Flight Decks

[Howard Skillington]

I do not yet own a jointer plane and, again, would value the perspectives of you plane gurus in The Haven. In particular, from those of you who have a full suite of planes from which to choose, I’d like to hear which one you actually end of using. I’m guessing that most people who own both a No. 7 and a No. 8 end up using one or the other most of the time, but which one? And, for that matter, are there any advocates of the No. 6 out there who have come to believe that a fore is enough plane to flatten and straighten boards in the real world?

I get the impression that it has become less difficult to find a good deal on a No. 8 than a 7 these days, but that wouldn’t necessarily determine my choice.

[Stew Denton]

Howard,

I don't have a #8, so can't comment on that part, but there are a whole lot less #8s out there than #7s, so years ago, the plane makers obviously sold a whole lot more #7s than #8s. Part of that may have been due to carpenters. Back in the hay days of jointer planes, carpenters had to carry their tools to work, I think, so the #7, being lighter than the #8s, might have been a factor. I think that the primary market for planes would have been carpenters.

That said, since the tool manufactures made a whole lot more #7s than #8s, it seems likely that the folks that used jointer planes a lot used a #7 a whole lot more than a #8.

Concerning the second point, from what I have seen, looking at planes a lot on Ebay, the #8s typically go for a significantly higher price than do the #7s. You will find it significantly more difficult to find a #8 at a reasonable price than you find a #7 for, and you will see quite a few #7s for each #8 you find.

Stew

[Tom M King]

I keep a camber on the 7 iron, and none on the 8. The 7 is used for flattening, and the 8 for edge jointing. I'm sure the 7 doesn't have enough camber to matter to amount to anything on an edge, but I just think better about using a straight iron on an edge. It could easily be done the other way around, but the 7 is a lot easier to handle for the longer time in use for flattening over what edge joining requires. The way we can tune a plane these days to take really thin shavings, either will have plenty of length for either use.

For non-important reasons, I ended up with a couple of 6's, and keep different cambers on each-both deeper than the 7, but not nearly as deep as the 5. I use one or the other when a 5 is too aggressive, depending on what I'm doing. They could easily be done without, but I just wanted them, and do end up using them.

[Jim Sevey]

I use a 6 for most of my plane work. No specific reason. Just feels right. It a WR.

[James Baker SD]

I have a #7. Hasn't been used since I got a #8. I just like the #8 better for some reason.

[Howard Skillington]

Thanks for your reports. I think "no reason" is actually a perfectly good reason - if it feels right to you, then that's all you need to know.

[John Vernier]

The #8 is quite a lot heavier than the #7, enough so that I really feel it in my shoulder and elbow after using it for a while. I don't use the #8 much, and keep it with no camber for the final kiss pass when flattening or jointing edges. I find it is usually unnecessary, as I can generally get a decent glue joint off of my #7 or #6, even though they are slightly cambered. I had no real interest in having a #6 until I came across a nice WWI-era Stanley at a price I couldn't say no to, and now I find I use it rather than the #7 most of the time. If I need to pack up tools to work on site, the #6 is the one to carry.

[Mike Cherry]

I have a # 8 LN and a 607 and the only reason I bought the # 8 was because I had a gift card to Highland Woodworking and I just wanted one. Having said that, I'm a big fan of being able to use multiple blades for multiple planes. The 4 1/2, 5 1/2, and 7 all use 2 3/8" blades if I'm not mistaken. That might help you make a decision. Also, the #8 can be hard to get get moving but once you do you better move out of its way!

[Jim Koepke]

My #7 & #8 get about the same amount of use as my #6s. Just depends on how much is being taken off of how long a piece. Sometimes one of the long planes is set up with a sharp blade to take a smoothing pass after the other did the flattening. The long nose on the #7 or #8 helps register on an edge and is effective at removing any snipe or dog legs on the end of a piece being worked.

jtk

[Hilton Ralphs]

This is what Paul Sellers had to say about the #7 and #8 in an answer to a reader's question.


I have yet to meet any craftsman that ever used them in my 50 years continuous woodworking. That includes the old craftsmen I worked under as an apprentice. None of them had a #7

Here is the article (https://paulsellers.com/2015/04/paul-long-plane-bevel-up-bevel-down-part-i/).

