron smoother should not be bedded below 55 degrees. What is you're opinion of the low angle,bevel up, single blade smoothers from Lie-Nielsen and Veritas? The book I'm browsing (Handplanes by Scott Wynn) says that smoothers are bedded at higher angles like you said, with Chinese planes at extreme angles due to the really dense wood they use. But later he talks about Japanese smoothers being like 37 degrees (which is the same as the Veritas low angle smoother). Is this due to different types of wood being planed? Do you have multiple smoothers for different types of wood?

George,

Have you made maple planes? The author of the book i mentioned above says that maple does not grip the wood very well. Agree?

[Everett Fulkerson]

Most everything of importance I've learned in the shop, has been info passed down to me from someone who knows more than I. It would be foolish of me disregard any of the points being made. Please don't take my response as anything but that, a response. You two obviously know what your talking about and your suggestions aren't falling on deaf ears.

If you want proof of my desire to make the best plane possible and my willingness to take direction, please look-up the review, done by an infill maker and tool restorer. It's on the previously mentioned LJ forum.

I have a Fine Art degree and a bit towards a Masters, I'm no stranger to critiques and have a very thick skin. I am always open to suggestions from fellow craftsmen. Show me a man who claims to know everything and I'll show you a liar.

Thanks for the input.
Much Love
Rhett

[David Weaver]

David,

You wrote that a single iron smoother should not be bedded below 55 degrees. What is you're opinion of the low angle,bevel up, single blade smoothers from Lie-Nielsen and Veritas? The book I'm browsing (Handplanes by Scott Wynn) says that smoothers are bedded at higher angles like you said, with Chinese planes at extreme angles due to the really dense wood they use. But later he talks about Japanese smoothers being like 37 degrees (which is the same as the Veritas low angle smoother). Is this due to different types of wood being planed? Do you have multiple smoothers for different types of wood?

George,

Have you made maple planes? The author of the book i mentioned above says that maple does not grip the wood very well. Agree?

I only have one maple plane, and it's japanese. It seems to work fine (i had to make a dai and maple is what I had), it just isn't as nice to work as beech, etc. If it lacked grip, there's any number of not very expensive ways to mitigate that. My japanese wasn't slick, though, that might make something of a difference.

As far as angle, I made the 55 degree comment as a matter of procedure for a point and shoot plane that doesn't have a tight mouth. 55 degrees doesn't do wonderful things for pine, so it's a compromise. The only plane that is immune from tearout if used properly, but that will still leave a nice finish on pine is a double iron plane.

Japanese planes work well at the standard 8/10 angle you're referring to, but if you do an incidental planing against the grain with a single iron and the cut is not fairly light, you can get some absolutely horrific tearout - especially on stuff like curly maple (which you can plane with a japanese single iron plane if you're careful). Traditional japanese work did and probably still does include agreeable wood that is very straight grained. That's not a 100% exclusive rule, but they do seem to have more of a taste for long clean lines and very perfect woods than we do. What I've seen of it emphasizes sharpness and polish (especially in soft woods that a high angle would crush a little bit) above and beyond taking a heavy smoother shaving on a final surface. If the wood gets difficult, odate mentions in abrasive or very hard woods that it's acceptable to back bevel a plane (no surprise), and you can add a double iron to control tearout.

The mujingfang steep planes work well, but like any steep western smoother, they can leave sort of a dull surface on cherry or something else similar hardness, and they can be a bull to push (I had the 2" wide 63 degree smoother long ago). It's awfully hard to generate tearout with them, but not hard to for them to stop you in your tracks if you dial up a thick shaving. They do leave some crushing look on the surface when you plane, though, if the wood isn't hard (like soft maple, cherry, etc).

So, anyway, steve knight built a lot of planes at 50 degrees and with his trick moveable mouth they worked very well, point and shoot. If you went against the grain, the finish was less bright but no tearout, sort of like a properly set double iron or like the infill I pictured (my goal when I built the infill was to make an everything smoother for anything medium hardwood or harder, and it works well at that, but I can take a deeper shaving than the mouth on the plane with a stanley bailey type bench plane and if I drop one of my millers falls 9s, i'll probably be out 15 bucks to get another one or maybe double that for a stanley 4 if I can't find a MF.

Early on, I got fascinated and bought everything (I still have some japanese planes, though I use the coarse ones more than the fine - a cheap japanese plane makes an awesome jack plane), but I had to make the infills in levels between scratch and kit because I wasn't comfortable with 4 digit prices for planes if I could build something relatively close. I cast off the stanley bailey plane and the thin irons and all of that stuff at first, too. You know..."it's OK for coarse work, OK in easy woods, can't plane beech, hard maple easily, etc". But I've come to realize that all in all, they are my best planes as long as I have a stick of cheap gulf paraffin somewhere close by. They're inexpensive, versatile and if set properly, just as immune to tearout as the infill plane I posted above...maybe a little bit more so....and they can still plane a very clean bright finish surface.

I don't think we can overstate just how genius and near perfect the bailey bench plane design is. Any shortcomings are usually out of preference and not need (e.g., a lot of people only like planes with wooden soles, or a lot of people only like planes with replacement irons, or no adjuster, or a finer pitch adjuster, etc).

So, anyway, it's not like every single iron smoother has to be steep pitch, but it does make life easier for most people if that's the default for medium hardwoods and hardwoods.

(the LA planes are good planes. Easy to use, easy to close the mouth on, easy to adjust the effective angle. They do have a little bit of a different feel, though, kind of flat footed).

