FWIW FWW Article on Jack Planes

[Jim Koepke]

Saw a Fine Woodworking magazine on the shelf while shopping at HD the other day and picked it up.

There is an article on what is currently available on the market for Jack planes. The BD and BU designs are covered separately.

As is often the case, LN & LV take the cakes.

The author goes into detail about the work required to set up the planes and what short comings some of the planes had out of the box.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

Thanks Jim. I'll go look at it!

[Kevin Perez]

I'll go look at it!

I think more of us do that than buy the magazines!

[Patrick Chase]

Saw a Fine Woodworking magazin on the shelf while shopping at HD the other day and picked it up.

There is an article on what is currently available on the market for Jack planes. The BD and BU designs are covered separately.

As is often the case, LN & LV take the cakes.

The author goes into detail about the work required to set up the planes and what short comings some of the planes had out of the box.

jtk

Yeah, I have a digital sub and read that when it came out. I wasn't impressed. Some random observations:

Given that they gave the Veritas 5-1/4W a "Best Value" they probably should have known that mouth adjustment is via a (fairly unique) movable frog, not a movable toe.

Speaking of mouth adjustment, they make a big deal about being able to adjust the mouth without removing the blade, but fail to recognize that that's a distinction without a difference if adjusting the frog changes depth-of-cut (ahem, Bed Rock). Of all of the planes they tested, only the 5-1/4W and the ones with adjustable toes actually have independent blade and mouth adjustments. The Bed Rocks are arguably the worst of all since the settings are bidirectionally coupled: You often have to alternate between the two settings, particularly if you're in the range where the blade's primary bevel is at risk of contacting the sole. With that said I think the *real* flaw is emphasizing this aspect at all. Even Bed Rocks are simple to configure once you have the hang of it.

They generically describe metal bevel-down planes as "Bailey-style" (they aren't) and specifically describe the L-N #5 as such (it isn't - it's a spectacularly well-made Bed Rock clone).

The whole bit about chipbreakers is just wrong. A properly set "old style" chipbreaker will prevent chatter (to the extent that it happens at all in properly configured planes...) every bit as well as the new ones. What matters is how much pressure the chipbreaker leading-edge applies to the blade, and that's determined by the product of the interference/preload times stiffness. The newer-stype chipbreakers are much stiffer, but they also use much smaller preloads. Six one, half-dozen other, unless you consider the curvature issue that Warren raised over in the Veritas Custom Planes review thread - the old-type breakers arguably win on that count.

Even though he recommended the 5-1/4W he failed to note that it's *very* differently proportioned from the rest. The toe is longer than a standard #5, while the back is about the same length as a standard #4. All Veritas planes have long toes to some degree, but that one is an outlier even for them. I love mine, but that seems like the sort of information that somebody looking to buy a plane might find useful.

In short, this author appears to be ignorant.

[Reinis Kanders]

That article was a bit disappointing.
Where do you find LV 5 1/4W useful?

[Patrick Chase]

That article was a bit disappointing.
Where do you find LV 5 1/4W useful?

There's no question it's a bit of an oddball. Right now it has a moderately cambered (R=12") blade and is used for moderate material removal. I particularly like to use it on cupped boards because the long toe effectively "bridges" the cup and lets me attack it more aggressively (meaning that I can take deeper cuts without worrying about waste due to the plane "following" the cup at start-of-cut). With that said, the fact that I now have a #5 set up as a super-scrub has caused the 5-1/4W to see less use in that role.

I actually had the 5-1/4W before I had any jointers, and it's a very capable plane for moderately-sized work in that role. I miss having it for that, and will probably shift it back towards that sort of work going forward.

[Derek Cohen]

My disappointment with that article was that it treated #5 planes as smoothers (fine planes) using straight or mildly cambered blades. There was a mention of taking thicker shavings, but the article did not address using the plane as a coarse plane (thick shavings) with a (say) 8" cambered blade. Personally, I have no interest in a #5 as a smoother. I use a #5 as a coarse plane. I use a #3 or #4 as a smoother.

To that end, one would be looking at the lower end of the price range for value, since the fine adjustments and flatter soles no longer enter the equation (as they did when used as a smoother).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

My disappointment with that article was that it treated #5 planes as smoothers (fine planes) using straight or mildly cambered blades. There was a mention of taking thicker shavings, but the article did not address using the plane as a coarse plane (thick shavings) with a (say) 8" cambered blade. Personally, I have no interest in a #5 as a smoother. I use a #5 as a coarse plane. I use a #3 or #4 as a smoother.

To that end, one would be looking at the lower end of the price range for value, since the fine adjustments and flatter soles no longer enter the equation (as they did when used as a smoother).

