WoodRiver #5 v3 Review

[Patrick Chase]

Posting this mostly because I don't see previous reviews, and it's a case where I encountered something unexpected might be useful to other potential buyers.

TLDR - Think carefully before buying this plane if you intend to do rank cuts with a heavily cambered blade. The mouth and chipbreaker designs seem more suited to a smoother or jointer than to a jack.

I bought this plane to complement several other Jack-sized planes (All Veritas: #5-1/4W, #5, #5-1/2, #6, Low-angle Jack, Jack Rabbet) with the intent of fitting it with a moderately cambered blade for cases where I want to hog out a lot of material, but with wider/shallower cuts and better flatness than I get from my scrub.

The plane is reasonably well built with good quality control in all functionally important respects. The fit and finish isn't up to the level of my other above-referenced planes, but they're all significantly more expensive. The sole was flat to within 1 mil (gauged with a Starrett straightedge and shim-stock feelers), and the sides were perpendicular. The blade had a hollow back, and took a moderate amount of work to bring to functional flatness behind the edge. I've already used the plane a fair amount, and the blade seems to be made of a decent high-carbon steel though it needs to be sharpened more frequently than the PM-V11 blades in my other Jack-sized planes. I think that these are very reasonable tradeoffs given the price and that the Wood River delivers good value overall.

The largest drawbacks relate to depth of cut. I sharpened the blade with a 6" radius camber, which means that it takes a 59/1000" cut when the blade is extended such that it's just barely taking full-width chips (you can't really call them shavings). For comparison, the 1.5" wide, 3" radius blade in my scrub takes a 67 mil cut when similarly extended. I left the primary bevel at 25 deg and honed a secondary bevel at 35 deg. It's not the easiest plane to push with the blade extended that far, but it's great for the initial pass when hand-jointing large boards.

I found two issues when I set the plane up as described above:

1. With that much extension the frog had to be set fairly far forward to avoid "levering" the blade on the edge of the sole in front of the frog. I set the frog by painting the edge of the sole with Prussian Blue marking grease, and then tweaked the frog backward until the blade bevel just barely contacted the sole when fully extended as described above. This combination of frog position and extension turned out to leave a very small mouth, and I had to file out the mouth (mostly from the front, and a little from the back) a bit more than 1 mm to cleanly pass 59-mil shavings. While this is to some degree an inherent limitation of the Bed Rock configuration (which imposes a tradeoff between adjustment range and mechanical support of the frog when the mouth is closed down), I think that given the typical uses for a Jack plane it might be better to ship the plane with a slightly larger mouth. I also think that many people exaggerate the impact of having the sole support the leading edge of the frog (or even the blade), and that the "tradeoff" described above is more one-sided than it may appear. My existing planes don't have such limitations as they use different mechanical configurations that allow wider adjustment ranges (movable toes in the #5, #5-1/2, bevel-up jack, and jack rabbet; a frog that extends all the way to the bottom of the sole in the #5-1/4W and #6, such that there's no sole corner to interfere with the blade). As an aside, I scribed the desired mouth edges in Dykem and then filed back to those. It can close down to a nice tight parallel mouth if needed.

2. Because of the tight camber radius and the need to cleanly pass thick chips I had to set the chip-breaker about 80 mils back from the blade tip (~20 mils back from the blade corners). The distance from the leading edge of the chipbreaker to the depth adjustment slot is such that I could not fully retract the blade in that configuration. I resolved this by re-grinding the chip-breaker with a 30 deg bevel, which removed just enough from the leading edge to allow the blade to be fully retracted. I think this may reflect a design flaw, because even after modification the adjuster still permits a ridiculous amount of blade extension (more than would ever be useful). The Hock chip breakers are spec'ed with a slightly smaller distance from depth adjuster to leading edge FWIW. Again this is a case where my existing planes (which all use Norris-type adjusters) don't have issues as they have larger depth adjustment ranges.

Assuming somebody else out there wants to use a similar super-scrub setup with this plane, the purchasing decision may depend on whether you're comfortable taking a file to your brand new tool. The amount of adjustment I had to do wasn't all that significant in the grand scheme, but a lot of people buy new planes precisely to avoid that sort of thing. Also it somewhat degrades the value proposition of the plane relative to refurbishing something from Ebay (though those aren't the value they used to be).

