Coarse, Medium, Fine DVD

[Tom Bussey]

As some of you know, my wife and I have a hobby store that is open once a month. It is in Nashua Iowa and we just happen to be open tomorrow. It is also general knowledge I deal a lot in hand planes. I asked, on a different forum, for a recommendation on a hand plane DVD to be shown all day long in the room that houses the planes and tools. I bought the DVD Coarse, Medium, Fine by Christopher Schwarz. A lot agreed that there were a lot of better DVDs out there but a lot agreed that Chris would be a little more entertaining to the passer by.

I found what he had to say interesting at the least.

First off he used a transitional as a scrub plane. I have a couple setting on the shelf and the one thing that stood out to me is they have a large mouth and it can not be adjusted. I am not a fan of them so I didn't spend a lot of time really looking it over. I thought why not they are reasonably cheap, He liked jacks and fore planes for this job. I would tend to disagree on the fore plane if it were metal, but it is making good use of a transitional.

He also stated that he uses a lot of power tools, which I totally agree with but that there is a place for both. Sometimes it is faster to use hand tools Which I also totally agree with.
But then we get to the medium plane, and the first words out of his mouth, is copied word for word, don't skip the jointer plane. And this is where sole flatness becomes important. You want it as flat as you can get. If you are going to spend a lot of money on a tool, the place I would start to spend it is, I would really look at spending it on a Jointer plane. And I find it almost impossible to get an antique jointer flat. without the help of a specialized machine . And to this I totally agree with this. In fact I have ground so many planes after someone tried to lap them it would astound you. The one flaw I found in what he had to say is it was filmed in Lie Nielsen's studio and their #7 was used in the DVD. A LN's #7 really is a large investment.

Anyway I found the DVD interesting. And even though I have been doing metal planes for several years now I still learned several things, especially looking at it from a different point of view.

I liked the DVD and learned from it. So as I have thought it over I thought of many different application where the information could come in handy.

Thanks again,

Tom

[Patrick Chase]

The one flaw I found in what he had to say is it was filmed in Lie Nielsen's studio and their #7 was used in the DVD. A LN's #7 really is a large investment.

Well, *somebody* had to pick up the tab for the DVD's production costs. Higher profit margin -> larger marketing budget...

EDIT: Just to be clear, my remark above was snarky and not a reflection of my true opinions about LN. I have a few of their planes and one more on the way, and they're terrific tools IMO. I doubt their margins are truly all that high, particularly when you consider their volumes and the need to recoup design costs and similar (non-marketing) overheads.

[Graham Haydon]

Hi Tom

Thanks for the short review. You missed a trick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4tDcCEMjDU

It's quite clear Chris must be a heavy user of power tools or does very little stock prep hence the choice of heavy modern planes. These work well if you use them to shoot a power planed edge every so often. I can't think of a worse choice of tool to own if you want to prep stock by hand.

If you're going to work from rough sawn boards a wooden try plane is unsurpassed and is just as good at shooting an edge. It's so easy to keep the sole in good shape on a wooden plane too. With ebay's global shipping programme it's easy to pick good ones from the UK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnHW9_gK2l8 or you can go to the one plane maker who makes a plane suitable for "medium" work. http://www.voigtplanes.com/try.html

Having a sole of a plane in the right condition to use is very important but equally so is the weight, friction and how to do use it effectively. There again if most of someones experience is with mainly with power tools they'll likely obsess over engineering solutions and tolerances.

If you want to flatten a vintage #7, Tom you provide a great service based on what I've read on this forum

[steven c newman]

IF you can access Youtube, go to The Woodwright's Shop on pbs.org. Chris and Roy presented an entire 1/2 hour show to the joys of hand planes......Might about 3-4 yrs old, but still watchable...

[Patrick Chase]

Hi Tom

Thanks for the short review. You missed a trick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4tDcCEMjDU

It's quite clear Chris must be a heavy user of power tools or does very little stock prep hence the choice of heavy modern planes. These work well if you use them to shoot a power planed edge every so often. I can't think of a worse choice of tool to own if you want to prep stock by hand.

