Building a wooden jointer

[Prashun Patel]

Does anyone have a good resource for building a good woodie jointer? I'd like something large and light, and have been unable to find dimensions or proper plans for this.

I'd like to make one with a tote.

[David Weaver]

Prashun, as big of a pain as it is, you almost need to have a good plane already in hand to copy proportions and find out where things are oriented, how big they are, etc.

As far as I could tell when I was fiddling with the coffin smoothers, there isn't a great resource out there for double iron planes, though there are some summarized layout tutorials. I think Caleb james has provided a diagram of the mouth and mortise area on a single iron plane that you could use for that, and george has provided an excellent handle picture, though it might be a bit steep as a first attempt.

Would you like me to take measurements off of some of my 28" jointers? (as to mouth location, handle location, etc?)

[Prashun Patel]

I definitely would, David. Thanks.

Did you mortise a solid block and use floats to true the opening, or did you do it 'kit' style, by slicing the cheeks off and re-gluing after cutting?

[David Weaver]

Every plane I've made has been mortised. the first one you do probably won't be a plane you'll be happy with, but the second one will if you note your problems on the first one and avoid them.

I opened mine with a chisel, hand drilled the mouth for the most part and floated it out after that, sawed the abutments with a zero clearance saw and then finished most of the parts (size wise to final finish with chisels and floats. It's possible to avoid most of the floats with beech (on cocobolo, it was a little bit more difficult to avoid using floats), but they do make some parts of fitting a little easier than chisels would be for most folks.

If you have a cheap piece of 12/4 something laying around (or an unused table leg blank), you can cut a mortise in it and finish the mortise out. Cherry or something similar would be a good choice.

(I'll post the measurements off of my jointers tonight)

[Judson Green]

Not trying to hijack this but could a guy glue up to get a 12/4?

[Steve Voigt]

As always, John Whelan's book on making traditional planes is a good place to start.

The throat geometry for an abutment style plane (if that's what you have in mind) is pretty much the same, regardless of whether it's a smoother or huge jointer. If you are making a double iron, the threads David and I put up a couple months ago may be helpful. His is much more detailed than mine.

If you are going single iron, I put up a thread a long time ago, it was called "single iron fore plane" or something like that, in three installments. Derek Cohen also has an excellent description of building a single iron strike block plane on his website. And, as Dave mentioned, Caleb has excellent drawings on his website, but they won't help that much if you are going double iron.

Here is a link to an excellent article on making a closed tote: http://www.oocities.org/plybench/handle.html

There are some basic principles of traditional plane design that I've never seen written up in one place, so I'll try. They apply to almost any size.

- The distance measured along the sole from the toe to the back of the the mouth slot should be about 1/3 of the total length. A little more or less is fine.

- The plane should be approximately square in section. If the height is a little less than the width, that's fine. On a big jointer/try planer, even one that's never been resurfaced, the height is often a little less, maybe 1/4", than the width. On a small smoother, the opposite is true.

- The width is normally 5/8" greater than the blade. That's because the wall thickness behind the abutments (where the blade goes) is just under 5/16", maybe a 64th under. Add in 1/32 clearance for the blade, and you have 5/8. This can be a little less for a small plane, but I wouldn't make it more than 11/16 max, even on a monster plane.

- The abutments are usually 1/4" thick. For a coffin smoother, I'd take that down to 7/32. For a big plane, I'd keep it at 1/4". Of course, they will taper to nothing at the bottom, and the throat will widen to its full width (the blade plus 1/32") at the front.

- For details like the mouth and eyes, I would consult the prints on Caleb's blog.

One more thing, if you haven't built a traditional plane before, I'd recommend starting with a jack or fore. The bar is lower, and if you completely screw up you haven't wasted as much wood.

P.S. get a blade before you start, and base all your measurements off that!

[steven c newman]

Might go check out those Chinese Hand Tool Forums for that GE Hong fellow's videos. The one I made was 18" long
296814
Could lengthen it a bit, too. Mine now has a 2" wide iron, with a chipbreaker. Expand the width as needed for the irons on hand. All I had was a $3 Buck Brothers iron and a Stanley Chipbreaker.

[David Weaver]

Yes. For a big jointer, you'll want something a little bigger than 12/4, though. I was suggesting that as a test piece because it's cheaper than 16/4 material, and easy to find (there are maple leg blanks everywhere for about $30) quartered material. For the first mortise someone makes, there are some mistakes that are likely to be made, and they'll be the same on a mortise intended for a 2" iron as they will be on a mortise intended for a 2 1/2" iron (a typical large jointer size).

[Mike Holbrook]

My wood jointer is made from parts I bought from Steve Knight. Steve took two pieces of 8/4 wood and roughly carved 1/2 of the plane bed in each edge/side. I glued the two pieces together and finished the plane bed. Steve did the initial forming of the plane bed with a CNC router. I have often wondered how this method would work if one did all the work with hand tools.