[george wilson]

Rhett,would it really take more than a second or 2 to look at which way you are orienting the grain? It would help you to sell planes I am sure,as many on this forum know which way the grain should be oriented,and want to buy a plane so made. There are a number of good tool makers here. I am 72 and served 39 years at Williamsburg.

I might also offer that,while I am not offended,there are members here who might be offended by your various innuendos for ash. Take that for what it is worth,but I am sure you want to sell as many planes as you can to as wide a customer base as possible.

While you have said a few times that you don't care if people buy your planes,I wonder why you are advertising them and obviously trying to promote and sell them. Appeal to the widest customer base possible. How much time people spend in their shops is of no consequence to your pocket book.

Kudos for making an affordable plane.

[Everett Fulkerson]

I'm sure you have forgotten more about wooden planes than I presently know. I was not aware that the bark direction played any role in the durability of the sole. That is real knowledge and if nothing else, I hope everyone reading this learned that.


In so far as the name. While some may think it is in poor taste, I went with it, simply because I believe it may bring some younger people to the table. No one knows me, so making it a "Rhett plane" doesn't increase the value. It is an ash plane that is nice.

Be Good
Rhett

[Pat Barry]

Very nice work Rhett. These should do a great job of filling the niche you have identified. What it takes now is visibility and word of mouth, on sites like this, to boost your customers awareness. I think the clever naming you have will be a great trademark for you. I think its whimsical, not sexual. Anyway, good luck with your proposition.

I find the grain orientation discussion both interesting and puzzling. Since the bark side is the newest growth (sapwood), I would have thought it to be softer, not harder than the interior wood (heartwood). Maybe beech is atypical in this regard. I am curious to find supporting evidence for Davids comments somewhere. I can easily see that the bark side down would lead to the most parallel opportunity for the sole of the plane to match the grain and this might lead to more stability over the long haul.

[george wilson]

Pat,all you have to do is look at old wooden planes to see the grain orientation. We have a huge number of antiques in Williamsburg's collection. The grain of old planes does vary from dead parallel to 45 degrees or so,but the bark is always towards the bottom of the plane.

[David Weaver]

bark side out doesn't mean that the wood is taken from just below the bark, it just means the orientation. It may be several inches in. I can't remember which planemaker book it was in, WPINCA or another one that I have but they clearly state the bark side is on the bottom of the plane because it is on the bottom of the plane. It's not just a matter of appearance.

You'll find it on every single professionally made plane in every corner of the world (English, american, continental, japanese).

[Derek Cohen]

Interesting that. I can't say that I have been too concerned with bark direction in my planes. I tend to just go with what looks best :) The woods I use are generally very hard and dry, and I have rarely detected any movement, if at all, over several years. On the other hand, I pay attention to the direction the grain runs when planing. Woods like Jarrah and She-oak have grain that runs all over the show - mostly it ends up diagonal. One plane that had me betwixt-and-between was my strike block plane - should I run the grain parallel to the shooting board or parallel to the mouth (quarter sawn grain at the mouth makes for chipping). In the end the grain ran parallel to the board and I added a brass mouth. This was originally an old roof beam.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaStrikeBlockPlane_html_2a693c39.jpg


The coffin smoother was orientated to get the sapwood at the top because it looked good!

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/Planesforthe2013PerthLNToolEvent_html_mf70f388.jpg

Rhett, heed the advice of George and David. George is one of the finest of the fine instrument makers. He has taken the time to encourage you. You will appreciate how special this is in the years to come. David is one of the most astute woodworkers around. His advice is usually spot-on.

I like the idea of offering a plane that is basic to keep the costs down and make an affordable entry for someone. The idea that the plane may be upgradeable - by adding a tote, shaping the body, etc - is a sound idea. However it is important that the heart of the plane is as good as it gets. Price does not come into this. There may be several areas where planes can be altered or improved or repaired without changing their structural integrity. You can change the size of the mouth (file it back or add in a mouth piece). You can change the cutting angle (with a back bevel on a BD plane). You can change the blade.

At the heart of the plane is the way the blade is bedded and secured. One of the difficulties with a two-part plane (cut down the centre) is, as Steve Knight discovered when he built his on a CNC machine, that the two sides rarely line up. His planes (made that way) required lots of work to get them flat and square. A three-piece laminated plane body is the easiest to build since one can use the tablesaw to get the bed flat. Steve's planes are very different from the design you have. Notably the blade is held secure by a wedge in a cheek/groove. This affords a large amount of registration and contact (and chosen for that reason). A round dowel offered the minimal amount (1/16"?). I suggested to you elsewhere that you file a flat on one side to create a Krenov-type cross-pin. It then must also run loose in the cheek mortice so it can turn. Unless this is done the plane is not really worth upgrading in my opinion. Look into the Krenov design (not just a flattened pin). It is very clever and definitely a big step up from a round pin.

55 degrees is a great bed angle for a smoother to be used on more difficult grain. My choice of blade width is 1 3/4". That is an excellent compromise for high cutting angles, which are harder to push. 2" is also a reasonable choice, but less useful in that category in my opinion. The coffin smoother above is 55 degrees with a 1 3/4" wide tapered blade. 1 3/4" is a decent width for a jack plane. A bedding angle of 45 degrees is typical. You do not need a double iron here as the planing is coarse. My preferred wooden jointer has a 2 1/4" wide blade. Also single iron, and at 50 degrees.

If you are inclined, offer a plane as a kit (glue the parts together yourself). That can be even cheaper. Offer the basic plane (as you currently do). Some do not wish to do any building. Whatever you offer, ensure that the foundation elements are correct. Price has no part to play here.

For others here who wish to upgrade a dowelled plane to a cheek-wedge design: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/AddingCheeksToAKrenov.html

Regards from Perth

Derek