If you're going to work from rough sawn boards a wooden try plane is unsurpassed and is just as good at shooting an edge. It's so easy to keep the sole in good shape on a wooden plane too. With ebay's global shipping programme it's easy to pick good ones from the UK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnHW9_gK2l8 or you can go to the one plane maker who makes a plane suitable for "medium" work. http://www.voigtplanes.com/try.html

Who on Earth "work[s] from rough sawn boards" with a *try* plane? We have scrubs and jacks for that. The try doesn't come out until the workpiece is reasonably close.

Also, while Steve makes great planes by all accounts, I doubt very much that he would claim to be "the one plane maker who makes a plane suitable for medium work". There are a LOT of people out there making functionally similar planes in that size class. It's not like Steve invented or significantly deviated from the classic try pattern after all...

I have both wooden and metal jointers. While I like the wooden one a lot, and have considered upgrading to one of Steve's, I don't think that the bottom-line difference is anywhere near as dramatic as you suggest. Some people are more sensitive to weight than others, and that subjective sensitivity/preference is what will determine which sort of plane each individual prefers.

[Brian Holcombe]

I can't speak for Graham, but I believe he means using the try as part of the group of planes used to work wood from the rough. I can certainly agree that a wooden soled plane provides a great user experience. In fact the purpose for my change from a majority of metal planes to that of wooden soled planes was originally made on David Weaver's recommendation followed by his efforts for the purpose of alleviating that which was bothering me, the amount of friction produced by a dead flat sole of a metal plane.

I like my 7 for edge jointing, pretty much final passes and that is about it.

I like to do as much work as possible with a wooden Jack, followed by the try plane and finally the smoother. I've moved toward more and more work performed with the Jack plane as I've five tuned my approach.

[David Eisenhauer]

Brian, can you please identify in a little more detail your jack (a Weaver special?), try (definitely not sure about this one) and your smoother planes of preferred choice?

[Brian Holcombe]

Certainly.

I use a jack plane by David Weaver, followed by a try plane, also by David Weaver and I follow that up with either a kanna (Japanese plane) or a LN #4 bronze smoother. If I'm jointing an edge, I finish that edge with a LN 7 (typically) sometimes followed by a kanna or smoother and sometimes not.

I've modified my LN planes, somewhat recently, to change the blades from LN A2 to an O1 blade by Ron Hock and Hitachi blue 2 blade by Tsunesaburo.

Here's the Tsunesaburo blade in the LN 7;

https://brianholcombewoodworkerblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/img_5178.jpg

Jack and Try plane by David Weaver

https://brianholcombewoodworkerblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/img_5179.jpg

LN 4 with a Hock Iron

https://brianholcombewoodworkerblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/img_5181.jpg

70mm Yokoyama Kunio in Togo-ko (cambered), 70mm Nakano in White 1(flat), Kikuhiromaru 65mm in white 1 (not sharpened yet), Kunio 48mm in blue 1 (cambered).

https://brianholcombewoodworkerblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/img_5180.jpg

[Graham Haydon]

Patrick, the DVD was "Coarse, Medium, Fine". With a title like that I'd assume that a large portion of it would was about taking rough boards to finish planed? I did not deal with the first part, I use a jack. Tom was discussing the merits of the "Jointer" plane so I jumped in there. Forgive me if my understanding of language is off but I normally assume that on US forums a Jointer is actually being used as a Try plane? Used within a combination of planes to make wood suitable for the task at hand rather than edge jointing very long boards.

From my perspective I don't think there is any modern maker who produces a plane more effective than Steve for the try plane stage of the work. There are plenty who make excellent quality tools that would be very well suited to a power tool user who takes fine refining cuts off nicely machined boards. But none who make a suitable tool for someone who chooses to convert rough stock. If someone wants to use a heavy modern metal plane to do that then please do, it's just not the most effective way as Brian has pointed out too.

The bottom line is dramatic. When people were using hand tools only (pre 1850) they did not choose to make heavy, metal soled planes to prepare wood.

[David Eisenhauer]

Thanks. I remembered the Weaver jack, but had forgotten about the Weaver try plane. What is the plane length and blade width of the try plane?

[Stewie Simpson]

Both Chris and Roy provide the viewers with what they want. Entertainment. Have a read of their bio's.

[John Glendening]

So you're saying that neither has skills - except for entertainment?