I suspect it would be easier to rough out the bed in the two halves as one has access to two sides of the piece of wood being worked. There is the fact that the two sides are not going to match exactly after gluing them. I did not find the small difference to be much of a problem since I was flattening all the surfaces of the plane anyway This is a compromise between making the plane body out of a single piece of wood vs the other major method of using four pieces of wood. I am not a fan of the outside edges of the plane being a thin laminate which has to hold the whole plane together. I don't think a single glue line down the center of the plane presents as many potential issues as gluing the four pieces of wood together to make a body.

I'm sure there is a reason no one else seems to use this method of making plane bodies. I imagine wood movement in a 1 3/4" thick x 26" plane could be a major concern with this method. I should mention that my plane is made from Purple Heart matched halves. I can say that I glued the pieces together well over two years ago. I just checked the entire length of the plane for the zillionth time with my engineering square and find the entire length as square as my old eyes are able to determine. I think the reason Steve suggested Purple Heart is it's stability/lack of movement over time. I have four planes 7 1/2-26" long all glued up over two years ago with no observable movement in the bodies or cracking/separating at the glue lines.

[Judson Green]

interesting I was thinking to have the glue line parallel (like the in the French video that's been floating around) to the sole, not with a glue line in the sole. probably a horse apiece, I've seen em both ways.

[Kees Heiden]

Did you read Davids thread about building his jointer a couple of months ago? In between the noise there is tremendous information in that thread.

I really can't find it anymore.

[Prashun Patel]

I did not, and googling I could not find it.

[Judson Green]

Don't recall David doing one about a jointer recently, maybe I missed it or it was about something else and and got segued. I did read, mostly, his and Steve's coffin smoother threads.

Found one of George's

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?168167-A-large-jointer-plane-I-made

[Kees Heiden]

A smoother! It was a cocobolo smoother!

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?218832-Cocobolo-Smoother-Build-2&highlight=smoother

[Derek Cohen]

Does anyone have a good resource for building a good woodie jointer? I'd like something large and light, and have been unable to find dimensions or proper plans for this.

I'd like to make one with a tote.

Hi Prashun

The first step is to decide on the dimensions of the plane. I would base the width on the blade, and suggest that this be between 2 1/4" - 2 1/2". The bed angle will depend on whether you plan to use a single- or double iron. For single iron I would go to 50 degrees. I found that a length around 28" is about as long as I want to go. I have made a few jointers, and cut a 30" down to 26", and much preferred the plane then.

Below are 36" and 28" jointers and a 15" jack ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Planes/My%20planes/Jointer%2028/Jointer3.jpg

Whether you choose to use a lever cap or a wedge, or laminate or chop out of solid wood, that is up to you. I have made them all and there is not difference in performance if made correctly.

What is important to me is that they feel balanced and offer feedback. I find high sided "slabs" to feel dead in my hands. For me, getting my hands closer to the wooden surface feels better. There is a very big difference in feel between a LV BU jointer and a woodie. The LV feels like using a spokeshave (terrific). That is why I wind up with razee style woodies.

Lastly, the placement of the mouth and the style and placement of the handle will make-or-break the plane. Have a look at examples. It would make an interesting discussion point here. For a long plane I like the mouth a little further back than traditional. There is a great deal of difference in feel and control between a LV BU Jointer and a Stanley #7. Both are 22" but the LV has the mouth an inch or two further back, and this works.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Prashun, here are pictures (apologies for my drawing skills). The critical measurements are length (obviously to scale the measurements), height, width, distance to the back of the mouth (bed at the bottom of the plane) and to the back of the handle where it terminates into the plane body. I listed the distance to the front of the handle, but it doesn't matter much. More critical is that the handle doesn't get in the way of the iron. You can lay that out by cutting a mortise first, and then making a handle and then locating the handle on the body last.

First a single iron 50 degree bed plane (could just as easily be double iron) from between 1820 and 1840 or so.

296824

And a later double iron jointer at 45 degrees.

296825

With these measurements, you can locate everything else.

Both of these planes are 2.5 inch irons (not surprisingly, though they're different makers they're almost the exact same finished width. Interesting that they are different to the back of the mouth by a fair bit (and backwards from what I would've guessed), but I never noticed it in use, they're both nice planes to use. The different distance between the fronts on the two coupled with the steeper bed means there's more space between the iron and the handle on the plane at the top, probably not a bad thing if you're making your own plane.

If you decide these look like a pain to build, that's OK, maybe someone else will want to build one.

[David Weaver]

I know prashun knows this, and so too would anyone who reads all of the comments - both jointers in the above pictures are 28 inches long. I neglected to label to the top jointer.

[Judson Green]

Just wondering out loud, David on the two drawings the mouth/iron seems to be ~⅓ the distance back from the front, but on Derek's super jointer and even his 28" one (same as yours) the mouth/iron seems to be ~ in the middle. Any reasoning? Just different style? Any performance difference?

[David Weaver]

I can't answer on derek's part, I'd be interested in hearing his thoughts.

