Skew irons for wooden planes

[Oskar Sedell]

Hi all,

after coming up short when searching the interwebs I'll turn to the expertise here. I'm playing with the idea of building a dedicated wooden shooting plane and a shooting board. With dedicated I mean low angle (35-38 deg bedding), bevel down and a skewed iron.

Philly planes has a skew miter which has these features. I've mailed them asking about the iron, but no answer yet. Any suggestions on where to find a iron for my project? Around 2 inches wide, preferrably tapered and pretty thick.

Best regards,

Sedell

ps. I don't have a grinder to regrind a standard iron.

[Matthew N. Masail]

Buy a grinder. I bought the Metabo 6" regular speed, it was cheap (60$) and still runs perfectly after 5 years. You should have a grinder

[Stewie Simpson]

Oskar. Have you tried sourcing your plane iron from Gerd Fritsche. Location: (Bavaria;Germany.)

http://www.traditional-handplanes.com/planeblades.php

He is only a 3hr 17min drive from your location in Heidelberg; Germany.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/dir/Heidelberg,+Germany/Bavaria,+Germany/@49.2471393,8.1907071,6z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x4797c1050eccdccd:0xefe 6ea0044243ad7!2m2!1d8.6724335!2d49.3987524!1m5!1m1 !1s0x479f044c0fdf53a9:0x11d25a409387960!2m2!1d11.4 978895!2d48.7904472!3e0

You could also make contact with Gerd via his email or phone no. Check his website for details.

regards Stewie;

[Oskar Sedell]

Thanks for the replies!

Matthew: Yes, you're right. At some point I will get myself a grinder. But at the moment I don't even have a proper shop, so I stick to smaller projects, like toolmaking and restoration until I have a better work area.

Stewie: Great, I missed Gerd Fritsche. I will write him immediately.

EDIT: I'm pretty new to planemaking, but my two woodies so far turned out nice. Anyone here who made a skew miter or similar plane? Anything I should think twice about when cutting the mouth and abutments? Other design features for a shooting plane?

[Steve Voigt]

Not that you asked for any advice, but just FYI, my own attempts at very low angle + skew have not been terribly happy…the low sharpening angle needed makes the edge more fragile, the skew makes it still more fragile, and end grain shooting is one place where the edge can't be fragile. If you make it 35°-38°, you will constantly be fighting to get an edge that won't chip and still provides the requisite clearance angle.

A couple months ago Richard Arnold, on his Instagram page (https://www.instagram.com/arnold_richard/), posted the only pic I've ever seen of a vintage wooden skewed shooting plane. He put up a drawing; the bed was 45° and the skew was only 12°. That makes sense to me; the benefits of low angle/lots of skew are outweighed by the need to fight for clearance angle. I think if you keep the bed above 40° and the skew below 15°, you'll be a lot happier. Just my (unsolicited) 2 cents…good luck with your build.

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.phillyplanes.co.uk/skew.html

[Oskar Sedell]

Not that you asked for any advice, but just FYI, my own attempts at very low angle + skew have not been terribly happy…the low sharpening angle needed makes the edge more fragile, the skew makes it still more fragile, and end grain shooting is one place where the edge can't be fragile. If you make it 35°-38°, you will constantly be fighting to get an edge that won't chip and still provides the requisite clearance angle.

A couple months ago Richard Arnold, on his Instagram page (https://www.instagram.com/arnold_richard/), posted the only pic I've ever seen of a vintage wooden skewed shooting plane. He put up a drawing; the bed was 45° and the skew was only 12°. That makes sense to me; the benefits of low angle/lots of skew are outweighed by the need to fight for clearance angle. I think if you keep the bed above 40° and the skew below 15°, you'll be a lot happier. Just my (unsolicited) 2 cents…good luck with your build.

