Infill planes?

[Chris Hachet]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here use infill planes? I've seen some, they look like a supermodel only better, but I've never used one. How do they work as a woodworking tool in terms of actual real world results?

[David Weaver]

The harder the wood, the nicer they are to use vs. an inexpensive bench plane. Terminal performance for practical purposes (in terms of surface quality) is no better than a properly set stanley plane (one where the chipbreaker is being used properly), though. And if the infill is steeply pitched, the stanley plane will often leave a nicer surface finish on all but very hard woods.

All of that said, when you get to hard wood, a good tight and heavy infill will go through like a bulldozer.

Cost wise, if money matters (even if it does only in principle and it really doesn't otherwise) they are a nice thing to build yourself, as long as you dedicate yourself to doing the parts that count for performance as precisely as you can.

[Chris Hachet]

The harder the wood, the nicer they are to use vs. an inexpensive bench plane. Terminal performance for practical purposes (in terms of surface quality) is no better than a properly set stanley plane (one where the chipbreaker is being used properly), though. And if the infill is steeply pitched, the stanley plane will often leave a nicer surface finish on all but very hard woods.

All of that said, when you get to hard wood, a good tight and heavy infill will go through like a bulldozer.

Cost wise, if money matters (even if it does only in principle and it really doesn't otherwise) they are a nice thing to build yourself, as long as you dedicate yourself to doing the parts that count for performance as precisely as you can.This is good to know for future reference. Can't afford one right now, but I love hand tools and I love hard wood...hickory, hard maple, quarter sawn white oak. I think I may see a nice infill plane in the (not terribly near but not terribly distant) future.

[David Barnett]

...they look like a supermodel only better...

As infills go, your chances being more likely with one than the other, the comparison is moot. All infills are not equal, of course, but good ones are very good indeed, which doesn't mean they're essential to produce quality work.

[don wilwol]

I don't have much to add from what's been said. I've made a few infills, they are fun to make, fun to use and look nice. The steeper angle is good for harder grain. The biggest factor is they are just plane cool (pun intended)

[Brian Thornock]

I will echo the above. I'm working on #3 and 4 right now. They are a lot of fun to build and look great. Not as hard as I had imagined, but here is tedium aplenty when working on the essential parts

[Montgomery Scott]

I assembled a Shepherd A6 smoother a few years ago and it works well with the 47.5 degree bed and thick iron and it's certainly a looker, but on a cost/performance basis I think you would be much better off buying an LV BU smoother. With the different grind angles available on the irons you can tackle virtually any timber. You can look up Derek Cohen's review of the BU planes for some really good test data.

[Trevor Walsh]

I have a Daed Toolworks Mitre plane, I use on on really hard woods who's grain gives me trouble and for some other smoothing tasks that need an impossibly tiny mouth. I love it as a piece or art, value as a collectable etc. but in terms of practicality I could get by with other tools. A LN 103 with a tightened mouth option would do everything at almost 1/9th the price.

[Chris Hachet]

This is the probable real world solution to what I am going to do....but the Infill planes sure are sweet looking tools....

[Terry Beadle]

I have a St. James Bay smoother I put together several years ago. Works great. Not expensive.