He does have a point about that most of the second hand ones are almost never abused so maybe that's a sign of less use? Interesting that he says the soles of the metal planes tend to move more than the wooden equivalent.

Anyway, if you want to buy new then the new Veritas Custom Jointer is awesome.

[Jim Matthews]

The longest plane I can comfortably, and reliably use is an ECE Jointer.

It's 23" long. That's roughly the same size as a #7, and about half the weight in German Beech.

I use it once, maybe twice in any project.
Mostly I use a plane about 10" long.

[Brian Holcombe]

I use my #7 LN all the time. It practically lives on my bench. It's setup with a medium thickness shaving and a tight chipbreaker and does everything from roughing to fine work then I take a few swipes with my #4 to finish.

I do this because often times I'm sawing to thickness and do not have enough material to cut across the grain first. I simply check for twist against a flat reference on my bench and bias cuts to eliminate it until it's flat. I like flat and smooth to happen all at the same time, so when I'm making parts I dont bother to follow with a #4 plane since the work off the jointer is usually smooth enough and tearout free.

For flattening panels or roughing large timbers I'll cut across the grain first with a heavy cambered jack plane, then do the remainder of the work with a jointer.

[steven c newman]

I seem to use the #6 size more than most.
312883
In fact, now have two of them. As for a Flight deck..
312884
This is most of my users. There is a couple 22" long wood bodies around,mainly an Ohio Tool Works #81. There is a Stanley #31 trans. plane. 24" long, like a #8, just about half the weight. Instead of a 2-5/8'' wide iron, the 31 has a 2-3/8" wide one.
I also like the trans plane jacks, and even a #3 sized Liberty Bell #122. Just depends on what size of lumber I am working with.

Have an old junker of a jack plane, cambered it iron to about 8". Tis now a Scrub Jack. There is also the Windsor #33 with a 3" radius camber for smaller scrub work. Again, depends on what the project is.

[Judson Green]

I have a # 8 LN and a 607 and the only reason I bought the # 8 was because I had a gift card to Highland Woodworking and I just wanted one. Having said that, I'm a big fan of being able to use multiple blades for multiple planes. The 4 1/2, 5 1/2, and 7 all use 2 3/8" blades if I'm not mistaken. That might help you make a decision. Also, the #8 can be hard to get get moving but once you do you better move out of its way!

The early 5½ used 2¼" irons, iirc.

[Judson Green]

I keep a camber on the 7 iron, and none on the 8. The 7 is used for flattening, and the 8 for edge jointing. I'm sure the 7 doesn't have enough camber to matter to amount to anything on an edge, but I just think better about using a straight iron on an edge. It could easily be done the other way around, but the 7 is a lot easier to handle for the longer time in use for flattening over what edge joining requires. The way we can tune a plane these days to take really thin shavings, either will have plenty of length for either use.


I've a 7 and 8 and pretty much do the same as Tom. I think its nice to have two jointers one for flating one for edge joining.

Just yesterday the rust was calling and got another 7 and a Sargent 6 size, but haven't cleaned em up yet... Post on that later.

[Prashun Patel]

I have a Veritas LA Jointer, which is about as light as a #6 but about as long as a #7. It's my favorite because it's a good balance between mass + length + ergonomics for me.

I say get what feels best for you. There is huge variance in this space, so I'd test a few. And don't count out the woodies either.

The more I do this, the more i see that required 'flatness' is dependent on the application, and is accomplishable with a variety of planes. I think more critical than the choice between #7 and #8 is the selection of a good set of straight edges.

[Howard Skillington]

Thoughtful observations, Prashun. Thank you.

[Prashun Patel]

Don't go by me, though, Howard. I'm talking out of school relative to many of the guys on this thread.

[Jim Koepke]

Again, depends on what the project is.

That is the main consideration. A person making small boxes would have a problem trying to work an 8" piece of wood with a long jointer. Likewise trying to true the edge of an 8' plank would be folly using a #4.

Maybe Mr. Sellers is well practiced at using a #4 to get a straight edge on a long board with a small plane. For me, it is easier with a longer plane.


He does have a point about that most of the second hand ones are almost never abused so maybe that's a sign of less use?