I can answer from using some continental planes - they have the iron back from the end of the plane more than english and american planes. It's just a difference in feel that you get used to when you use them.

there may be other reasons, but I can get along with either. I prefer the english planes in long planes (there's no issue with needing more than 10 inches in front of the iron to get a cut started), and am indifferent about smoothers (continental smoothers are nice to use).

I'm not sure if prashun is going to build a plane like the ones I showed above, I am literally mooching his 16/4 beech as this topic goes along, but I'll be following the patterns above exactly for one specific reason - I've used those planes and they are nice to use. When I've freelanced in the past, I've always been disappointed with the tool if I'm honest about it, and in this case, I want to build a plane that I don't prefer another plane over.

[Prashun Patel]

I'm planning on following your plans exactly. However, the new confounded Veritas planes have me lusting for some metal!!!

I need to get some diagrams of the mouth. I'm also not sure whether to go single iron or double...

[David Weaver]

The basic difference in making a plane is that you have to be more particular about the size of the mouth on a single iron plane (you don't want to be too sloppy on a double), and your wedge in a single iron plane can go almost all the way to the mouth before it terminates and without causing any feed problems. There's less room between the iron and the wear (in front of the iron) because a big gap would allow the mouth of the plane to open quickly as the plane wears. I noticed on caleb's plan (which larry williams probably also does), the wear is fairly short. I didn't read their write ups, but I'd imagine that's because a shorter wear is a lot easier to get to feed.

On a double iron plane, you have more room between the bed and the wear because the bed angle will probably be shallower and the wear will be steeper. The cap iron pushes the shaving back toward the wear, so if the angle is too tight between the wear and the bed you'll just get a clog. The wedge terminates into the wear.

The cocobolo smoother thread had a pretty long discussion about angles with a double iron plane, but it might be more in depth than is easy to tolerate on a quick readthrough.

I can take the basic layout of my two vintage jointers if you'd like to see what they are (in terms of angles).

(I think I had originally said I'd get the dimensions off of three planes but the two double iron planes are literally identical in their measurements, so the numbers for the 45 degree double iron plane would be the same for both other than that one has a 2.75 inch iron and the other a 2.5)

[Chris Fournier]

Simple as pie and not complicated, this is a one day project at best for your first effort. Check out a Stanley #7 or #8 proportions, download them if you have to. Strike out on your own an modify otherwise to suite your needs. Why mortise a woodie except for the experience? Check out the way that Krenov built planes, super quick, super accurate and super effective - slab, four tablesaw cuts, glue - done. I make planes like this when I need a freak. So easy to do that I give them away. My client has paid for it and it really didn't cost that much.

Read Krenov, I know that he gets no props here from the regulars who espouse the black art but go wild and get results. One dedicated iron and you can make a plane in half a day!

[David Weaver]

There's nothing wrong with krenov planes as smoothers, but they are lacking as far as jointers go, especially if they are made with 2" irons or whatever most krenov planes are made with. There's no reason to waste 16/4 beech on a throwaway plane without a handle.

[Chris Fournier]

There's nothing wrong with krenov planes as smoothers, but they are lacking as far as jointers go, especially if they are made with 2" irons or whatever most krenov planes are made with. There's no reason to waste 16/4 beech on a throwaway plane without a handle.

One, I did not say a Krenov jointer. I said a Krenov build.

Two, what is the problem with a jointer, Krenov build or otherwise and then with a 2" iron? You David have introduced the 2" iron, not me.

Three, there is no need for 16/4 anything let alone beech. Perhaps you can let us know why you think that this is the required rough stock, size and species for a jointer? It certainly would not be when I was building this plane. Nor have I ever thrown a plane away, I mentioned that I gave some to others, a gift only as generous as the effort that it took to make them. Humble indeed and no where near magnanimous in scale. Effective? Yup. Every bit as useful as the pre-production LN 7 that I was waiting for at the time but couldn't wait for because a client had paid and was waiting for his commission.

KISS works in my shop and it can work in everyone else's.

[David Weaver]

One, I did not say a Krenov jointer. I said a Krenov build.

This thread is titled "build a wooden jointer", and all of the discussion has been consistent with that. 16/4 beech is preferable for large wooden planes if it's available, and it's available. I don't know why anyone who has access to it would want to build a throwaway plane.

[Derek Cohen]

Just wondering out loud, David on the two drawings the mouth/iron seems to be ~⅓ the distance back from the front, but on Derek's super jointer and even his 28" one (same as yours) the mouth/iron seems to be ~ in the middle. Any reasoning? Just different style? Any performance difference?

Hi Judson

There are a couple of reasons why I prefer the mouth further back on a jointer.

As a rule of thumb, the further forward the mouth, the more directional it is. This adds control. The further back the mouth, the less directional. Too far back and the plane becomes squirrely.

