Can you put a #2 or #3 blade in a #4 or #5 plane? / Options for Narrow Blades

[Luke Dupont]

Hi guys,

So, as I'm very slowly getting back into woodworking, as much as can be done in an apartment (small projects), I want to address one issue that was problematic last time I was into woodworking:

I have chronic tendonitis in my wrists from overuse, which has not healed up after several years. I'd like to avoid straining and damaging it further, which means that I cannot really use the muscles one uses to "grip" or "pull", and I have to be careful not to do anything too strenuous.

That presents a problem with planing, and especially with small Japanese planes that are difficult to hold due to their size, and the fact that they cut on the pull stroke.

So I'm considering Vintage Stanley planes or traditional wooden planes. As I'm not making anything large, I don't need anything bigger than a No. 4 or so, but it has to be easy to push and not strenuous, first and foremost.

Something with a narrow blade would be ideal. Maybe around 1.5" or so. Bedded at a slightly lower angle than normal would be great as well.

One thing that occurred to me is that perhaps I can put blades for a No. 2 or No. 3 plane into a No. 4, since they are narrow, Would anyone happen to know if they fit, or if the frogs are set at different heights making this impossible (ie, the blade not being long enough to protrude on the larger planes)?

Perhaps I should really look into making my own planes again...

[Kees Heiden]

It’s easier to camber the blade so only 1.5” in the middle is cutting. It doesn’t need to be a perfect camber, the middle can be rather flat. Otherwise you regulate the pushing resistance with the shaving depth and you can wax the bottom of the plane.

[Kees Heiden]

And why not get a #2 or#3 if you want a narrow plane?

[Derek Cohen]

Luke

Consider buying or making a true Krenov design plane. This will have:

1. low centre of effort for reduced effort in pushing.
2. no higher than 45 degree bed, ideally 42 degree bed.
3. double iron (so the chipbreaker can be used to control tearout in interlocked grain). Most use a Hock iron/chipbreaker - aim for 1 1/2" - 1 3/4" width.
4. wooden construction

The combination of these features will create a plane that should be easy for you to push.

For information on "centre of effort", go to my website: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/Index.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaKrenovSmoother_html_m1038799f.png (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaKrenovSmoother.html)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

The problem isn't the blade it is the chip breaker. The chip breakers meant for a #2 or #3 planes do not have the adjuster cut out in the right place to work with a #4 frog. My guess is using a #4 chip breaker with smaller blades would cause shavings to catch under the chip breaker and cause clogging.

It might actually be easier to effectively modify a 2" blade to only cut a 1-1/2" swath.

Here is a post showing a way it can be done:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?158373

Taking a light shaving is helpful in keeping my aching and damaged joints from becoming inflamed. Carpal tunnel is another problem that gives me trouble at times.

Have you thought of using a #3 size plane?

You might also look into an old Stanley/Bailey #5-1/4 for a longer plane. It uses the same 1-3/4" blade as a #3.

There would likely also be an advantage with these due to their being lighter than a #4 or #5, though both tend to demand a bit higher price on the auction or retail markets. Often a Millers Falls or Sargent plane can be had for less than a Stanley. At yard sales is where one can get the best prices.

jtk

[Luke Dupont]

It’s easier to camber the blade so only 1.5” in the middle is cutting. It doesn’t need to be a perfect camber, the middle can be rather flat. Otherwise you regulate the pushing resistance with the shaving depth and you can wax the bottom of the plane.

Yeah, I was thinking that would be an option as well if the blades / chipbreakers aren't compatible.


And why not get a #2 or#3 if you want a narrow plane?

Well, I'd love to get a #2! They were prohibitively expensive last time I checked on ebay though -- seems to be a popular collector's item. But maybe I can find a seller who doesn't know it's a "rare" thing. Got my vintage Washita for a tenth of what collectors wanted not by searching "Pike Washita" but "Vintage Whetstone" :)


Luke

Consider buying or making a true Krenov design plane. This will have:

1. low centre of effort for reduced effort in pushing.
2. no higher than 45 degree bed, ideally 42 degree bed.
3. double iron (so the chipbreaker can be used to control tearout in interlocked grain). Most use a Hock iron/chipbreaker - aim for 1 1/2" - 1 3/4" width.
4. wooden construction

The combination of these features will create a plane that should be easy for you to push.