Ergonomically it's closer to L-N or Classic Stanley planes. I personally prefer Veritas' more upright totes, but that's a very subjective thing.

[Nick Stokes]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. You seem to have a good understanding of the situation. I enjoyed reading your review.

[Frederick Skelly]

Thanks for the review Patrick! I have a couple of their smaller smoothers and find them pretty well made too.
Fred

[Patrick Chase]

Yep, I also have the #3 v3 and it gets the job done nicely. That was the first plane that I successfully configured with a tight-set chipbreaker, mostly because I wasn't using it very heavily at that point and was comfortable dedicating it to experimental setups (and where "successfully" means "achieved the David Weaver platonic ideal of tearout-free through strokes against the grain in difficult wood")

The only reason I didn't review it is because it's fairly unremarkable (which is actually a very good thing in a lower-cost plane).


Thanks for the review Patrick! I have a couple of their smaller smoothers and find them pretty well made too.
Fred

[Jim Koepke]

A good revue for those who may be looking to add to their fleet of planes.


Assuming somebody else out there wants to use a similar super-scrub setup with this plane, the purchasing decision may depend on whether you're comfortable taking a file to your brand new tool. The amount of adjustment I had to do wasn't all that significant in the grand scheme, but a lot of people buy new planes precisely to avoid that sort of thing. Also it somewhat degrades the value proposition of the plane relative to refurbishing something from Ebay (though those aren't the value they used to be).

What was it old woodworkers said about buying a plane? You aren't buying a plane, you are buying a kit to set up a plane. Even with their original thin Stanley blades some of my old Bailey style planes can not take a thick shaving without choking.

I will have to measure some of my scrub plane shavings. Most of the time my heavy bench plane shaving are ~0.015 or less. My scrub shavings may be a bit thicker.

Even some of my premium planes have had a little fettling done. Mostly just a little stone work on sliding mouths to make them move smoother.

A careful opening of a plane's mouth shouldn't have too much effect on price unless you are looking at something with a lot of collector value.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

A good revue for those who may be looking to add to their fleet of planes.
I will have to measure some of my scrub plane shavings. Most of the time my heavy bench plane shaving are ~0.015 or less. My scrub shavings may be a bit thicker.


The numbers I gave are based on blade width and camber radius, and assume that the plane is set up such that it just barely cuts edge to edge. For both a typical Scrub (1.5" wide, 3" radius) and my WR Jack (2" wide, 6" radius) that yields an *extremely* rank cut. I've used both of them that way on occasion, but mostly just to see if I could do it.

The depth of cut decreases rapidly as you reduce the shaving width. For example my #5 with 6" radius only takes a 33 mil shaving when the shaving width is reduced to 1.5". Similarly, the Veritas Scrub with a 3" radius blade takes a 30 mil cut when the shaving width is reduced to 1". Here's the math (in Python):

blade_depth = radius - math.sqrt(radius*radius - width*width/4)
projected_depth = blade_depth*math.sin(math.pi*bed_angle/180)

If you plug 12 deg in for bed_angle you can easily see why it's such an epic pain to get a useful amount of corner relief (projected_depth above) on BU plane blades.

[Trevor Goodwin]

I'd like to see a formula for determining minimum camber radius for a given mouth opening, frog angle, blade thickness & width; whilst still being able to take full width shavings.

Why bother with an 8" camber on a #5 if you can only take a cut 1" wide - might as well not bother sharpening the rest of the blade.

I've got vintage planes from Stanley, Record, Falcon, and a "USSR". The USSR is the only one with a factory mouth opening suitable for a massive camber. Sounds like Veritas have done a smart thing by making the mouth wider on their jack planes.

[Patrick Chase]

I'd like to see a formula for determining minimum camber radius for a given mouth opening, frog angle, blade thickness & width; whilst still being able to take full width shavings.