An advantage to moving the mouth further back is the greater the registration area and that the jointer is easier to start flat and work as if it were a longer plane (which makes it easier to create flat surfaces - not the only way, but more reliable and easier). If you compare a Stanley #7 with a LV BU Jointer, both are 22" long, but the LV has the mouth 2" further back. This gives it the registration of a longer #8 (which is 24" in length). I have these two planes. The LV is my preference by far - it just offers more feedback and feels more manoeuvrable at the same time.

These factors are also influenced by the angle of the handle: the more vertical the handle, the easier it will be to push on a higher bench. A mouth that is further back seems to benefit from a more vertical handle as this adds more control. http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/CentreOfEffortPart2.html

The link I added offers more discussion.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Matthews]

If the stock can only be found thinner, and lamination is necessary -
why not build it in mirror halves, as the defunct "Nice Planes" design by Rhett Fulkerson?

You could excavate both the left and right sides close to your desired dimensions
before gluing them together, and fettle once the glue dries.

If the grain lines or each side are regular, and set in oppostion
it would make for a very stable structure.

My biggest beef with woodies is their change in shape over the years.
That's likely to be more pronounced, the longer the sole.

[David Weaver]

A lamination is perfectly suitable if you can't find good wood. Unless Prashun sent all of his good wood to me, he's got just what one would want to have to make a quality plane, something I haven't seen in several years of just browsing. Anyone who doesn't have such a thing could take two quartered pieces and glue them, though, and make a nice plane.

I'm not sure when movement occurs in large planes, but it's definitely an issue in the long term at least. Every woodie that I have gotten has required some attention to getting a flat sole again, though the ones I do have (some for 7 years or so) have been good since setting them up the first time. I have a pretty stable (and relatively dry) basement and garage environment, though. I'm not sure when the movement occurred or if the planes were as out of shape when the last user used them. The JT brown jointer I pictured in another thread had hardly been used, and the iron was stuck hard in the plane cheeks. It was convex almost to an extreme (maybe an 8th of an inch), but otherwise with no sign of wear on the sole - no marks, no wear. I can't imagine the maker would've made it as far out of flat.

[Prashun Patel]

This thread is titled "build a wooden jointer", and all of the discussion has been consistent with that. 16/4 beech is preferable for large wooden planes if it's available, and it's available. I don't know why anyone who has access to it would want to build a throwaway plane.

I have so much scrap beech at 8/4 and 6/4, I'm definitely going to build a test first. All my projects ride that delicate line between KISS and WKISSWICHFMIC (Why Keep it Simple When I Can Have Fun Making it Complicated?)

[Chris Fournier]

This thread is titled "build a wooden jointer", and all of the discussion has been consistent with that. 16/4 beech is preferable for large wooden planes if it's available, and it's available. I don't know why anyone who has access to it would want to build a throwaway plane.

I read that this thread is about a wooden jointer and my recommended build will yield a wooden jointer. I still have my 22" wooden jointer, never thrown away, I use it for site work where it is easier to carry and not as precious to me as my LN 7.

I made the assumption that Prashun wants a tool for working not a museum quality replica and it seems that at this time and instance I am correct.

[Matthew N. Masail]

This thread is titled "build a wooden jointer", and all of the discussion has been consistent with that. 16/4 beech is preferable for large wooden planes if it's available, and it's available. I don't know why anyone who has access to it would want to build a throwaway plane.

David, I think it's incorrect, and even offensive to nickname laminate planes "throwaway planes".


I spent about 3 years building planes and tossing them, must have trashed over a dozen, I don't know if you remember my posts about it. in any case, the reason for tossing them had little to do with laminations and a lot to do with the fact that I was frestyling it, like you mention, and did not have a good design.


My first jointer was laminated with a tote of Georges design. it was and still is a very nice (not perfect) plane, and I sold it to someone who loves it.


So I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) why you would call them throwaway's, because a first time maker is likely to produce a dud until he has a well balanced plan and has gotten the little subtitles down, so I would not use good wood for that. BUT and good design and high level of build can and will produce fantastic tools, tools for life, not any more disposable than a solid wood plane, Case in point - aren't HNT planes laminated?

[David Weaver]

I say that because most of them are completed in haste as a quick project, or sometimes even making all three at once. I figured some would be offended by the idea that I'm calling them a throw-away project, and frankly, for the folks who only smooth wood, it really doesn't matter much what the plane design is because there will never be that much demand on ergonomics. Shavings are light, the plane is not going to be used to affect the geometry of the wood any more than necessary, etc.

I don't see them as a viable option for dimensioning a significant amount of wood efficiently vs. a classic plane design.

HNT planes may be laminated, but they are, or at least were (there are so many iterations of them now) copies of a chinese/taiwanese plane design with some improved components. Most of those chinese planes are cut from a single billet and mortised. I had one gordon plane (it was laminated, which to me was a turn off for a fairly expensive plane - i know many don't care - there is an added realism that must occur and that is terry must run a business and he must make a good serviceable plane every time at a price people agree that the value is there), but I think a lot of the changes in planes have been improvements for the maker, and since I'm not that familiar with them, they may also improve performance or long term fitting issues.