Thanks Steve, this was exactly the kind of answer I was interested in. My inspiration was the Philly Skew miter in the link above, and I assume it has been tested and found a good combination of bedding/skew angles. Its interesting to hear about your experience and I will think about this. Does the roles/influence of skew and bedding depend on wether I'm shooting hardwood or softwood?

Also, it just struck me that there are two ways of defining the bedding angle, either perpendicular to the mouth, or along the length of the plane. I was visualizing the latter.

[Derek Cohen]

Oskar, rather than grind a skew on the blade, use a straight blade on a skewed bed. For example, the Stanley/LN/Veritas shooting plane beds have a 20 degree skew. The advantage of this design is a blade without weak areas.

Regards from London

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

My own experience with making skew mitre planes suitable for shooting is rather limited.

1 dedicated for left hand use; and the other for right hand use.

Shown below is the RH plane.

Stewie;

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/RH%20SHOOTING%20PLANE/SDC10655.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/RH%20SHOOTING%20PLANE/SDC10655.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/RH%20SHOOTING%20PLANE/SDC10656.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/RH%20SHOOTING%20PLANE/SDC10656.jpg.html)

http://i1009.photobucket.com/albums/af219/swagman001/RH%20SHOOTING%20PLANE/SDC10654.jpg (http://s1009.photobucket.com/user/swagman001/media/RH%20SHOOTING%20PLANE/SDC10654.jpg.html)

[Stewie Simpson]

I have a deep respect for the work being done by Bill Carter from the U.K.

http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/8.html

[Patrick Chase]

Oskar, rather than grind a skew on the blade, use a straight blade on a skewed bed. For example, the Stanley/LN/Veritas shooting plane beds have a 20 degree skew. The advantage of this design is a blade without weak areas.

Regards from London

Derek

That may not be a practical solution on a (relatively high-sided) woody.

The reason the planes you list could be designed that way is because their thin iron soles don't impose any constraints on how far the blade can extend laterally (upward when the plane is oriented as on a shooting board).

EDIT: I'm glad I said "may not". Obviously shooting in general doesn't impose any constraint on how far the entire plane can extend upward (again when the plane is oriented as on a shooting board), so I suppose if you didn't care about weight/bulk you could just make the plane wide/tall enough to accommodate a rotated blade. It seems to me that might complicate construction, though, as you'd then have tapered cheeks...

[Patrick Chase]

Oskar. Have you tried sourcing your plane iron from Gerd Fritsche. Location: (Bavaria;Germany.)

http://www.traditional-handplanes.com/planeblades.php

Conventionally processed (non-PM) D2 is an interesting choice for plane blades. At ~12% Cr D2 is much of the way to stainless, which leads to large carbide particles and limited edge keenness. IMO it's a good choice for mortising chisels (https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/item/MS-MORT.XX/English_Mortise_Chisels_by_Ray_Iles) though.

Of course if you form a steel of broadly similar composition by sintering (PM) then that's a whole different ball game (http://www.pm-v11.com/Story.aspx).

[Oskar Sedell]

You are all fantastic, lots of good input here.

Stewie: Nice plane, pretty close to what I made up in my head. What are the dimensions? Comments on the design, anything you would change if you had the chance?

Derek: Thanks for chiming in, and good point. I thought the same as Patrick did, about how to get the plane blank to accomodate this. But of course, there are no rules saying you cant have more wood on the upward side (when in use). Do you have an example picture ?

Patrick: I asked specifically about this in my mail to Gerd Fritsche. I really like the O1 steel in my Hock irons. I don't know anything about D2. But I care a lot about that final sharpness (especially on endgrain), and I'm using synthetic and natural water stones. Do you think I should avoid D2?

Best regards,

Oskar

[Kees Heiden]

D2 is kind of a weird choice, also for a chisel. It is actually less tough then O1 or A2. The large carbides tend to break out of the steel matrix. It does have very good wear charactaristics but might indeed not get as keen as O1. It is more work to sharpen too.