[Ray Selinger]

It's interesting seeing the different perspectives from different countries. In the States 1850 was pre- industrial revolution. (the Civil War changed that, much like the WW2 did for Canada) . I think Bailey patients were in the 1860s . So you have to look at early 1900s. Also tools, even in North America, were very expensive. As a tradesman I though long and hard about buying a Record #07C in 1980. So a lot of tradesmen would buy the kids shoes and go on using an old woody.

[Pat Barry]

... When people were using hand tools only (pre 1850) they did not choose to make heavy, metal soled planes to prepare wood.
This is an interesting comment. I wonder when metal planes actually came into use? I would not have thought that they were generally available til much later than 1850.

[Warren Mickley]

We use a jack plane to rough plane a surface. We use a trying plane on the face of a board for trying (flattening). We use a jointer plane principally on the edge of a board, in order to make a joint. Because a jointer is taking relatively few passes it can be longer and heavier. The jack plane and the trying plane need to be light enough that one is not tired out. If weight were an advantage for these planes we would have added lead.

Some time ago some were suggesting that a jointer plane with a finely machined sole would (after a few passes) inevitably leave an edge humped up in the center. To compensate, they would first make the joint hollow, then take one pass to flatten out and quit when they got a continuous shaving. With my jointer plane I was able to take 40 continuous shavings on an edge without humping. Was my plane flatter? Was my technique finer? I have no idea. But I will say that the way to evaluate the fitness of the sole is by how the plane performs, not by the reading on some machine. A carefully machined sole is not worth much if it does not perform; it could be that a slightly convex sole is superior.

[Frederick Skelly]

Thank you for the review Tom!
Fred

[Frederick Skelly]

We use a jack plane to rough plane a surface. We use a trying plane on the face of a board for trying (flattening). We use a jointer plane principally on the edge of a board, in order to make a joint. Because a jointer is taking relatively few passes it can be longer and heavier. The jack plane and the trying plane need to be light enough that one is not tired out. If weight were an advantage for these planes we would have added lead.

Some time ago some were suggesting that a jointer plane with a finely machined sole would (after a few passes) inevitably leave an edge humped up in the center. To compensate, they would first make the joint hollow, then take one pass to flatten out and quit when they got a continuous shaving. With my jointer plane I was able to take 40 continuous shavings on an edge without humping. Was my plane flatter? Was my technique finer? I have no idea. But I will say that the way to evaluate the fitness of the sole is by how the plane performs, not by the reading on some machine. A carefully machined sole is not worth much if it does not perform; it could be that a slightly convex sole is superior.

Warren, it's always a pleasure to see you weigh in around here. I always enjoy your persoective. I'll bet you're still the only person around here who makes his living entirely with hand tools - and you have for what, 35 years?

Regards,
Fred

[Tom Bussey]

The only way a plane will leave a hump in the middle is if the plane is high in the middle. When the pressure is shifted fro the front to the back the plane rocks breaking the chip and so a new cut is started and the same thing happens again. Then to compensate the cut is started in the middle ands so on. Why people keep doing the same thing over and over and then expect different results is beyond me. NL planes are heavier than the older Stanley's and people say they prefer them because if the weight. Bronze is most popular and heavier than iron. (it could be that a slightly convex sole is superior) then it could also be true that a convex sole is not superior.

[Jim Koepke]

then it could also be true that a convex sole is not superior.

Have to agree with this. It seems there would be some strange shapes of boards with a sole that isn't within a close range of being co-planer in critical areas.

jtk

[Graham Haydon]

Hi Pat

Mass produced metal planes started to gain traction towards the latter part of the 19th century. After 1850 machines such as planers, band saws, circular saws and mortise machines were normal and put the furniture being made within the reach of a much wider market. At that point much of the skills and understanding of how to prepare wood effectively by hand starts to disappear.

That is why I advocate the choice of more well suited tools. I myself am an embarrassment when using these traditional approaches as are most. However even I can see the value of lighter, lower friction and frankly better suited tools than heavy, high friction planes. Modern woodworking has a strange way of viewing effective use of hand tools. It's normally seen through the prism of "Arts & Crafts" morality spliced with engineering solutions rather than how actual pieces were made.

Most of the modern crop of solutions have more in common with and infill/panel planes. I few light a whispy glory shavings off a pre-machined board from a beautifully made tool. Makes for good photos.