I made the throw-away comment also because sometimes there are posts about making some krenov planes...and then making more...and more, and more, and then using another plane to do work instead. I'm sure they are fun to make, and that's good.

It's another thing entirely to get into the various carefully sculpted planes that are out there, and at the amount of time that would take, and the risk of making a dud shape, I'd prefer to spend that time making a proven design. The big unknown to make a double iron mortise plane (chinese or whatever) is the mortise, abutments, taper of the wedge, etc, and I started in the same category - I didn't want to have to understand that after making one plane and guessing at it and not getting a lucky guess. It takes looking at some planes and reading to make sure you're going to get a good plane that adjusts well and that is stable (bedded well) and that feeds well. If I can egg some people into making that type of plane so they love it in 2 years and 20 years (even if they use it for very heavy work, like dimensioning), and don't view it as just another shop made tool, that's my aim.

[Derek Cohen]

HNT Gordon planes are not laminated. They are solid wood.

There are planes and there are planes. The construction choice does not decide whether a plane is worth keeping or not. What decides whether a plane is worth keeping is how well it works.

Laminated construction looks easier and so many use it. Laminated planes are easier to get the bed angles right since they inevitably are cut on a tablesaw - but they are actually still complex to get right. The fact that there are so many around, and that a large proportion of these could only be loved by their owner/maker, does not invalidate the method ... only the builder. I doubt that Jim Krenov thought of his planes as throw aways, although he could make them quickly and gave many away.

I prefer to build solid planes because I like the traditional method. I have made them both ways, however, and do not find a difference in performance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

The HNT gordon jack plane that I had was laminated. I believe it was called the aussie jack plane or something.

Derek, I agree with your comment that actually getting any plane dialed in is more than just cutting a few bits out with a TS, gluing them together, etc. That goes to my throw-away comment, that many of those planes probably come up subpar to planes that can be purchased. People either don't know how to get the bedding perfect, and the bits and pieces perfect, or spending the time to get them to be as good as anything you can buy is more than they bargained for.

The comment I would make as far as aussie wood, is that the only thing that I really don't love the vintage (say 1825) double iron plane for is really hard wood, and if I were in australia, I wouldn't build the same things that I aim to build now. The only reason I didn't aim to build them before was that I didn't know enough to make them work really well (as in as well as anything I could buy that's similar).

I haven't used a coffin smoother that is remotely the equal of the last cocobolo smoother that I built, but I have built others that were not so good and the culmination of that (studying the mortise area and really attempting to get it right, as well as using a heavier wood and a particular type of iron) was due to not doing such a good job on a few planes and not understanding why. Once you learn something like that, you either want to sit on it and profit off of it, or share it. I want to share it if anyone is receptive. The very first really good plane that I made was because ron brese shared some details about bedding an iron with me (and sold me parts). And the moulding planes, we are able to make really good and very attractive planes because larry shared information (i hope he profits off of it some, too).

(and I have no clue what type of plane I'd make if I was trying to dimension aussie wood, because I can't imagine it would be very nice to try to dimension any quantity of it. Enough cocobolo to make a plane is bad enough)

[Matthew N. Masail]

I agree, classic mortised planes are fantastic. I don't make planes larger than 9" in any other style. They do not have to be made from solid, or have abutments for that matter. I don't like the wooden pin for strength, but a notched 1\2" or even 5\8" (got the stock haven't tried it yet, think it might look too big on the side) brass pin is very strong for heavy work, and will not cause any feeding or wedge issues as time goes by, it's easy to get a perfect plane in that way. the pins take time to make by hand, but it's not hard and is worthwhile if your using a pin IMO.


I suppose you must separate between construction method an design, because laminated to me doesn't mean "carelessly shaped". I aim for all my planes to be fully functional, for a 9" krenov that means it does everything a no.4 will do and does just as well. It took me 4 years to accomplish that in a krenov smoother, the biggest deal was ergonomics\mechanics of use, but small things like stiffness and wood choice, bedding and other little nicks and stuff all matter. I have found that a krenov smoother (I don't make the mouth ridiculously tight) is better at large stock removal than a no.4 which I don't like for medium - heavy shavings. the no.4 sets to a fluffy shaving more easily, the krenov can do it too. again, it took me a long time to get a plane that even remotely challenges a no.4, it's not easy.


for Jack, Try and Jointer planes, I use only wood, I don't like big metal planes very much. I make them with a tote traditional style, but they are laminated and I'm ok with that as long as I make them to a very high standard. because if they are not made to a high standard I don't find myself wanting to keep them, I'm not sure I'd feel otherwise if it were solid, but I might.
One day I probably will chop a plane, but wood like that is costly and I will only do so once I have a proven design on the laminated ones, again, like you said it's not worth the effort to be guessing at it.


Bottom line, IMO, if you put proper effort into it, a laminated plane can be great and a real keeper, the plus is it's easy enough for people to do and get goo results fairly quickly, it's very practical.