I don't understand why they choose D2 for those mortise chisels. Maybe in practice it is all half as bad as I imagine.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick: I asked specifically about this in my mail to Gerd Fritsche. I really like the O1 steel in my Hock irons. I don't know anything about D2. But I care a lot about that final sharpness (especially on endgrain), and I'm using synthetic and natural water stones. Do you think I should avoid D2?

It depends how obsessive you are about sharpness, but D2 raises at least a yellow flag from my perspective. I would want to either see positive references from trusted sources, or design in a fallback path to some other steel.

For reference, here's the composition of A2:

C=1.00%, Si=0.30%, Mn=1.0%, Cr=5.20%, Mo=1.1%, V=0.2%

And here's the composition of D2:

C=1.50%, Si=0.30%, Mn=0.35%, Cr=12.00%, Mo=0.80%, V=0.60%

D2 is worrisome from a sharpening perspective because it combines a lot of excess carbon (beyond the 0.8% eutectoid threshold) and a lot of Chromium. Those will combine to form chromium carbides, and with conventional (non-PM) processing those carbides will be large. Hock's book has micrographs of O1, A2, and D2 on p. 20. The capsule summary is that the grain structure of conventional D2 is many times more coarse than A2, which is in turn many times more coarse than O1.

With all of that said, I have no experience with Fritsche's blades, and for all I know he's using PM D2 and just forgot to advertise that on his website. As I said, it's a yellow flag...

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/bladetest.html

[Patrick Chase]

D2 is kind of a weird choice, also for a chisel. It is actually less tough then O1 or A2. The large carbides tend to break out of the steel matrix. It does have very good wear charactaristics but might indeed not get as keen as O1. It is more work to sharpen too.

I don't understand why they choose D2 for those mortise chisels. Maybe in practice it is all half as bad as I imagine.

D2 isn't terribly tough as measured by Chapy C-notch, but it is very wear-resistant. As you say, the negative is that the carbides are huge, and much more problematic even than A2 in that respect.

[Patrick Chase]

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/bladetest.html

The words say "the resulting edges were just as sharp as blades made with other steels" but his pictures sure don't look that way. Those shiny spots along the edge look like carbide voids, which is exactly what one would expect from D2.

EDIT: Of course it's pretty hard to determine anything from Brent's pictures. Sort of like reading tea leaves IMO.

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/Gramercy%20D2.html

[Oskar Sedell]

Not that you asked for any advice, but just FYI, my own attempts at very low angle + skew have not been terribly happy…the low sharpening angle needed makes the edge more fragile, the skew makes it still more fragile, and end grain shooting is one place where the edge can't be fragile. If you make it 35°-38°, you will constantly be fighting to get an edge that won't chip and still provides the requisite clearance angle.

Hi again, I've been thinking about this. Why is it that the skew makes the edge more fragile? I'm thinking that the bevel angle is what it is, and the skew would rather make less stress on the edge, since it enters the wood gradually. How are you thinking about this?

I got a reply from Phil at philly planes, he is grinding his blade with 25 degree bevel, making for a 13 degree clearance. If there is a problem with the edge, one could increase the bed angle with a couple of degrees, still having 10 degrees clearance.

Best regards,

Oskar

[Stewie Simpson]

Oscar. 12* clearance angle is generally considered the minimum target to aim when determining the primary bevel. Based on a 38* bed angle; 25* primary bevel =13* clearance angle; I cant see a problem. Phil Edwards is a well respected traditional plane maker. I see no reason to doubt his recommendations.

[Kees Heiden]

Once I did some tests with the clearance angle on a shooting board. Until then I hadn't ever seen evidence that a long clearance angle made a difference on long grain. But that experiment showed me that below 10 degrees the effect was weird. it looked like the edge was skipping spots. I was planing some hard maple. And that was with a sharp blade. Use creates an additional wear bevel on the underside of the edge which only makes the ssituation worse

When you have made a plane with 38 degree bedding angle you are very close that limit. 25 degrees bevel angle seems very low to me for an end grain situation. Especially with steels like A2 or D2 that are known for their chipiness with shallow bevel angles. I sharpen freehand and I am not "counting the degrees". I'm afraid I wouldn't like it, too little leeway.