Warren makes a good point on the slight convexity of the sole, however to understand that you'd need to be vastly experienced working by hand. I don't pretend to be but it makes more sense than a sales brochure blurb of how many +/- thou a sole is.

[Kees Heiden]

This is an interesting comment. I wonder when metal planes actually came into use? I would not have thought that they were generally available til much later than 1850.

Pat, the Romans allready made metal planes, infills so to say. Quite a few have been found. But all their wooden planes probably have been rotting away, while those few metal ones could survive, so it doesn't say much about what they actually prefered. Wooden planes have been in the vast majority all the way to the times of Bailey and co. But they did have metal planes before that time. In Germany quite a few metal mitre planes have been found, going back to at least 1700. Likewise the metal mitre planes from the 18th, early 19th century in England.

Wood has been the material of choice because it makes a very usefull plane at a low price, especially at a time when wood was the major construction material for almost anything in and around the house, the farm, the workshop, the village. Only problem with using wood for a plane is that it wears out quicker.

[Stewie Simpson]

If you have had the opportunity to watch a craftsmen that was taught his trade on wooden soled bench planes, the way he moves the plane away from the surface of the board near the end of each stroke is totally different to what you see now with most users of metal bodied bench planes. He was able to maintain this controlled movement at the end of each stroke primarily due to the woodies lighter comparative weight.

[Warren Mickley]

I agree with you Tom, that one would expect a plane with a very flat sole to be able to plane a flat surface repeatedly. But what I am saying is that the way to gauge a plane's effectiveness is by the results in actually using the plane, not by the readout on some milling machine.

Two weeks ago, on this forum, some fellow was sure that older frogs had to be trued up to make the plane perform. He could not identify a single real world planing problem that was caused by the supposedly "flawed machining" on the frog.

In July, I wrote this on the forum:
"There is sort of a one dimensional theory of sharpening which suggests that we can judge the quality of the edge by the grit number of the last medium that worked it. The reality is much more..."
It seemed as if guys were judging edges by looking at the number on the box, not by actual performance of that edge.

And in March I had my results called "magical" (a polite way of calling my integrity into question), when I suggested that a jointer plane could actually plane a flat surface repeatedly. Here is the thread post #21, 22, 26:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?241826-How-to-plane-without-making-a-bow/page2&p=2540986#post2540986

[Glen Canaday]

Most of the modern crop of solutions have more in common with and infill/panel planes. I few light a whispy glory shavings off a pre-machined board from a beautifully made tool. Makes for good photos.


I actually prefer roughed-in pictures better, with nice soft lighting :)

Perhaps a show-me thread, to the order of "show me your roughing stage" might shed light on what people are actually doing today.

Believe me, with the roughing I have done, a lighter tool would be very much appreciated. The MF 18, 22, and 24 are not lightweights by any means. I should get my transitionals back into fighting snuff.

[Brian Holcombe]

I detail my process on my blog quite often. Being without machines and yet still working to earn a living I've moved toward ways which I find effective.

[Graham Haydon]

Glen, I'll smear some vasaline on the lens and see what I can do :).

+1 to Brain's blog & vids.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, the DVD was "Coarse, Medium, Fine". With a title like that I'd assume that a large portion of it would was about taking rough boards to finish planed? I did not deal with the first part, I use a jack. Tom was discussing the merits of the "Jointer" plane so I jumped in there. Forgive me if my understanding of language is off but I normally assume that on US forums a Jointer is actually being used as a Try plane? Used within a combination of planes to make wood suitable for the task at hand rather than edge jointing very long boards.

I should have been more clear about exactly what point I was making.

In post 3 you said "If you're going to work from rough sawn boards a wooden try plane is unsurpassed". The most reasonable literal interpretation of those words is that you advocate going straight from the saw to the try. I realize now that that's not what you meant to say.

Moving back to your broader point, I agree that the DVD (and associated article) titles are misleading.

[Patrick Chase]

If you have had the opportunity to watch a craftsmen that was taught his trade on wooden soled bench planes, the way he moves the plane away from the surface of the board near the end of each stroke is totally different to what you see now with most users of metal bodied bench planes. He was able to maintain this controlled movement at the end of each stroke primarily due to the woodies lighter comparative weight.

So you honestly believe that the difference between 7 and 8 pounds seriously impacts control? Keep in mind that the user's forearm probably weighs about that much and further dilutes the impact.