[Matthew N. Masail]

HNT Gordon planes are not laminated. They are solid wood.

There are planes and there are planes. The construction choice does not decide whether a plane is worth keeping or not. What decides whether a plane is worth keeping is how well it works.

Laminated construction looks easier and so many use it. Laminated planes are easier to get the bed angles right since they inevitably are cut on a tablesaw - but they are actually still complex to get right. The fact that there are so many around, and that a large proportion of these could only be loved by their owner/maker, does not invalidate the method ... only the builder. I doubt that Jim Krenov thought of his planes as throw aways, although he could make them quickly and gave many away.

I prefer to build solid planes because I like the traditional method. I have made them both ways, however, and do not find a difference in performance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

well said.... that's what I am trying to say.

[Judson Green]

Hay another question.

If you were to build a plane with a tote would/should it be off set slightly (further from user) from center? I thought I recalled reading this somewhere.

Derek are your totes off set?

[David Weaver]

The costly wood is a real problem. The issue of it taking 4 years to come up with a design you really like does suggest that it's not quite as easy to make non-throwaway planes as is implied. You could have a pile of nice mortised planes (blade sets coming from europe are easy to find over where you are, but you'd have to find a source of european beech), and I guarantee you'd get some terminal keepers in the first year.

I personally don't like pins that much, but I don't like them because I think the abutment setup is better. It has the ability to distribute direct pressure without any leverage, right on top of the iron all of the way down to where it terminates. It doesn't require any accurate drilling, either.

What disgusts me, having made some of my own planes until we got to where we are now in really knowing what the mortise should be like, is that in all of these shop made planes that end up unsatisfactory, there is a fair amount of money in time and wood, hardware and irons. There is a little bit of a learning curve to make the mortise pretty and make the mouth of a plane pretty and get everything ok laterally with the abutments, but it's a matter of a few planes. For the true woodworker who doesn't want to make tools, once you have a single good one, you're done. I recall warren mentioning that he made his try plane some decades ago (30-40 years ago?) and has been using it heavily since. To have a plane that satisfactory is what I want.

[Derek Cohen]

The HNT gordon jack plane that I had was laminated. I believe it was called the aussie jack plane or something.

Just for reference, that is the jack kit that Terry sells.

http://www.hntgordon.com.au/images/shop/upload/jackkit.jpg

All others are indeed solid ...

http://www.hntgordon.com.au/images/shop/upload/img_6881.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Matthew N. Masail]

Making satisfactory plane is not easy at all, I'm only saying laminated or not is not the issue. to be fair, making a plane was my first woodworking project ever that included more than a power drill and a orbital sander, it started to save money (the internet make your own plane scheme got me) but by now yes I could have bought a LN bronze 4 and more with the case spent. I must have made 25-30 planes or so and it was hard to learn what makes a good plane, the same exact thing as the abutments Imagine.


Abutments might very well be better. the pin has superior practicality truth is it took a while to understand how to get a pin to hold perfectly too, and how to get the wedge so the blade adjusts according to your intention and not according to where it's hold firmest.

[David Weaver]

No, it wasn't a kit. This was probably 6 years ago now, it was a laminated jack plane that came in a box that indicated a complete plane - it had been shaped professionally, and looked just like the completed kit there (I think he had manufactured some)

Here is one that doesn't appear to be a kit, either, that is laminated (with handle). http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=265094&d=1366962103

Maybe he could clear it up, not that it's worth his time to do so - but I'd imagine that he would tell you that he sold some finished planes that were laminated for a period of time at least, even if he no longer does.

I sold it on ebay back then, so I have zero chance of scraping up the pictures (If I'd have sold it here, it would be in my attachments).

[David Weaver]

Making satisfactory plane is not easy at all, I'm only saying laminated or not is not the issue. to be fair, making a plane was my first woodworking project ever that included more than a power drill and a orbital sander, it started to save money (the internet make your own plane scheme got me) but by now yes I could have bought a LN bronze 4 and more with the case spent. I must have made 25-30 planes or so and it was hard to learn what makes a good plane, the same exact thing as the abutments Imagine.


Abutments might very well be better. the pin has superior practicality truth is it took a while to understand how to get a pin to hold perfectly too, and how to get the wedge so the blade adjusts according to your intention and not according to where it's hold firmest.

I think anyone with a year of woodworking experience would be able to make a plane with good abutments on their second or third try. There just aren't any variables there with the wedge and pin, etc, once you know how to mark the abutments and create a wedge that will feed well (and fit it to the side of the plane). I've got some books that show layout pictures of planes, but I was never able to grasp all of it until I bought a plane that was in good shape and that was expertly made. Then it was crystal clear. I think that this group of planes will be the first ones that I make (including the cocobolo smoother #2) that I could probably sell for what the parts cost me if I got in some extreme financial pinch.