For information on "centre of effort", go to my website: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Commentary/Index.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaKrenovSmoother_html_m1038799f.png (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingaKrenovSmoother.html)

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hey Derek! I've always loved the look of those Krenov planes, but never tried one. I see that the blades are indeed narrow and stout, and look easy to hold in addition to having a wood sole / body. I think I might very well go this route!
I did try my hand at making such a plane in the past, but found that my wedge would not tighten properly due to my wooden crossbar being too "bendy".

I really love wood planes in general, so I'm actually leaning towards this option. I'll look into either buying a krenov style, or making a similar plane myself with a more traditional wedge-in-groove design (Maybe using a hock blade? Not sure if they're long enough. Or I could try the Krenov style again with a larger, metal crossbar).


The problem isn't the blade it is the chip breaker. The chip breakers meant for a #2 or #3 planes do not have the adjuster cut out in the right place to work with a #4 frog. My guess is using a #4 chip breaker with smaller blades would cause shavings to catch under the chip breaker and cause clogging.

It might actually be easier to effectively modify a 2" blade to only cut a 1-1/2" swath.

Here is a post showing a way it can be done:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?158373

Taking a light shaving is helpful in keeping my aching and damaged joints from becoming inflamed. Carpal tunnel is another problem that gives me trouble at times.

Have you thought of using a #3 size plane?

You might also look into an old Stanley/Bailey #5-1/4 for a longer plane. It uses the same 1-3/4" blade as a #3.

There would likely also be an advantage with these due to their being lighter than a #4 or #5, though both tend to demand a bit higher price on the auction or retail markets. Often a Millers Falls or Sargent plane can be had for less than a Stanley. At yard sales is where one can get the best prices.

jtk

Ah, thanks for the great length! I didn't consider the chipbreaker problem. Yeah, I think modifying the blade as you and Kees suggest.

I did have a No. 3 previously, by the way -- specifically for this reason. It was definitely easier to push than a No. 4. Still would like something a little narrower, but perhaps a narrow blade in a larger (heavier) body could be an advantage too.

For the size of work that I'm doing currently, though, I honestly could probably get away with a block plane, or something of comperable size. Going too small is counter productive in terms of weight and grip area however.

I think I'll do some more research into Krenov style planes and compare them with potential vintage Stanley options.

[Kees Heiden]

Sure, make a Krenov plane, it's a nice project for a rainy weekend. But don't put your hopes up too high. I find I have to squeeze the typical krenov shape pretty hard and am leaning down quite heavy on the backside. A more traditional coffin shaped wooden plane has a much more comfortable grip, despite Derek's ideas about "centre of effort".

And the Stanley #2 model is also made new by LN and Woodriver, allthough they make them quite heavy. The price is more agreeable though.

[Frederick Skelly]

LN sells a #2 for $275. If that's more than you want to spend, you could call a dealer and probably find vintage cheaper if you need one. I like that better than using the auction site. Also look in antique stores. I stumbled on to mine at an antique mall for $15 - it was painted black and was being used as a decoration.
Fred

[Derek Cohen]

Sure, make a Krenov plane, it's a nice project for a rainy weekend. But don't put your hopes up too high. I find I have to squeeze the typical krenov shape pretty hard and am leaning down quite heavy on the backside. A more traditional coffin shaped wooden plane has a much more comfortable grip, despite Derek's ideas about "centre of effort".

And the Stanley #2 model is also made new by LN and Woodriver, allthough they make them quite heavy. The price is more agreeable though.

The advantage of a Krenov plane is that it can be pushed with the palm. The disadvantage of a Bailey design is that the handle must be gripped in a fist. Luke stated clearly that he cannot grip with his fist ...

I have chronic tendonitis in my wrists from overuse, which has not healed up after several years. I'd like to avoid straining and damaging it further, which means that I cannot really use the muscles one uses to "grip" or "pull", and I have to be careful not to do anything too strenuous.

Hence Krenov. Not a high-sided coffin smoother - that, too, is required to be gripped.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brandon Speaks]

I would think a wooden plan would be best considering your issues. I have never tried a Krenov but the concept seems good.

[Kees Heiden]

No you don’t need to grip either of them. I don’t know what is wrong exactly with luke’s hands but you don’t need to squeeze A Stanly or coffin smoother. while pushing. But I do get tired hands when using a Krenov design for longer periods. Somehow my hands slip off and I have to squeeze. And then on lifting the plane for the return stroke it doesn’t feel as a very positive grip either.