There's no general formula for that, because different mechanical configurations have different behaviors. The adjustment ranges on the Veritas planes aren't all that much larger. The big difference is that those designs don't have the potential for mechanical interference between the blade and sole, so the full adjustment range is (for the most part) available at all extensions and cut depths. On a Bed Rock clone like the WR the further you extend the blade, the less you can open the mouth. Note that the primary bevel also plays into this - increased bevel angle causes you to lose more mouth adjustment range at any given extension. That's why I left the primary bevel at 25 deg and only honed a thin secondary to 35.

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.finewoodworking.com/how-to/video/the-proper-camber-on-a-handplane-blade.aspx

[Robert Engel]

There is no design flaw. A #5 is not intended to be used as a scrub plane.
With that much camber did you really expect that plane to work?

Also with a 25 degree bevel don't expect the blade edge to hold up very long.
If you want a scrub plane go get a scrub plane!

[Daniel Rode]

There is no design flaw. A #5 is not intended to be used as a scrub plane.
With that much camber did you really expect that plane to work?

Also with a 25 degree bevel don't expect the blade edge to hold up very long.
If you want a scrub plane go get a scrub plane!
I'm not plane expert, but this sounds totally wrong to me.

A scrub plane and #5 (jack) plane are not the same thing, but the use for roughing stock is the same. It's worked mostly diagonal to the grain. A #5 is perfectly suited, with an aggressive camber, as the first step in preparing rough stock. While a #5 is a versatile plane, it's main use in my shop is roughing. In fact, I have no use for a true scrub plane like the #40. IMO, the shorter and narrower sole does not give enough registration.

[Patrick Chase]

I'm not plane expert, but this sounds totally wrong to me.

A scrub plane and #5 (jack) plane are not the same thing, but the use for roughing stock is the same. It's worked mostly diagonal to the grain. A #5 is perfectly suited, with an aggressive camber, as the first step in preparing rough stock. While a #5 is a versatile plane, it's main use in my shop is roughing. In fact, I have no use for a true scrub plane like the #40. IMO, the shorter and narrower sole does not give enough registration.

Yep, that's exactly right. If we go by historical (pre-power-tool) norms then I'm arguably misusing the rest of my jack/fore-class planes because they aren't set up for roughing (at least not as aggressively).

I read somewhere that there is also some historical evidence that the scrub was specifically designed for working edges, with the jack/fore almost exclusively handling surface roughing. There seems to be less unanimity on that point, and I personally use both planes on both edges and surfaces depending on whether I need the extra length of the jack.

[Patrick Chase]

There is no design flaw. A #5 is not intended to be used as a scrub plane.
With that much camber did you really expect that plane to work?

Also with a 25 degree bevel don't expect the blade edge to hold up very long.
If you want a scrub plane go get a scrub plane!

Traditionally the #5 is intended for a range of work, including roughing. That wide range where it gets its name: "jack" as in "jack of all trades". I therefore DO expect a Jack to work in this configuration, and most of the ones I own can do so "out of the box". The fact that the WR #5 can't be configured for such rank cuts out of the box is therefore an "interesting" design choice in a Jack.

On a more pragmatic level, there are cases where the sole of a scrub is a bit shorter than ideal for roughing. That's why Jacks and even Fores have a long history of such use.

You must not have read the part where I said (twice) that I used a 25-deg primary to mitigate the Bed Rock blade<->sole interference problem, but honed a 35-deg secondary. Roughing cuts require a fair amount of clearance in my experience, so you can't go all that much higher with the secondary. The edge holds up fine.

[Patrick Chase]

Yep, Love runs his Jack with about 30 mils of camber, which would corresponds to a 10" radius or so, and that's also how my #5-1/4W is set up. There are plenty of other sources suggesting more aggressive cambers closer to what I use on the WR (I know that Chris Schwartz suggested r=6" based on his historical readings, can't remember the others). It all depends on the intended use.

[Daniel Rode]

I read somewhere that there is also some historical evidence that the scrub was specifically designed for working edges, with the jack/fore almost exclusively handling surface roughing. There seems to be less unanimity on that point, and I personally use both planes on both edges and surfaces depending on whether I need the extra length of the jack.

I've read the same, but my only source is Christopher Schwarz.