[Kees Heiden]

When you think about it, a skew lowers the angles. In the planing direction it is as if you are walking up a hill not straight on but at an angle. This lowering of the angles not only goes for the cutting angle, but also for the bevel angle. So I guess the edge becomes even more vulnerable when skews are involved.

[Stewie Simpson]

When you think about it, a skew lowers the angles. In the planing direction it is as if you are walking up a hill not straight on but at an angle. This lowering of the angles not only goes for the cutting angle, but also for the bevel angle. So I guess the edge becomes even more vulnerable when skews are involved.

Kees; you may want to give the highlighted area of your post a little more thought.

Stewie;

[Patrick Chase]

Kees; you may want to give the highlighted area of your post a little more thought.

Stewie;

Stewie is right as usual. If anything the edge becomes less vulnerable as the plane cuts a narrower track, so the pressure (force per unit cutting edge area) is reduced. That reduction is very small at the sorts of angles we're talking about here, though (it's proportional to cos(skew_angle)).

Also the *total* cutting force may be reduced because skew lowers the effective cutting angle, but I don't know what if anything that actually does for the wear zone on the edge.

[Patrick Chase]

Hi again, I've been thinking about this. Why is it that the skew makes the edge more fragile? I'm thinking that the bevel angle is what it is, and the skew would rather make less stress on the edge, since it enters the wood gradually. How are you thinking about this?

Gradual entrance slows the rate of change of cutting force and makes the cut feel smoother to the user, but it doesn't do anything to reduce the forces at any given point along the edge. One way to think of that effect is that it staggers *when* each bit of edge is cutting but does nothing to change *how* it cuts.

With that said, skew can make the edge more robust for a different reason: It spreads the cutting forces out over more of the edge and thereby reduces cutting pressures. You really need to be at a skew angle of ~30 deg or more for that to be a significant effect though.

In theory the acutely angled leading corner becomes a weak spot as it isn't as well supported as a square one, but that's a nonissue for shooting (the topic of this thread) as that corner never sees wood.

[Patrick Chase]

Oskar, rather than grind a skew on the blade, use a straight blade on a skewed bed. For example, the Stanley/LN/Veritas shooting plane beds have a 20 degree skew. The advantage of this design is a blade without weak areas.


Sorry to double-reply, but... How would "weak areas" matter in a shooting plane?

[Kees Heiden]

Hmm, maybe I shouldn't do this from my head, so I could certainly be wrong. As I see it, everything gets stretched out when you put it on a skew in the plaining direction. Starting with a 45 degree bed and a 14 degree clearance angel, so the bevel is 31 degrees. Skew at 14 degrees. Cutting angle becomes 36, bevel 25 and clearance 10.
Just a quick calculation on my phone while sitting in the train, so please correct when neccessary.

[Patrick Chase]

Hmm, maybe I shouldn't do this from my head, so I could certainly be wrong. As I see it, everything gets stretched out when you put it on a skew in the plaining direction. Starting with a 45 degree bed and a 14 degree clearance angel, so the bevel is 31 degrees. Skew at 14 degrees. Cutting angle becomes 36, bevel 25 and clearance 10.
Just a quick calculation on my phone while sitting in the train, so please correct when neccessary.

All else being equal (cutting pressure etc) the durability of the edge is determined by its true geometry, not the cutting angle. The bevel is 31 deg in the example you give, period. We're not bending space-time here :-).

Of course all else isn't equal because as you say "everything gets stretched out", but that helps edge durability for two reasons. First, as you point out the cutting angle is reduced, which lowers total cutting force. In addition, that cutting force is spread out over 1/cos(14) = 1.03X as much edge, so even if the total cutting force were the same you would still see a 3% reduction in cutting pressure (as I said in another post, you need more like 30 deg of skew to realize significant benefits from this effect).