[Luke Dupont]

No you don’t need to grip either of them. I don’t know what is wrong exactly with luke’s hands but you don’t need to squeeze A Stanly or coffin smoother. while pushing. But I do get tired hands when using a Krenov design for longer periods. Somehow my hands slip off and I have to squeeze. And then on lifting the plane for the return stroke it doesn’t feel as a very positive grip either.


It may depend on the size and shape of the particular Krenov plane.

One style that I was thinking might be benefitial is the old, medieval / old continental style wooden plane with a horn in the front.

Perhaps it's really best to make my own, given my specific needs. It might take a few tries, but I'm more likely to be able to make exactly what suits me that way. Possibly more fun, too!

In that case, I just need to find a nice thick but narrow iron that will work. Block plane irons seem okay but most are really thin... Hock irons are a good option still, of course -- a bit short, but I think they could work for me.

I even thought of just adding a tote and knob to a Japanese plane, but I would be somewhat embarrassed to display such a monstrosity... And I'm sure performance would be sub-par, as they're not designed for that.

I'll try a few of these options, starting with what fits into my immediate budget, and report back here if I make anything interesting!

[Tom Trees]

I have problems with holding various things, a type of psoriatic arthritis which includes tendon problems I have to grip things stoutly, in order not to put pressure on where the hand meets the wrist..
in other words push ups would be hurting the bones on the end of my forearms so those Krenov planes are a no no.
Likewise using a short plane would kink my wrists for jack work.
I believe you use less effort in the long run with a wider iron after scrub work, since you can do the work with half the effort...
Yes it is a bit harder to push, but it easier for a multitude of reasons in the long run...look up David Weaver's cap iron blog on woodcentral (David W on youtube)

Another benefit if you use the cap iron to eliminate tearout you wont have to worry about working around problematic areas.

Do you have a bench yet?
That would make me choose on whether I wanted a woodie or a bailey type, since with most types of woodies the totes are about 2 or 3 inches taller
and that would put a kink on my wrists pushing arm and hand bones together,
If I wanted to use an old style woodie I would have a lower bench.
I have heard that these planes take less effort to use, so maybe I might make or spring for those transitional planes which have the handle behind the frog/iron
instead of behind but above it.

I tend to try and avoid anything that I have to use my fingers for, that rules out those Japanese planes for me.

The Bailey wins every time in this regard, and the design is flawless because the force behind the blade is in a straight line instead of having to put additional directed force elsewhere,
and also because of the cap iron.
Yes I find gripping things difficult, but you dont have to grab onto a bailey with effort, The tote just locks into an extension of your arm to act as a whole, and there's no compression
of bones which trigger tendons off also.

Keep the frog all the way back to the casting, and not forward closing up the mouth, because that is what makes it hard going!
You will not be able to plane if the cap iron is set to have influence, and the mouth is closed up.
The closed mouth only limits tearout, compared to an open mouth with the cap iron set which will eliminate it, and can be adjusted to the particular species if needed...
Some being far more tenacious than others

Happy to discuss things

Tom

[John Kananis]

Hey, Luke, here's another school of thought: Ever consider wrapping your wrists? Folks think its to protect the knuckles but boxers wrap their wrists to keep them straight and prevent damage. If the wraps are too long, cut a bit off but don't not wrap between your knuckles, this step helps keep everything where it should be. (I used to box) - No matter how sore my hands were, wraps would always make everything better...

[Josh Waine]

Sounds like you could use a #3 and a #5 1/4. Both use 1 3/4" irons, just chamfer the edges slightly to get a 1 1/2" cut

[Jim Koepke]

Perhaps it's really best to make my own, given my specific needs. It might take a few tries, but I'm more likely to be able to make exactly what suits me that way. Possibly more fun, too!

In that case, I just need to find a nice thick but narrow iron that will work. Block plane irons seem okay but most are really thin... Hock irons are a good option still, of course -- a bit short, but I think they could work for me.

One advantage of making your own is you can start with the grip and fashion the plane around it.

For a cheap blade, look at the Stanley #45 #9 blade. This is 1-1/4" wide.

A search on > stanley 45 blade < turned up two. One was a Stanley the other was a Sargent which is 1-3/8" wide.

Another search, > filletster blade < turned up a few more at better prices. They all would likely need a bit of work.

The disadvantage of using one of these blades would be no cap iron.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

If you want to go for a handled plane, head-to-head, a BU plane, such as the Veritas Small BU Smoother (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/TheVeritasSmallBUSmoother.html) will require less effort to push than a BD Bailey/Stanley #3. Both have a 1 3/4" wide blade. The BU plane has a low centre of effort, and this does make a difference in practice.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

You state this like a fact, while you have never been able to explain what this centre of effort exactly is. I suspect it is very much a matter of personal preference too. It ain't easy to feel small differences in pushing effort.