This has been beaten into the ground in previous threads (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?214422-Light-Talk-Weights-of-Different-Planes).

Woodies feel subjectively lighter because they are less dense. They are not actually all that much lighter. If your technique changes dramatically between the two types of planes then that's happening because your *behavior* has changed due to your misperception of the weights.

The same applies to both static and dynamic coefficient of friction: Iron-on-wood is remarkably close to wood-on-wood, particularly if you lubricate both (wax, oil pot).

Don't get me wrong: Woodies have a very different and very nice subjective "feel" even though the objective data reveal that not much has changed. I completely understand why people find woodies subjectively preferable, and I'm starting to lean that way myself. What I object to is the claim that they are objectively superior based on weight/friction.

[Graham Haydon]

No worries Patrick! Thanks for taking the time to discuss the topic with me :)

[Patrick Chase]

And in March I had my results called "magical" (a polite way of calling my integrity into question), when I suggested that a jointer plane could actually plane a flat surface repeatedly. Here is the thread post #21, 22, 26:

You somehow forgot to note that David said that after you'd basically called him out for incompetence. You can't realistically expect people to respond rationally when you insult them. Humans don't work that way. I bet he would have responded very differently if you'd just presented your data and left the last 2 sentences off of post 21.

For the record, I have the following opinions about that exchange:

1. If you look at the geometry of a handplane and particularly the fact that the sole is at the same height both in front of and behind the blade (as opposed to a machine jointer where the outfeed table is even with the blade tip), it will tend to make the surface convex *if left to its own devices* (note emphasis) and assuming that it mainly registers via the longer heel.

2. A sufficiently skilled user can correct for that tendency by shifting pressure throughout the cut. I can do this to some extent, though there's no way I could hold flatness over 100 strokes. That takes some serious skill and experience.

[Glen Canaday]

If you like, you can post the pic and a pic of the jar of vaseline and I can smear it myself. I'm a diy kinda guy :)

[Graham Haydon]

Like the attitude :D

[Patrick Chase]

Mass produced metal planes started to gain traction towards the latter part of the 19th century. After 1850 machines such as planers, band saws, circular saws and mortise machines were normal and put the furniture being made within the reach of a much wider market. At that point much of the skills and understanding of how to prepare wood effectively by hand starts to disappear.

IMO this may confuse correlation with causality. You're right that hand preparation from rough-sawn declined at roughly the same time as metal planes became popular. That's a correlation, and only a correlation.

You appear to go further and imply that the reduced need to prepare rough stock is what caused metal planes to become popular, if I'm interpreting your argument correctly. IMO that causal relationship is very unlikely. A far more reasonable and defensible interpretation is that the technological changes associated with the industrial revolution enabled both machine finishing of wood and economical manufacturing of metal planes. Metal planes were available before that, but their costs were such that only the most well-heeled craftspeople could afford them.

[steven c newman]

On the current project I am working on....rough sawn Cherry needed resawn down to 1/2" thick stock. Then a cambered jack plane was used to remove all the saw marks, and try to flatten the pieces. Followed up with a straight-edged #5-1/4 ( pieces were about a 1' long) to smooth out the dips from the cambered iron. Then a #3 sized smooth plane to finish the job.

Coarse, medium, and fine......

I do have a Stanley #31 as a jointer, an Ohio Tool Co. No. 81 as the Try plane. There is an Ohio Tool Co. No, 035 for use as a smoother....if I should ever decide to go that route. I generally size the planes used to the size of the work being done....makes zero sense to use a Stanley No. 7c on a board or panel that is barely over a foot long.

[Graham Haydon]

Patrick it is not just a correlation, it's part of a more industrial way of work. Before 1850 hand tool work was at the zenith of it's practice and it had evolved into wooden planes with double irons. If we follow the path of the metal plane from it's emergence to now, perhaps the zenith of power tool work, we find ourselves with a bias towards heavy, industrially perfect tools with thick irons of hard steel with no lamination. Perhaps good for use like an infill, a few passes of a smoothing plane perhaps. The metal planes that were available before mass produced items were pretty much just infills. These were not well suited to the requirements of timber prep just as heavy modern planes are not well suited now.