The bigger issue with a beginner in any plane (handled include) is going to be having the sense to get the aesthetics right, and having the good sense to take proportions from a plane that they already know works well. I will use floats on these beech planes for tidyness, but I could build the planes without them. I don't know that I could make that blanket statement with the cocobolo - I intended to use only chisels on it, but I wasn't happy with the finish left by the chisels going cross grain - it was too splintery.

Handles can be shaped by a coarse half round metal file for someone really in financial straits.

[Zach Dillinger]

Hay another question.

If you were to build a plane with a tote would/should it be off set slightly (further from user) from center? I thought I recalled reading this somewhere.

Derek are your totes off set?

You see 18th century American planes with offset totes. I made my "non-throwaway"30" maple jointer with an offset tote and I like it. I can't swear to what it does, ergonomics wise, but I imagine that the guys who were pushing them for large portions of their lives had a reason for it. I suppose it does provide an interesting balancing force to the force that one applies essentially to left side of the toe of the plane when pushing down with the left hand. This could rotate the plane slightly and perhaps the offset tote provides the opposite force to level out the sole in relation to the wood. This is something a skilled plane user does instinctively anyway, so who knows.

[Judson Green]

Hi Zach

About how much did you off set by?

Would you do it again?

[David Weaver]

You see 18th century American planes with offset totes. I made my "non-throwaway"30" maple jointer with an offset tote and I like it. I can't swear to what it does, ergonomics wise, but I imagine that the guys who were pushing them for large portions of their lives had a reason for it. I suppose it does provide an interesting balancing force to the force that one applies essentially to left side of the toe of the plane when pushing down with the left hand. This could rotate the plane slightly and perhaps the offset tote provides the opposite force to level out the sole in relation to the wood. This is something a skilled plane user does instinctively anyway, so who knows.

I think george has said it here, but I know talking to him offline that he's told me that it keeps you from closing a grip on the handle as easily, and thus less fatigue on the hands - especially over time.

Do you let your hand go over the side of the plane (like pinkie and ring finger drape over)? I won't sink the mortise for the handle until the plane is almost done, but I haven't decided yet if it will be in the center or slightly offset.

I had a continental plane (an older one) with the handle offset pretty far, but the plane itself was junk ahead of the handle, so I didn't get a chance to try it.

[Judson Green]

Interesting, so having a more vertical tote might not be a good idea?

Seems that draping the pinkie of the side might be near impossible with a more vertical tote. Is there a preferred angle? Loosely copy a Bailey?

Edit: I mention this (and not wanting to start a brawl) but some of Derek's planes have pretty upright totes. I think he does this in regard to a higher bench, hopefully he'll chime in.

[David Weaver]

I would have a handle like the vintage woody planes have. It's probably similar too the early stanley bailey handles.

The veritas mantra (or LV) from the beginning has been to prefer handles intended for a somewhat higher bench height than the vintage benches. It's hard to really determine what you like or don't like unless you get a chance to try them, both, but if taking a guess, I'd give a nod to the old planes (nearly all of them had a more traditional handle angle).

[Steve Voigt]

Interesting, so having a more vertical tote might not be a good idea?

Seems that draping the pinkie of the side might be near impossible with a more vertical tote. Is there a preferred angle? Loosely copy a Bailey?

Edit: I mention this (and not wanting to start a brawl) but some of Derek's planes have pretty upright totes. I think he does this in regard to a higher bench, hopefully he'll chime in.

The handle template that I posted on the first page of this thread is a very close copy of a typical 19th c. handle. It matches up quite closely to the ones I own and/or have measured in antique shops etc.

By the way, the basic guidelines of traditional plane design that I listed are typical not only for double iron 19th c. planes, but also for 18th c. single iron planes--Wiley Horne measured a number of his Old Street/C & W planes for me, and the numbers all pretty much agree. I notice that Dave's measurements indicate a slightly thicker plane, but the other measurements are all pretty close.

Now, you can certainly experiment--I did--with vertical totes, moving the mouth back, shorter planes with stubby irons, etc. Nothing wrong with experimenting. But just keep in mind, you are mixing and matching elements from different systems, and the results are likely to be about as good as when you mix and match radically different sharpening systems together--not very good, in other words. There's also a great chance that you are reinventing "improvements" that were tried, and rejected, in the past. People have this false image of the past, that everyone was just slavishly following tradition and building what their elders told them to. It's not true. Everything under the sun was tried, but the bad ideas were discarded along the way. So what you are left with is the ideas that stood the test of time.

Just speaking for myself, my own problems with plane design ended when I stopped trying to be original and started studying and copying traditional designs.

[Derek Cohen]

Interesting, so having a more vertical tote might not be a good idea?

Seems that draping the pinkie of the side might be near impossible with a more vertical tote. Is there a preferred angle? Loosely copy a Bailey?

Edit: I mention this (and not wanting to start a brawl) but some of Derek's planes have pretty upright totes. I think he does this in regard to a higher bench, hopefully he'll chime in.