[Derek Cohen]

Kees, I have conducted experiments and observations for many years. Some of this is written up on my website (linked to earlier).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Well, I don't have any bevel ups, not going to buy one either for testing. Apart from the handle angle I just don't see any fysical difference between the two, so you have me baffled there.

[chris carter]

I suspect this may be a body mechanics issue. I’ve had chronic tendonitis problems in my wrists and forearms for 20 years and have to be really careful with what I do. For the past month I’ve been in some of the worst shape of my life and I can barely turn a doorknob. However, hand planning is absolutely pain free. The reality is that when I plane wood, none of my forearm muscles are even engaging. My upper arm (bicep/tricept), shoulder, back all do work, but my forearms are doing zero. It might be worth it to push one handed and use the other hand to poke around your arm to see what muscles are engaging so you can correct that motion. I am occasionally guilty of grabbing the tote too hard. If that happens, drop the index and pinky fingers, and maybe even the ring finger, to force you to use a delicate grip. I’ve found no advantage to a death grip over a baby bird grip when planning. Also make sure you don’t grab the knob too hard either; use your finger tips if you need a reminder to ease off.

I would discourage a toteless hand plane. They typically require you to bend your wrist a little to get your palm on the back of the plane and this misaligns your wrist with your forearm requiring the forearm muscles to get the wrist in the right position. A quick test a few minutes ago on myself in my injured state confirm this. Conversly, a regular handle should keep your wrist in alignment with your forearm.

If you want to make things a little easier, use a wooden plane with a regular tote. A wooden plane is effortless to push compared to a metal bodied plane. The difference is DRAMATIC.

I will say that basically the ONLY time my wrist and forearms hurt right now with bench planes is when I grab one from under the bench where they live and bring it up to the top of the bench. That hurts. But actually planning causes no discomfort.

[Jim Koepke]

You state this like a fact, while you have never been able to explain what this centre of effort exactly is. I suspect it is very much a matter of personal preference too. It ain't easy to feel small differences in pushing effort.

There is a difference:


The bed angle of the Small BU Smoother (SBUS) is 12 degrees.

The 8º lower angle can make a world of difference in how much effort is needed.

My smaller bench planes are held much like a wooden bodied plane of the same size. It is easier on my hand. My right hand has had various problems since the summer of 1958 when I cut it badly by falling on a broken bottle in a creek. My right shoulder was injured in an accident while riding my bicycle about 20 years later.

Count yourself lucky if you can not feel the difference. Those of us with an uncle arthur old wounds, injuries or just the artifacts of having a good time over a lot of years wish we couldn't "feel the difference."

[Kees Heiden]

I have my fair share of body troubles too Jim. But don’t let me clog up Luke’s thread any further. Chis in the post above seems to have very valuable advice.

[Tom Trees]

I would tend to agree also, with what most of Chris says, however I feel the need to clarify some of the things I agree with....
Looking at the plane I was talking about I should have been more specific
The wooden plane I would to try first is a razee plane or a Stanley no.35... type of thing
Jim Hendricks (Hendjim on youtube) demonstrates one in his videos...
Even though I have never used one, its clear to me that you need your hand (always four fingers together for me, and not those more upright Veritas style tote either)
behind the cutter and not over it, as this is dinging your bones together right there...
And no-one has mentioned that the cap iron is a big factor as it pulls itself into the cut, rather than you diving into the cut...

For example starting with a dead flat length of timber on your bench..
And for arguments sake, the bench is dead flat and this length of timber is 5" tall so no deflection comes into play)
If you keep taking full length shavings without the cap iron set, you will take more off the end, causing the timber to be sitting high in the middle.....
If you set the cap iron to have influence, you wont take more off the end of the timber length ....

This is because the cap iron has the downforce allready from the start of the cut, and not half way through the cut...
Obviously the cap will be only in effect when needed, for me that's always

Tom

[Jim Koepke]

My smaller bench planes are held much like a wooden bodied plane of the same size.

Yesterday presented an opportunity to use my scrub plane. It is about the same size as a #3.

Here is an image of a modified grip:

388763

Often holding the plane like this is more comfortable for me. Also notice the clamp on the saw horse, this keeps the piece from moving while planing across the grain.

Of course, as always:

388764

jtk