[Steve Voigt]

Hi again, I've been thinking about this. Why is it that the skew makes the edge more fragile? I'm thinking that the bevel angle is what it is, and the skew would rather make less stress on the edge, since it enters the wood gradually. How are you thinking about this?



Oskar,

I'll leave it to others to debate the physics; I can only tell you what I've experienced in practice. Skew edges are more likely to break down faster than non-skew edges. A 25 degree bevel will work fine for most things, but for shooting it is hard on a lot of blades. If you find that a blade doesn't hold up at 25, it's nice to have the option of increasing the bevel a little. If your blade is bedded at 38 or lower, it doesn't leave you a lot of room to play with.

I do think you are on the right track getting a blade from Phil. He has dealt with this problem and presumably he's found the right temper and hardness to make it work. And it's O1; I definitely would not screw around with D2 or A2 for this.

[Kees Heiden]

You're most probably right. But in the woodworking world, a skew angle is suppose to lower the cutting angle. I would say if that is true, then the clearance angle is also reduced. So if the bevel angle can be regarded as just as robust and doesn't play along the same "rules", then we are still looking at a reduced clearance angle. And we don't want to skimp too much on that one. This thread started with a skewed plane with 38 degree bedding angle. That is allready on the bare limits of clearance angle, so when you reduce that even further, you have no other option then lowering the bevel angle.

Hey, I'm just sparring some ideas. Fun to think about these things.

[Steve Voigt]

All else being equal (cutting pressure etc) the durability of the edge is determined by its true geometry, not the cutting angle. The bevel is 31 deg in the example you give, period. We're not bending space-time here :-).

Of course all else isn't equal because as you say "everything gets stretched out", but that helps edge durability for two reasons. First, as you point out the cutting angle is reduced, which lowers total cutting force. In addition, that cutting force is spread out over 1/cos(14) = 1.03X as much edge, so even if the total cutting force were the same you would still see a 3% reduction in cutting pressure (as I said in another post, you need more like 30 deg of skew to realize significant benefits from this effect).

Per my last post, I'll stay away from debating physics. But I will say that your first sentence does not comport with my experience. A blade beveled at 30 in a common pitch plane will outlast the same blade bedded at 55 or 60, every time. I think this is a consensus opinion among people who have experience with a variety of BD angles (whereas it's not an issue for the BU folks, for obvious reasons).

Side comment: It strikes me that some of the other commenters in this thread are not speaking from experience. Making a skewed bench plane is tricky; making one that performs well under the high stress of shooting, particularly when one is using a low angle that leaves zero margin of error, is even trickier. I don't doubt that Phil Edwards can do it (I have very high regard for Phil), but he has many hundreds of planes under his belt. His success may not be relevant or helpful to less experienced, amateur planemakers.

A related issue is Derek's idea of rotation, rather than skew. I think it is a genius idea in theory, but if there is one thing trickier than skewing, it's rotation. Anybody here ever built such a plane (for example, a badger plane, which is both rotated and skewed)? It's a lot harder than it looks! I would not recommend it unless you've already built a lot of more conventional planes.

[Derek Cohen]

I have both 12-degree bed BU and 45-degree bed BD shooting planes with 20 degree skewed and straight blades, as well as a low bed (37 degree) BD strike block plane with a straight blade, and have completed a number of tests involving different steels and bevel angles. The references are available.

Based on this I can state that the lower the bed angle, the less the stress on the blade. BU planes can get away with a 25 degree bevel, whether A2 steel or any other. By comparison, even PM-V11 is reduced to the ordinary at 25 degrees when used at a common angle (45 degrees) in a BD plane. 30 degrees is the minimum angle I would recommend in a BD plane. The low cutting angle benefit extends to the 37 degree strike block plane. A 25 degree bevel is quite satusfactory. 12 degrees clearance is more than sufficient - it is identical to the BU versions, such as the LV Shooting Plane and the LV and LN LA Jacks.