If a person hasn't seen longer planes that have suffered abuse, they haven't done much looking. Is it possible in Mr. Sellers lack of interest toward longer metal planes he walked by them on the shelf without looking? Maybe the previous owners thought highly of their long planes and took good care of them?

After reading the article it appears Mr. Sellers has a different opinion on a long plane's usefulness if it is made of wood. A lot of bevel up users would also take issue with his view on their lack if usefulness. He does seem to think a #6 sized plane is sufficient. Patrick "I've never found this size plane useful" Leach seems to think the #6 is a plane looking for a purpose.

BTW, my first #7 was purchased from a woman who said it belonged to her father. He kept it in good order since he worked in a cabinet shop. It was a type 11 in great shape other than the tote and knob being painted blue for ID in the shop. BTW, the tote had been repaired.

After fixing up an older #7 the type 11 was sold.

When the metal meets the wood, it is all up to the individual user to decide what works best for their situation in their environment. My opinion, Mr. Seller's opinion, Mr. Leach's opinion are all just that, opinions.

Along with other's opinions there is often techniques, ideas or even some entertainment to be had by paying attention. What they say about a particular plane or tool may have some influence on my decisions, but in the long run I like to learn from my own experience seasoned with the experience of those who have traveled this path before me.

jtk

[Pedro Reyes]

I have:

Stanley 7
Stanley 8 (not yet fettled, so basically as if I don't have it)
Stanley 5-1/2
Stanley 5
LN 62
(and so on).

Even if I had the 8 ready, I think I will use the 7 when I thought I needed it.

My 5-1/2 and my 5 are used probably on 100% of the projects I start (notice I never said finish)
My LN 62 about 60%
My 7 more like 30%, I figure my 8 would be less than that.

just my $0.02

/p

[Kees Heiden]

The 7 is a very nice plane, not too heavy and a nice length for a cabinet maker.

[Curt Putnam]

I have 2 6s, 1 LV BU jointer (7), a roundside 608 flattened by Tablesaw Tom, and a Chaplin 1211 (8) which I will sell soon. I absolutely love the LV BUJ and tend to use it with the fence for finishing all my edges. The 608 has been equipped with an LV PM-V11 iron and matching chipbreaker. This puppy will flatten and smooth in one operation. For me, it's best used to finish any surfacing operation. I love the 6s and will use my $15 (new cost) Montgomery Ward with laminated tote whenever I can as a fore plane. The tote is shaped like the LV handles - which shape works best for me. The Chaplin plane is getting sold because the tote is just too small for my largish hands and in the Coarse, Medium, Fine scheme, it's at the coarse end of Medium. The LV BUJ is, by far, the most versatile of the big dogs. Hope this helps. YMWV

[Tom M King]

The longest plane I can comfortably, and reliably use is an ECE Jointer.

It's 23" long. That's roughly the same size as a #7, and about half the weight in German Beech.

I use it once, maybe twice in any project.
Mostly I use a plane about 10" long.

I have one of those too. The thing I never liked about it is the sole is so short in front of the iron, but you can get a board straight with it.

[lowell holmes]

I don't use my #7 bedrock often, but when I need it, I'm glad I have it.

[Mike Cherry]

The early 5½ used 2¼" irons, iirc.
Yes, very true. I found a type 11 5 1/2 and was bewildered when I couldn't get my #7 blade to fit!

[Jim Matthews]

The 'toe' of mine is 9" in front of the blade.

That's long enough to span the undulations left by my #4 equivalent - which is about 10" long.
When I want long edges square, I have a large shooting board that allows me to use a plane on it's side.
(Terry Gordon demonstrates this on YouTube)

I find that very little flattening of broad faces is required with my current stock selection, milling technique and required degree of flatness.

I wonder if it's a tool favored by people making a particular type of furniture?


Few boards I work with are longer than 40" - I can get pretty close to s6s with a single plane, saw and quality square.

[Howard Skillington]

Post Script: I love the idea of "trying out all the options" but don't have anywhere near where I can do that. Instead, I saw a Stanley 8C on eBay that I had a good feeling about and decided to give it a try.
Big Stan arrived yesterday and, even with a blade that looked like it had been ground by a near-sighted monkey, I bonded with it immediately. I'm a big guy, so I don't find its size and weight discouraging. Once set in motion it proceeds with wonderful authority. I got the blade about halfway rehabilitated today. I think I'm going to be quite happy with it.