Hi Judson

I wrote four articles on this theme, and these can be found on my website, here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/Index.html

To answer more simply: I would not say that my handles tend to be more vertical. Some of them are, most are not. Part of the reason is that the bench I built a few years ago is 2" lower than its predecessor. I replaced a number of my handles with a Bailey style.

While a more upright handle will take the weight off the mouth and create a horizontal vector, which makes for easier pushing, a lower bench will cause the wrist to cock a little more, which can become fatiguing.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Judson Green]

I'm just curious and asking why.

If I was to build a jointer I think I'd do something Davids but with a tote, like George's that I linked to. Stay traditional.

[Judson Green]

Back to the off set thing.

How far off center axis? Just far enough to so your pinkie can drape?

I think you mentioned at one time it being very hard to find one (a plane with off center tote) any more. Did they go out of fashion for a reason?

[David Weaver]

George showed pictures of planes from the queen mary (or drawings or something) where the handles were actually on the edge of the plane, not just off center. I guess the whole range was used, though more recently I'd probably try to find an overhead picture of an old plane and scale it if I were going to go off center. At this point, I think I probably won't. I'm on the fence about what handle style to make, too, but I may just dead copy the one on my jt brown jointer, even though I think the front of the handle doesn't match the attractiveness of the back.

[george wilson]

Steve,you just said the same thing that I have said about tools:survival of the fittest.

David,I did not post pictures of planes with handles on the side. I have none. But,what you are recalling is what I said about planes I saw from the 16th. C. Mary Rose(now,I'm thinking I have forgotten the name!!!). It was Henry the eighth's largest warship. A gust of wind toppled it. Likely the lowest gun ports were open to show off the might of his favorite ship. More than one ship was lost like that. Same thing happened to the Vasa in Sweden (The name means water). Both were too top heavy. The English style was to overload their ships with heavy cannon. That didn't help either.

Anyhow,the ship became imbedded in silt,and the wooden tools,long bows,arrows,etc. looked like the day they were made. Nice,pink beechwood. All the iron parts perished entirely,though,in the salt water.

The planes were terribly crude. The jack planes just had a long dovetail on their handles,which was inlet into the users right side. They were short,and designed so the web of the thumb did the pushing,instead of the palm. 3 fingers went down the side of the plane.(Did I have an argument with Larry about this?) Those old timers knew about carpal tunnel,and knew to avoid it. They had to to be able to survive by working. There was no help if they got disabled,unless they had sons who could work and contribute to the family. Daughters too,in some occupations. Everyone had to work,and work very long hours.

An interesting side note was that about 20 years ago,a shipment of Russia leather,reindeer hides wrapped into big bundles,was salvaged from a shipwreck of similar age,IIRC. It was very old,anyway. They were selling the hides for $400.00 each. The shoe maker bought a hide. I refrained from getting one as I don't care for Russia leather. They even left the eye lashes on the skins. You could still smell traces of birch oil in the leather. The edges had shriveled and turned black,but 99% of the hides were like new. Buried in silt where there was no oxygen to rot them. Russia leather was leather that had a criss cross pattern rolled into it by wooden rollers. I had to simulate it years earlier on a repro of a document box I was asked to make for the president of Argentina. Somewhere here I did post pictures of it. They gave me 4 days to make it!!(As usual!!) The suits had no idea what effort they demanded of the craftsmen. As if we could pull stuff out of thin air.

[David Weaver]

I knew i had the name of the boat wrong. I thought I saw the pictures somewhere, but the mary rose society has a site (go figure that they talked about stuff other than the tools on a lot of the site), and maybe that's where I saw the pictures.

[george wilson]

I saw what was left of the Mary Rose in Portsmouth,England. It is erected on a large wall in a special room with large viewing windows. It is constantly sprayed with some kind of chemicals to get it conditioned to eventually be in the open air. It is quite a large ship. Only part of the starboard side was left,from being buried in the silt.

[Steve Voigt]

Steve,you just said the same thing that I have said about tools:survival of the fittest.


Not the first thing I stole from you; won't be the last.


Did I have an argument with Larry about this?

Doesn't matter what the topic is--the answer is yes! :D:D:D

[Judson Green]

The planes were terribly crude. The jack planes just had a long dovetail on their handles,which was inlet into the users right side. They were short,and designed so the web of the thumb did the pushing,instead of the palm. 3 fingers went down the side of the plane.


Am I picturing this right? Nearly Krenov-ish? Aren't some of his longer planes kinda like that?

[David Weaver]

Am I picturing this right? Nearly Krenov-ish? Aren't some of his longer planes kinda like that?

shorten the handle on a bench plane and move it all the way to the right. There is still a handle on the plane so you can lift push and move the plane with the web of your hand and not have to grab.

(actually, I think I might be remembering some planes that were on a plate from an old text and more modern (as in within the last 400 years), and not the mary rose planes).

[Jim Matthews]

WKISSWICHFMIC (Why Keep it Simple When I Can Have Fun Making it Complicated?)

I wonder if you, and my wife are distant cousins.
This is the same winning notion that lead to Windows 8.