Patrick, what I was referring to as fragile in a skewed bladed shooter is when the blade, per se, is ground at a skew since the wedge end will be weak. It is one thing taking very fine shavings on edge grain with an Edge Plane or a Skew Block Plane; it is another thing planing into endgrain on a shooting board. The former does not experience the impact of the latter.

Regards from London

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

Per my last post, I'll stay away from debating physics. But I will say that your first sentence does not comport with my experience. A blade beveled at 30 in a common pitch plane will outlast the same blade bedded at 55 or 60, every time. I think this is a consensus opinion among people who have experience with a variety of BD angles (whereas it's not an issue for the BU folks, for obvious reasons).

How exactly do you think this contradicts what I said?

I said "First, as you point out the cutting angle is reduced, which lowers total cutting force". That's exactly the same point you made above.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, what I was referring to as fragile in a skewed bladed shooter is when the blade, per se, is ground at a skew since the wedge end will be weak.

This simply isn't right. There is no difference in the strength of the wedge end as a result of either skewing the edge or rotating the blade as you suggested. In both cases the effective geometry is exactly the same, with one exception: The very tip of the acute corner is somewhat weaker in a skewed blade, though that's irrelevant for shooting.

You don't need an ME degree to see that (though I have one and was once a professional ME FWIW).

EDIT : This assumes you grind to the same "true" bevel angle (as measured perpendicular to the edge) regardless of skew or lack thereof. Perhaps that's the root of the confusion?

[Steve Voigt]

How exactly do you think this contradicts what I said?

I said "First, as you point out the cutting angle is reduced, which lowers total cutting force". That's exactly the same point you made above.

You said: "All else being equal (cutting pressure etc) the durability of the edge is determined by its true geometry, not the cutting angle. The bevel is 31 deg in the example you give, period." I understood that to mean that durability is determined by the (in this case) 31° bevel angle. It seemed clear to me, but if you meant something else, please clarify.

Also, I did not take your comment above about lowered cutting force to be directly related to durability, nor should I--they are not equivalent.

[Steve Voigt]

Originally Posted by Derek Cohen

Patrick, what I was referring to as fragile in a skewed bladed shooter is when the blade, per se, is ground at a skew since the wedge end will be weak.




This simply isn't right. There is no difference in the strength of the wedge end as a result of either skewing the edge or rotating the blade as you suggested. In both cases the effective geometry is exactly the same, with one exception: The very tip of the acute corner is somewhat weaker in a skewed blade, though that's irrelevant for shooting.

You don't need an ME degree to see that (though I have one and was once a professional ME FWIW).


This is boring. If someone were to come in and say "well Derek, I've used lots of shooting blades, both skewed and straight, and my experience is different," then I would listen. But giving everybody a geometry and physics lesson doesn't change the fact that Derek is speaking from (extensive) experience. I often disagree with him, but I respect his experience. I love abstraction and theory, but it's not worth a hill of beans if it doesn't comport with concrete experience.

[Derek Cohen]

This simply isn't right. There is no difference in the strength of the wedge end as a result of either skewing the edge or rotating the blade as you suggested. In both cases the effective geometry is exactly the same, with one exception: The very tip of the acute corner is somewhat weaker in a skewed blade, though that's irrelevant for shooting.

You don't need an ME degree to see that (though I have one and was once a professional ME FWIW).

EDIT : This assumes you grind to the same "true" bevel angle (as measured perpendicular to the edge) regardless of skew or lack thereof. Perhaps that's the root of the confusion?

Substitute "pointy end" for "wedge end". I would have thought that was obviously what I was referring to (all bevels are a wedge, but ...) ...