I do very similar. I have a #5 setup like a jointer and another setup for "scrub" work. The former is used just like a jointer but for smaller stock. My #6 is sometimes a small jointer and sometimes a large fore/jack plane.

Also, thanks for the review. I have the WR #4 v3 and I like it except form the weight. I'm not sure if I'd like the extra weight of the WR #5.

[Jim Koepke]

blade_depth = radius - math.sqrt(radius*radius - width*width/4)
projected_depth = blade_depth*math.sin(math.pi*bed_angle/180)

If you plug 12 deg in for bed_angle you can easily see why it's such an epic pain to get a useful amount of corner relief (projected_depth above) on BU plane blades.

Doing the math is where my method has a problem. I have no idea how much radius is on the blade in what is my scrub plane. It was done by eye and feel.

When the thickness of a shaving is of interest, my dial caliper or micrometer provide a precise answer faster than I can do the math.

Here is a post of mine about cambering a blade in a different manner:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?158373-My-Camber-Blade-Round-Tuit-Finally-Came

One of my bevel up block planes came with the back camber and it was left the way it came since it is easier to work with it than to flatten the back.

jtk

[Robert Engel]

Lets just say in modern use the 5 is closer to a smoother than a scrub.
Primary reason is now being used post-power jointer rather than rough stock.
This is backed up (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/tools/understanding_bench_planes/2) by many knowledgeable ww'ers here is just one source.

Point I'm trying to make is don't fault a modern day plane for not being able to do something only its historical relatives could.
Times, they are a changin'....

[Patrick Chase]

Doing the math is where my method has a problem. I have no idea how much radius is on the blade in what is my scrub plane. It was done by eye and feel.

I take more or less the opposite approach - I created a set of templates with various radii and centering features to line them up on blades of varying width. I coat the tip of the blade with Dykem, scribe the desired radius from the template, and then grid back to that. I estimate there are several mils of imprecision throughout the process, but all of the blades I've done that way so far have measured very close to the predicted value.



Here is a post of mine about cambering a blade in a different manner:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?158373-My-Camber-Blade-Round-Tuit-Finally-Came

I would describe that as more "corner relief" than "camber". I prepare blades for my smoothers (where I just want a couple mils of relief) that way.



One of my bevel up block planes came with the back camber and it was left the way it came since it is easier to work with it than to flatten the back.

Yeah, I've seen that done and it works, but you have to be very careful to preserve clearance (if you add any significant amount of relief that way then it needs to be gradual and extend fairly far behind the edge) and also when removing the wire edge after subsequent honings. It's basically a variable ruler trick (more "tricking" at the edges than at the center).

[Jim Koepke]

Primary reason is now being used post-power jointer rather than rough stock.

There are still a lot of saw mills that do not surface their lumber before it is sold.

For many years my shop didn't have a scrub plane. Then I moved to an area with a lot of backyard saw mills.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

I take more or less the opposite approach - I created a set of templates with various radii and centering features to line them up on blades of varying width. I coat the tip of the blade with Dykem, scribe the desired radius from the template, and then grid back to that. I estimate there are several mils of imprecision throughout the process, but all of the blades I've done that way so far have measured very close to the predicted value.



I would describe that as more "corner relief" than "camber". I prepare blades for my smoothers (where I just want a couple mils of relief) that way.



Yeah, I've seen that done and it works, but you have to be very careful to preserve clearance (if you add any significant amount of relief that way then it needs to be gradual and extend fairly far behind the edge) and also when removing the wire edge after subsequent honings. It's basically a variable ruler trick (more "tricking" at the edges than at the center).
Hey Patrick, What radius's do you typically use for this cambering?

[Kees Heiden]

The real scrub seems to be more of a continental European development then an English one. Narrow, small wooden scrub planes have always played their part in Germany. Most of their planes are shorter then the English variants, only their jointer is long. In the Netherlands we seem to have had two schools. In Amsterdam they used a short small plane for scrub work, the famous "wale back plane" (gerfschaaf). In Rotterdam a somewhat longer plane, more like an English jack plane was used, but it had an extra tote on the front (the Roffel).