One thing I do find amusing, especially with the long modern metal try and jointer planes, is they must nearly always used to refine an edge off a power jointer. If I were in that situation I would spend a bit more time learning to set up my power jointer or invest more money into buying a better one. I've worked in a professional woodworking shop for just shy of 20 years. I've yet to find the need to refine an edge off a power jointer before glue up.

The only way to settle this would be with the aid of a time machine. I'd wager that if I were to offer a pre-industrial woodworker a modern jack, try/jointer and smoother the only one I might expect them to keep hold of is the #4 pattern bailey with a thin iron.

[John Glendening]

If I were a complete noob to the ways of the plane and the hand, this would not be a thread that would do me a lick of good. 35 posts and nothing of use, except a variety of opinions on the esoterica of wood working and history of this and that. Chances are, like me who is a lot closer to the beginning of the adventure than to a high level of expertise, this would be noise and no substance. I have CS's book, and after reading it I did not go out and buy a #5, a #4, and a #7, but what I did begin to understand is that depending on the condition of the work at hand different tools that have some similarity have different purpose. So the beginning of wisdom is understanding some basics.

Not all wood is created equal, even if two pieces of the same species are right next to each other on the BORG or lumber yard shelf. I know some people love, from experience, iron and some wood and some transitional. Some can do anything with a #4 and a stone for honing. Some can do amazing work with a whole room of the most expensive, or the most vintage of tools. Many of you have had decades of experience and are amazing talents, others like me are pretty new. Guys like CS, Roy, Paul, Graham, and others give me a great deal of inspiration and even without realizing it - encouragement to keep going.

I have some old planes, some old chisels, some really crappy things that were my Dad's or Uncle's but were worth every minute cleaning up and trying to make useful again. And every minute of that part of my journey has shown me and taught me what hand tool work is all about, and I have much more to learn. I've watched the power tool and juggling jig guys on TV and You Tube, and I've watched the American Workshop guy with a gorgeous set of hand tools, who uses power tools almost exclusively because he makes furniture for a living. I get it. I get it that there are a thousand ways to do the same thing, and I get that not everyone prefers the same way or the same tool set.

But, I've never seen so much confusion and so many fragile egos, so much ado about not very much.

Please keep in mind that your audience is other than yourselves, and the range of skills in that audience is pretty broad.

[Patrick Chase]

If I were a complete noob to the ways of the plane and the hand, this would not be a thread that would do me a lick of good. 35 posts and nothing of use, except a variety of opinions on the esoterica of wood working and history of this and that.

No, after your contribution it's 36 posts and nothing of use. Esoterica and history beat content-free blather in my book.

[Stewie Simpson]

Brief comment; got to luv those that have a lot to say about the fine art of woodwork, and yet when it comes to forwarding photo's of their own work, they get all weak at the knees and don't deliver. Verbal vs practical experience.

regards Stewie;

[steven c newman]

Coarse
347420
Medium..
347421
and fine..
347422
Small boards of Cherry calls for smaller planes..
347423
As I size the planes to the work being done.

[John Glendening]

No, after your contribution it's 36 posts and nothing of use. Esoterica and history beat content-free blather in my book.


Make that 37 ... sheesh. I don't have your skills, but I'm trying to learn.

[Graham Haydon]

John, sorry if the discussion has become wayward. I quite enjoy having a conversation about things of this matter and find few places to do so :).

[Stewie Simpson]

Graham; appreciate the element of historic precedence within your posts.

Stewie;

[Curt Putnam]

John, there is little forgiveness for noobs like us. What I do is to learn a little and then go use it. Then I go back and learn why that failed and I've learned a little more. I like longer planes. I have one of Tom's precision ground 608 roundside as well as one of his # 4s. I use a Veritas BU #7 with fence to "final" my edges for glue-up. I could/can do them without assistance but it takes too long for my current skillset. I absolutely love My M-W #6 (bought it new for $15 in 1974. Took 30 years for me to acquire the learnings of how to treat it and sharpen/hone the iron. Anyway, once you have learned that sharp fixes almost everything having to do with a plane - go forth and do it your way until that does not work anymore. Then come back and learn some more. I've found that I learned more from just picking up a plane and trying to make shavings. When I could not, I asked questions (I no longer have much of an ego.) Specific questions tend to elicit specific answers. Such as: why does the plane do X when I expected Y generally get answered satisfactorily. Complaints about signal to noise ratio will inevitably up the noise component.