[Thomas Schneider]

Well bully on you! Read all the opinions posted and then go out and make your own! Be sure to come back at share your thoughts after using it for a project or two.

[Eric Brown]

Hi Howard. You don't have your location listed but if you are nearby you could try some of mine. I not only collect but use all my tools. I prefer the #7 to the #8 but it depends on what I am working on. Sometimes the extra length and weight help, sometimes it's not needed. I have two #6's. One is set up with a scraper attachment from Lee Valley. I don't find much difference between the #6 and #7. Hard as I try to do good work, I sometimes have a little nightmare that Roy Underhill comes along with a hatchet and cuts perfect dovetails with just a few chops at least ten times faster than I can with all my tools. The moral of this little story is it's not so much the tool as the skill one has. The fewer tools you have the better (and faster) you get with them. If the #7 and #8 planes didn't exist I'm sure excellent work would be done with the #6. David Charlesworth prefers the 5 1/2 for a jointer. Keep it simple. Have fun. Eric

[Prashun Patel]

Congrats. Sounds like you picked a winner.

[Jeffrey Martel]

Sounds like I'm too late, but the only reason I picked up a #8 instead of a #7 was that I have a #6 and felt that the difference between the 7 and 6 wasn't enough to justify buying the 7. So, the 6 will serve as a short jointer, and when I get the 8 set up, it will serve as the long jointer.

[Howard Skillington]

I appreciate your kind offer, Eric. I'm only a couple of states away - in North Carolina - but don't know when I might be in Ohio. I daresay I would find a #7 to be plenty of iron, but happened to find a good deal on a 1940 #8. I have been curious about the LV scraper insert. Do you find it more effective than a hand scraper? I know the long sole helps keep your surface flat, but the fixed angle sounds problematic to me.

[Howard Skillington]

Well, Thomas, I was curious to know if there is much consensus on jointers, but not surprised to encounter a divergence of views. I can report that I'm getting translucent full-width shavings with Big Stan for less than a quarter of the price of a new LN #8, so I'm quite pleased with my choice.

[Howard Skillington]

I hope you will give us a report on the Sargent. I'm curious to know if they are much different in use from a Stanley.

[Phil Stone]

I hope you will give us a report on the Sargent. I'm curious to know if they are much different in use from a Stanley.

Howard, I'll jump in here, as I've just tuned up and started using a Sargent (branded Zenith) 22C jointer with the Shaw patent frog. One thing I keep forgetting is that its depth adjuster is reversed, i.e. turns clockwise to withdraw the blade. Also, I don't know if it's a stock adjusting knob, but it's quite tiny, and a bit of a pain to get ahold of. This is a picture of it before clean-up:

313494

In use, it's pretty wonderful, though. No complaints.

[bridger berdel]

I have an early 5-1/2 with the narrow iron. It came to me with an iron sharpened to within 1/16" of the slot- it was done for. I had a heavy tapered iron from a woodie the right width so I set the plane to take it. It's tuned to be like a panel plane, a giant smoother, I guess. It works well, but I don't use it a lot.




The early 5½ used 2¼" irons, iirc.

[Jim Koepke]

One thing I keep forgetting is that its depth adjuster is reversed, i.e. turns clockwise to withdraw the blade. Also, I don't know if it's a stock adjusting knob, but it's quite tiny, and a bit of a pain to get ahold of.

My knowledge on Sargent planes is very little. I do know that Stanley and some others started with right hand threads on the adjuster and then changed to left hand threads. Not sure if Sargent also changed the handedness of their adjusters.

It does look like your adjuster might have been of an earlier two piece design and part of it went missing.

jtk

[Phil Stone]

My knowledge on Sargent planes is very little. I do know that Stanley and some others started with right hand threads on the adjuster and then changed to left hand threads. Not sure if Sargent also changed the handedness of their adjusters.

It does look like your adjuster might have been of an earlier two piece design and part of it went missing.

jtk

Ah, very interesting, thanks, Jim. Do you know of any illustrations showing this two-piece design?