The English, at least since we know more about their planes, didn't have these scrub like planes. The used a jack plane. I have seen an interpretation from Peter Follansbee that a plane from the Mary Rose looked very much like one of the Dutch gerf planes and he uses that one like a scrub. That is long before the 18th century when the English plane shapes we are still familiar with took their final shape.

Stanley made the #40 scrub plane. Maybe that was in response to demand from the many German settlers? Just an idea. Anyway, I don't know if the modern plane makers have a really well rounded opinion about how their planes are supposed to be used. They just make a range of sizes, all pretty much the same, just different lengths and widths. It is up to the user to configure them. In my opinion a #5 should be able to sport at least an 8" camber.

[Patrick Chase]

Lets just say in modern use the 5 is closer to a smoother than a scrub.
Primary reason is now being used post-power jointer rather than rough stock.
This is backed up (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/tools/understanding_bench_planes/2) by many knowledgeable ww'ers here is just one source.

Point I'm trying to make is don't fault a modern day plane for not being able to do something only its historical relatives could.
Times, they are a changin'....

A few thoughts:

1. If you look back at my review you will see that I the very first thing I said was "TLDR - Think carefully before buying this plane if you intend to do rank cuts with a heavily cambered blade". If a reader intends to use it as a super-smoother or for shooting then I trust that they will realize that the concerns I voiced are likely to be less important to them than to me. I've found that a lot of reviewers aren't clear about such things, and that's why I go out of my way to be explicit (classic example: The FWW "waterstone test" that really should have been titled "Best waterstones if you only use A2").

2. I personally don't find Jacks all that useful for smoothing because they don't follow the surface very well. If anything I've started leaning more towards planes like the #3 and the Veritas Small BUS. Others have different preferences, though.

3. As a former mechanical engineer I don't buy the idea that the sole needs to support the entire frog or the tip of the blade. IMO a slightly larger mouth on this specific plane is all-gain, no-pain, and given that it is a "jack" I think that would have been a sound product decision on balance. Even with the filed-open mouth it still works nicely as a smoother (I've tried it).

[Patrick Chase]

Hey Patrick, What radius's do you typically use for this cambering?

Before I list them out, I have 3 cautionary notes:

1. Like bed angle, camber can end up being an excuse to acquire an ever-expanding array of planes (or at least blades). While it helps to have an assortment of camber radii in Jacks/Fores (and an assortment of angles in smoothers), it isn't strictly necessary.

2. Camber is one of those things that's highly personal and subjective. For Jacks I definitely lean towards the high, pre-power-tool end of the range. For jointers I use a flatter blade than many people and rely more on lateral adjustment tweaks to plane an edge out of wind (if you have a cambered blade then you can correct wind that by controlling the lateral position of the work w.r.t. the blade). Those choices are arguably inconsistent, but they work for how I use each.

3. In a smoother you don't want to go overboard, because camber can make it harder to use a tight-set chipbreaker. IMO you want the minimum amount of camber that allows you to not leave tracks with your technique.

With that said, here's what I use:

My smoothers (#3, #4, high-angle #4, #4-1/2, Veritas Small BUS, BUS, and LAS) and jointers (#7, #8, Veritas BUJ) have relieved corners, by which I mean that the center of the blade is ~flat, with a subtle radius on each end such that the corner cuts a few (smoothers) or several (jointers) mils less than the center. I also have one #5 (of 2) configured this way. Basically all of by BU planes including jacks just have relieved corners, because you have to use *really* tight radii to get meaningful camber out of a 12 deg blade.

For my Scrub I've prepared both 3" and 4" radius blades (~70 and ~50 mil cuts at full width, respectively). I choose between them based on the amount of material to be removed and the difficulty of pushing the plane.

The #5-1/4W has a 12" radius (takes a ~30 mil cut at full-width)

The second #5 has a 6" radius (takes a ~60 mil cut at full-width)

The #6 has a 16" radius (also a ~30 mil cut at full-width)

[Trevor Goodwin]

I've never considered the jack plane as a roughing out tool as a lot of people seem to treat it. From what I can gather it is a concept started by Chris Shwarz, no doubt backed up by something he found in a old book. If jack planes were meant to be used like scrubs then manufacturers wouldn't bother machining them as well the smoothers and the mouths would be wider. I've also never seen a vintage plane in person or on the 'bay that has a heavily cambered blade - if blokes weren't doing it 50 years ago why are we doing it now?