Regards from London

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

This calculator lets you specify the mid angle, the tool thickness and the wheel radius and calculates 9 different heel and edge angles.
http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/grinder.html#grinderset

[Patrick Chase]

This simply isn't right. There is no difference in the strength of the wedge end as a result of either skewing the edge or rotating the blade as you suggested. In both cases the effective geometry is exactly the same, with one exception: The very tip of the acute corner is somewhat weaker in a skewed blade, though that's irrelevant for shooting.

You don't need an ME degree to see that (though I have one and was once a professional ME FWIW).

EDIT : This assumes you grind to the same "true" bevel angle (as measured perpendicular to the edge) regardless of skew or lack thereof. Perhaps that's the root of the confusion?


Substitute "pointy end" for "wedge end". I would have thought that was obviously what I was referring to (all bevels are a wedge, but ...) ...

Regards from London

Derek

But the topic of this thread was a wooden shooting plane. For the third time, the pointy end never touches wood in a shooting plane. It's irrelevant.

EDIT: That point *is* a limiter in, say, a Skew Rabbet, because in that application it cuts the inside corner of the joint. Of course in that case you don't have the option of rotating the blade anyway (assuming you want a vertical sidewall), so it's a bit of a "take it or leave it" proposition :-).

[Stewie Simpson]

The general direction of this thread remind me of the core reasons I moved away from making hand planes.

Stewie;

[Patrick Chase]

The general direction of this thread remind me of the core reasons I moved away from making hand planes.

Stewie;

Yeah, I'll back off now. I've pushed my point too hard. Sorry, all!

[Robert McNaull]

Oskar,

Check out Klaus Kretschmar's shooter part way down the page in the thread. I have read through most of this thread previously and believe that Klaus also built weights into the body of the plane for shooting. Nothing else to add other than an example of a skewed shooter if you haven't already been through the thread. Design also looks very similar to Stewie's plane which is a beauty as well.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?181681-A-Great-Woodie-Build-Off/page17

[Oskar Sedell]

Hi all, great response and interesting discussion. I've learned quite a lot from the comments. Thanks also for links on steel and and example planes.

I will order a blade from Phil Edwards, its O1 steel, thick and a tested design. I have a lot of respect for the build, and I know it is tricky to get it right. This is however part of the joy, and I'm confident that I can cut a mortise and abutments with the required precision.

Best regards,

Oskar

[Stewie Simpson]

Oscar. Have you considered the tooling your going to need to do this project.

Stewie;

[Oskar Sedell]

For my first woodie, a smoother with 2 inch Hock blade I chopped and pared the mouth and the abutments with chisels only. Finished my second plane yesterday (block plane in applewood), this time with the aid of an edge float and a small flush cut saw (I put a handle on a blade from an electric sabre saw).

I think I'll manage with chisels, and with a kiridashi kogatana and a skew chisel for the acute angles. Do you have anything else in mind, or maybe some advice?

I've seen that Phil also offers a skew float, but I felt like spending the money on the blade, and save some for the ever growing wish list.

[Stewie Simpson]

Oscar. I have also found the side float handy to have (push version); https://www.lie-nielsen.com/nodes/4098/planemakers-floats

The bed floats being sold within the attach I am not a big fan of; they lack adequate bite for their intended purpose, especially noticeable on hardwoods that I have a preference to work with. I ended up ordering a Sapphire coated Logier Luthier Rasp to replace my bed float. On receiving the rasp, the hand stitched teeth on both sides of the rasp felt like they had excellent bite. I need to return to some plane making work before I can properly access its real benefits. http://www.hand-stitched-rasp-riffler.com/saphir/rasps/luthier.html

Bill Carters method also uses a ground chisel to create a smooth finish; it does appear to be a worthwhile technique. http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/12.html

Stewie;

[Oskar Sedell]

Stewie, thanks for the input.

I'm sure both bed and side floats are handy. But I'm hesitant to spend the money for them, and I really enjoy the slow paring work with sharp chisels.