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hey, where were you when I was getting pummeled for pointing out that the WR #5's mouth is too small for a 6" radius blade? :-)

We're in the minority here...

[Trevor Goodwin]

Hey, where were you when I was getting pummeled for pointing out that the WR #5's mouth is too small for a 6" radius blade? :-)

We're in the minority here...

Derek was busy getting pummeled by you in his Veritas custom review thread.

[Jim Koepke]

Given that they gave the Veritas 5-1/4W a "Best Value" they probably should have known that mouth adjustment is via a (fairly unique) movable frog, not a movable toe.

That was a big goof in the story. Not hard to see such creeping into a story where a dozen different planes are involved. When the author mentioned he preferred the Bailey adjuster over the Norris adjuster it is easy to guess if his preferences were the other way around the Veritas would have been the "Best Choice."


With that said I think the *real* flaw is emphasizing this aspect at all. Even Bed Rocks are simple to configure once you have the hang of it.

This article may not be aimed at the seasoned users who know all of this before the article was written. It seems to be aimed more toward someone buying their first 'new' plane. It did answer my questions about some of the other makers and what to expect in the way of quality, fit and finish.


They generically describe metal bevel-down planes as "Bailey-style" (they aren't) and specifically describe the L-N #5 as such (it isn't - it's a spectacularly well-made Bed Rock clone).

The author was talking about the adjustment mechanisms and dubbed the yoke and wheel as "Bailey-style" in comparison to the Norris-style adjuster.

After seeing this comment I went and read the article a second time. The author mentioned in his comments the LN plane, "with lateral and depth adjustments that had the least backlash of any of the Bailey-style planes." Two lines after this he mentions, "The Bedrock-style frog... "

There is also a distinction in the comments about the planes having Bedrock or Bailey-style frogs for mouth adjustments.


The whole bit about chipbreakers is just wrong. A properly set "old style" chipbreaker will prevent chatter (to the extent that it happens at all in properly configured planes...) every bit as well as the new ones. What matters is how much pressure the chipbreaker leading-edge applies to the blade, and that's determined by the product of the interference/preload times stiffness. The newer-stype chipbreakers are much stiffer, but they also use much smaller preloads. Six one, half-dozen other, unless you consider the curvature issue that Warren raised over in the Veritas Custom Planes review thread - the old-type breakers arguably win on that count.


Where were you when I brought up the physics of blade chatter and was virtually nailed to the wall for introducing complexities woodworkers wouldn't want to consider.


Even though he recommended the 5-1/4W he failed to note that it's *very* differently proportioned from the rest. The toe is longer than a standard #5, while the back is about the same length as a standard #4.

Another miss by someone trying to write a review of a dozen planes. Not quite an inch of difference in toe length. Anyone who is serious about purchasing a plane would likely look at the different maker's sites and see this little bit of information.


In short, this author appears to be ignorant.

That is a bit harsh. My guess is the author may have never handled most of the planes before taking on the article. He has been building furniture in Chicago for 30 years. Can't be too ignorant if he isn't starving.


My disappointment with that article was that it treated #5 planes as smoothers...
[snip]
To that end, one would be looking at the lower end of the price range for value...

Oops, too much was clipped from Derek's post. "To that end," isn't about smoothers. It is about his use of a jack plane for rougher work.

Actually the article, "The Jack of All Planes... From flattening to smoothing the No. 5 can do it all." doesn't get into blade cambering or other aspects we spend endless hours discussing. He does mention that the mouth adjustments are more likely to be used on this size plane more than any other.

As far as value goes, imo, people would be wise to purchase multiple old #5s and set them up for different uses as desired. That isn't what the magazine's advertisers would like to see.

To me my pre WW II Stanley/Bailey planes are a better value for most uses. The exception is why an LN #62 was purchased for use in my shop.

jtk

jtk

[Graham Haydon]

I read it and on the basis "The Jack of All Planes... From flattening to smoothing the No. 5 can do it all." So it seemed aimed at a first time buyer of a plane who would use it for just about anything and perhaps never add another or add more when they could. On that basis it seemed a decent write up.

[Patrick Chase]

Derek was busy getting pummeled by you in his Veritas custom review thread.

Wrong, look at the thread again. I posted my configuration (0.2 mm setback, 0.25 mm chipbreaker face) and Derek replied that I clearly didn't understand English->SI conversions because such a setup couldn't possibly work. A lively and ultimately productive discussion followed (and yes, I returned the favor a teeny bit).

God, I'm starting to sound like Weaver. Maybe I can get my description changed to "guest"... (and yes, that was an intentionally ironic ad hominem borderline-attack)