If you want a scrub then modify a non-valuable #3 or #4, buy a #40, or get a woodie. It's nice that Veritas let you use a 6" camber with their adjustment mechanism, but I think its a waste of their excellent machining to just use the plane for rough work.

[Patrick Chase]

I've never considered the jack plane as a roughing out tool as a lot of people seem to treat it. From what I can gather it is a concept started by Chris Shwarz, no doubt backed up by something he found in a old book. If jack planes were meant to be used like scrubs then manufacturers wouldn't bother machining them as well the smoothers and the mouths would be wider. I've also never seen a vintage plane in person or on the 'bay that has a heavily cambered blade - if blokes weren't doing it 50 years ago why are we doing it now?

They WERE doing it 50 years ago. That's exactly the point that several people have made and that you're willfully ignoring. This isn't something that Schwartz started - the only part for which he's a source was the business about Scrubs being edge-specific. The rest of it is spelled out in basically every vaguely relevant bit of literature.

Let's start with the well known Blood and Gore site (http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm): "[the #5] is the first plane used on rough stock to prepare the surface prior to use of the jointer and smoother". That sounds suspiciously like roughing to me.

Or how about Lee Valley's newsletter article (http://http://www.leevalley.com/newsletters/Woodworking/2/5/article1.htm) on the topic of squaring boards using hand planes. They identify the fore as the preferred plane (which was traditional choice in England) but specifically call out a jack as an alternative. You will see this recurring pattern as you learn how the various planes are intended to be used: "X is ideal, but a jack will also work". Again, this reflects the multipurpose nature of the jack.

I could go on, but I think everybody can figure out how to research this on their own.


If you want a scrub then modify a non-valuable #3 or #4, buy a #40, or get a woodie. It's nice that Veritas let you use a 6" camber with their adjustment mechanism, but I think its a waste of their excellent machining to just use the plane for rough work.

The whole reason I decided to set up a Jack for roughing over a Scrub is because I wanted the extra length. A 3, 4, or 40 wouldn't meet that objective, though I thought long and hard about using a Fore (#6) instead. I fail to see why a woodie would be preferable - IMO that's mostly a matter of subjective taste.

EDIT: w.r.t. waste of excellent machining, that's why I didn't scrubify one of my Veritas planes. Look at the subject of the thread again...

[Patrick Chase]

They WERE doing it 50 years ago. That's exactly the point that several people have made and that you're willfully ignoring. This isn't something that Schwartz started - the only part for which he's a source was the business about Scrubs being edge-specific. The rest of it is spelled out in basically every vaguely relevant bit of literature.

Now that I think about it 50 years would be 1965, which is solidly into the power-tool era and not useful for determining the traditional use of a given plane. So maybe more like 70 then?

[steven c newman]

Lets see....I have a Millers Falls No.14, with the edge straight across. It is used as a smooth plane, mostly

I have a type6 Stanley #5c with a shallow camber. Does most of the Schwarz "Jack plane" work.

I also have a Corsair C-5 jack scrub plane. It does have a rather large mouth, the camber is just under 8" radius. It acts like a scrub plane, but it is 14" long.

Then, there is the H-F Windsor #33.....$10 #3 sized scrub plane. BIG mouth, 3" radius, cambered iron that is quite thick, has no chip breaker. One very hungry little beastie!

Have some 1x4 walnut slabs to flatten out later this week.....shouldn't take too long with what I have listed.....

[Robert Engel]

A few thoughts:

1. If you look back at my review you will see that I the very first thing I said was "TLDR - Think carefully before buying this plane if you intend to do rank cuts with a heavily cambered blade".

Oops guess I missed that.

One thing I do know there is an advantage to being able to close the mouth down.
If its working nicely for you its because the grain is agreeable.

I still agree with the poster re: why take a new plane and alter it instead of picking up an old Stanley?