The ground-off chisel is something I want to try. I've seen David Weavers videos and it really seems like a nice tool, and a one with less risk of paring off to much in a moment of distraction. Next time I come over a beater chisel at the flea market I'm gonna try.

[Oskar Sedell]

finally I got around to make a plane for the Phil Edwards skew iron and I thought I'll post the result here.

Plane body: Pear wood
Wedge: 9 degrees, applewood.
Iron: Phil Edwards, 6 mm thick O1.

The bedding angle (B) is 38 degrees measured parallell to the side of the plane. The skew grind (G) of the iron is 75.5 degrees, measured against the side of the iron. The resulting skew angle (S) across the sole is 71.5 degrees, measured against the side of the plane. This amounts to or 90-71.5 = 18.5 degrees skew measured perpendicular to the side.

( For the interested, wanting to make a build with different angles the relation is cos(B)*cos(S) = cos(G), which assumes the sides are perpendicular to the sole i.e a trued blank )

337486

337487

337488

337489

First try worked out nice. Now to building a shooting board for some more testing and using. I'm curious to see how the edge holds up.

[Steve Voigt]

That looks fantastic, Oskar! Great job! I am very jealous of the beautiful pear and apple.

I'll be curious to see how the edge holds up. I made a plane a couple years ago with virtually the same geometry. I had bad luck with the edge on two vintage blades I tried. I suspect you may have better luck with the O1.

If I may make one small cosmetic suggestion: you should finish off the stopped chamfers with some gouge cuts, as is traditionally done. Pretty much any outcannel gouge with a medium sweep will work fine.

[Kees Heiden]

Indeed, that looks fantastic. Very tidy and tight mouth also. Great work!

[Stewie Simpson]

Wonderful work Oscar.

[Frederick Skelly]

Very nice work!

[James Waldron]

Very nice work. I hope it works as well as it looks and is as durable as the discussion here.

As for me, there got to be so many angels dancing on the tip of that pin that I lost count and instead made up a ramped shooting board. (It's my third one; they don't last.) It works pretty well too. Took a couple of hours to make. I use it with a Stanley 5 1/2, sharpened and honed as well as I can manage and set to cut 0.001-0.0015 inches. I get really nice shavings. I also get dead nuts square ends quick as a flash.

I hope your plane does as well. I look forward to hearing your progress with using it.

Fair winds and following seas,

Jim

[Oskar Sedell]

thanks for the nice words gentlemen! I'll report on the shooting board progress and on the edge stability if any problems show up.

Steve: I will consider tuning up the stopped chamfers. Now i carved a slight curve to the end of the chamfers (doesnt show very well on the pics, because they are so small... ). You are probably right that a more defined and bold gauge cut will look nicer. Do you have pictures of your plane? Did you solve your edge problem? steeper grind of the iron?

going on holiday now and will be back toolmaking in a week or so :)

[Steve Voigt]

thanks for the nice words gentlemen! I'll report on the shooting board progress and on the edge stability if any problems show up.

Steve: I will consider tuning up the stopped chamfers. Now i carved a slight curve to the end of the chamfers (doesnt show very well on the pics, because they are so small... ). You are probably right that a more defined and bold gauge cut will look nicer. Do you have pictures of your plane? Did you solve your edge problem? steeper grind of the iron?

going on holiday now and will be back toolmaking in a week or so :)


Oskar,

I don't have pictures…I solved the edge problem only by back-beveling the iron, which sort of defeated the whole purpose of the plane, so I never got around to adding chamfers and finishing touches. The experience led me to prefer the simpler design of an unskewed, 40° strike block plane.
Regarding the gouge cuts, I think I'll start another thread devoted to that topic. It'll be there when you get back from holiday. :)

[Oskar Sedell]

Steve,

thanks for your reply. Back from some days in the sun, hopefully I can put a shooting board together soon.

Thanks for starting a new thread on the stopped chamfers.

Best regards,

Oskar