EDIT: I've found some pictures from old EBay auctions and such, but I can't find one that shows my little knob as part of a two-piece design. If anybody can shed any light on this, I'd be grateful. I don't expect I'll be lucky enough to find the missing part, but at least I'll understand things a little better.

[steven c newman]

Sargent made both a "normal" style adjuster, that grew in size over the years. The one on my 3416 Trans. Jack is a bit tiny. The other style was called the Auto-set. Whole nother ball game, with a vertical post, and two wheels.

Have both a Millers Falls No. 14 and a Sargent #414 T-5.....haven't found any difference between them, other than the shape of the rear handle. Both have tall knobs out front.

[Jim Koepke]

Ah, very interesting, thanks, Jim. Do you know of any illustrations showing this two-piece design?

My knowledge on Sargent planes is very little to almost nonexistent. Some of the early Bailey planes had a two piece construction of the adjuster. This is from the type study at:

https://home.comcast.net/~rarebear/planes101/typing/typing.htm

The adjuster on Howard's plane looks to have a star configuration I have seen used in press fitting soft metals together. Not sure if Sargent did this or if it was something done by a previous owner who dropped the original adjuster down a rabbit hole.

Searching around there really isn't much of a type study on Sargent planes.

A search on > shaw's patent < turned up a few things. One of them was this:

http://www.brasscityrecords.com/toolworks/museum/shaws/shaws.html

The second picture shows the adjuster and it is right hand threaded. The adjuster nut pictured doesn't have the knurling that is visible on Howard's plane. Maybe someone has a spare.

BTW, my only Sargent plane besides my router plane is a transitional jointer. Just checked and surprise, surprise, surprise... it has a right hand threaded adjuster nut. Maybe someone with more recent Sargent planes can tell us if this was something Sargent stayed with until the end or if it was changed and when.

According to:

http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/shaws.htm

Shaw's patent was granted in 1906.

jtk

[Karl Andersson]

not to get too far off-topic, but there's a good phot-heavy Sargent type study here: https://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/sargent-planes-by-the-numberwith-pictures/ (https://timetestedtools.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/sargent-planes-by-the-numberwith-pictures/)
And lots of detailed sargent info here http://www.sargent-planes.com/ (http://www.sargent-planes.com/)
Many of the photos don't show the depth adjuster, but when they do, they all appear to be a larger diameter that what Phil has; although, if you look at the angle adjuster knob for their scraper planes (first link), it MIGHT be one of those, swapped out due to the same thread count. Considering how rarely a user would remove this knob, Jim's suggestion that it was a 2-part press-fit piece and it missing its flange makes more sense. Also seems that would be cheaper/ faster to produce than accurately milling a casting with 2 different diameters, at least in the early days.
Karl

[steven c newman]

Let's see313541
Left hand threads. There is a steel insert, inside the brass knurled ring. Have a newer 414...allsteel and large as a Millers Falls. The 3416 has a tiny , all brass knob of a wheel.
313542that LOOKS like it has a steel insert.

[Jim Koepke]

LOOKS like it has a steel insert.

One thing of note is many of the brass adjusters on Stanley/Bailey planes seem to get worn in the groove where the fork/yoke lever rides. I have often noticed the threads have been worn. This may be from a lot of use over time or having the lever cap held down too tight. Maybe steel threads would have held up better with less backlash over time.

jtk

[Judson Green]

Heres a close up (please pardon the blobs of jb weld) of mine from a Sargent 18. And its all steal... Fridge magnet confirmed. Oh, and the depth adjuster turns CW to lower iron.

313556 313557 313558

[Phil Stone]

Heres a close up (please pardon the blobs of jb weld) of mine from a Sargent 18. And its all steal... Fridge magnet confirmed. Oh, and the depth adjuster turns CW to lower iron.

313556 313557 313558

Thank you for taking the time to make these photos, Judson. Can you tell, on the backside of the adjuster, is it two-piece, with something similar to mine (up above in this thread) inside the larger outer knob? (Howard, I must apologize how far afield this thread has gone! I hope you find it interesting).

[Judson Green]

I think its one piece.

313559 313560 313561