[Reinis Kanders]

Woodie jack is lighter and there is less friction. I use both 5 1/2 and woodie jacks, but for really from the rough planing and longer sessions I use 16" wooden jack with heavy camber. I actually bought the plane from Bob Rozaieski. Woodie just kind of flies and shavings are ejected better.


I fail to see why a woodie would be preferable - IMO that's mostly a matter of subjective taste.

[Patrick Chase]

One thing I do know there is an advantage to being able to close the mouth down.

Just to be clear, filing open the mouth the way I did (~1 mm total, split between front and back edges) doesn't prevent you from closing it all the way down. The only difference is that the frog extends a bit more beyond the sole of the plane when you close all the way down. I personally don't think that's an issue - the frog is plenty beefy and doesn't need to be attached to the sole along its entire length. That's why I've been so vocal that I think that just shipping the plane with a wider mouth would have been "no pain, all gain". It's a bit difficult to explain if you aren't familiar with the Bed Rock frog configuration and its associated tradeoffs though.

DANGER - WARNING - RANT

Unfortunately there are a few "experts" out there who insist that the the sole needs to extend all the way to the primary bevel of the blade to prevent "chatter". Some of those experts also happen to be very good woodworkers, and casual readers often assume that those experts' woodworking results are caused by or otherwise validate their superstitions about plane design. That's one of the things I like about Veritas' designs BTW: They don't tend to compromise functionality out of blind adherence to hoary old traditions...

[Stewie Simpson]

Your well on your way to sounding like an expert Patrick.

[Robert Engel]

Patrick, I've never understood the chatter phenomenon. I've heard some say its from faulty iron/frog and or cap iron seating, or thin blades, dull blades, etc. Thin blade idea dispelled, of course by Mr Sellers. My experience seems to indicate dull blade + light cut make chatter more likely.

But I do agree with you not related to mouth opening.

I have planed with open and closed mouths, and never seen that much difference -- in wood that is cooperating. I've always understood have a closed mouth is a remedy for wild or uncooperative grain because the shaving is lifted in a shorter arc, but in my experience tear out still occurs with a closed down mouth, albeit not as violent. I don't think that a substitute for high angle frog and certainly not a scraper.

Must say I misunderstood you re: filing mouth I assumed it was much more metal that is why I commented like I did. I tried to put a cambered blade in a WR #4 and there was no way to make it work for same reason no matter how far back I set the frog. I would have had to remove much more than 1mm. The whole endeavor was a futility

[Stewie Simpson]

An optional approach for a smoothing plane iron.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cambering+plane+irons&biw=943&bih=386&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLpKn-qNHJAhUFkpQKHTrmCMMQsAQIWQ#imgdii=-Z0DQdpUAaQgLM%3A%3B-Z0DQdpUAaQgLM%3A%3Bkn2HmN7PWqmQgM%3A&imgrc=-Z0DQdpUAaQgLM%3A

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cambering+plane+irons&biw=943&bih=386&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLpKn-qNHJAhUFkpQKHTrmCMMQsAQIWQ#imgrc=kn2HmN7PWqmQgM%3A

[Patrick Chase]

An optional approach for a smoothing plane iron.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cambering+plane+irons&biw=943&bih=386&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLpKn-qNHJAhUFkpQKHTrmCMMQsAQIWQ#imgdii=-Z0DQdpUAaQgLM%3A%3B-Z0DQdpUAaQgLM%3A%3Bkn2HmN7PWqmQgM%3A&imgrc=-Z0DQdpUAaQgLM%3A

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=cambering+plane+irons&biw=943&bih=386&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjLpKn-qNHJAhUFkpQKHTrmCMMQsAQIWQ#imgrc=kn2HmN7PWqmQgM%3A

Yep. Assuming you're using your #4 for smoothing that's the approach it in my experience. You should only need a few mils of relief to avoid tracks at smoothing cut depths, and the easiest way to accomplish that is to simply relieve the corners a bit. It works for jointers as well provided you're careful not to extend the rounding too far in from the edges (and assuming that you're willing to use lateral adjustment to deal with out-of-wind edges).

Also, I'm not an "expert" because I'm not and don't claim to be very good at woodworking :).