Heavy vs Light planes

[Derek Cohen]

There has been some controversy over many years as to the part played by mass in a plane. Some argue that it improves planing and others that it is irrelevant. Higher mass is typically a feature of premium, especially custom planes - among vintage planes, names such as Spier and Norris come to the fore, while Brese, Sauer and Steiner, Holtey, Daed, are among the modern planemakers. Lower mass is found in woodies, such as HNT Gordon, and metal planes such as Stanley. Modern planes, such as Lie Nielsen and Veritas fall into the middle ground.

The heavier planes were considered de rigueur about 15 years ago. Many of these planes were single iron and high mass, thick irons and a tight mouth were believed to be necessary for performance planing. Generally they fell out of favour, and this was partly as high cutting angles on bevel up planes gained momentum, and then this was accelerated when the close up chipbreaker returned to the equation.

My high mass planes have sat on the shelf for many years as I found a preference for lighter, more nimble planes which require less physical effort to move around. In smoothers, I like small planes, such as #3 size, and have a few that get rotated, such as a Stanley #3, LN #3, and a Veritas Custom #4 (come on Rob, where’s the #3?). I also have a wonderful high angle woody by HNT Gordon.

In recent months, spurred by curiosity, I have used a Marcou BU smoother and a LN #4 1/2 Anniversary.

https://i.postimg.cc/0jmTDGFK/X5.jpg

Note that the LN is planing into reversed grain in interlocked Jarrah ...

https://i.postimg.cc/FR4220hz/3a.jpg

What was this like?

Well, firstly it brought a smile to my face. Planing was effortless. Push the monster forward, and it peeled off a shaving and left a glowing surface behind. “Monster” is the appropriate term since these planes are not just large physically, but they feel large .. and there is the rub. They disconnect one from the wood. It is a little like pushing a board over a power jointer (although the other way around). There is little that is delicate about this experience so, for those who have a yen for the Jim Krenov spirit, these planes are not for you.

But they perform or, rather, I believe that the extra mass makes performance easier to achieve, which is likely to suit a lesser experienced person.

Interestingly, many years ago I described the Marcou as the best performing smoother I had used. This is a bevel up plane, which I set up with a 60 degree cutting angle. I wrote a review years and years ago about this plane, and my esteem for it has not altered. One of the planes it was compared with was a LN #4 1/2. That did quite well .. but that was pre-chipbreaker days. The LN Anniversary, used here, has a lot more mass than the standard LN #4 1/2. It came with a 50 degree frog, which I have replaced with a 45 degree from (after an unhappy and brief time with the 55 degree frog .. can one say immovable tank?). Closing down the chipbreaker is a revelation with this plane. It could go into reversing grain where the Marcou could not. Simple a powerhouse in every way.

High mass? Definitely not for someone planing all day and every day. But otherwise .. yes .. it does add up to more in a number of ways.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Bob Jones 5443]

My L-N 4-1/2 weighs about the same as my Type 15 Stanley Bailey 5-1/2.

[Derek Cohen]

Bob, the LN #4 1/2 in bronze weighs about 2lbs more than the iron version. At around 7 1/2 lbs, similar to the Marcou, and getting close to a Stanley #7. This is serious mass in a smaller plane!

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Bob Jones 5443]

I do wish I had opted for the bronze 4-1/2 when it was still available, and also for a smooth bottom! Oh well.

[James Pallas]

There has been some controversy over many years as to the part played by mass in a plane. Some argue that it improves planing and others that it is irrelevant. Higher mass is typically a feature of premium, especially custom planes - among vintage planes, names such as Spier and Norris come to the fore, while Brese, Sauer and Steiner, Holtey, Daed, are among the modern planemakers. Lower mass is found in woodies, such as HNT Gordon, and metal planes such as Stanley. Modern planes, such as Lie Nielsen and Veritas fall into the middle ground.

The heavier planes were considered de rigueur about 15 years ago. Many of these planes were single iron and high mass, thick irons and a tight mouth were believed to be necessary for performance planing. Generally they fell out of favour, and this was partly as high cutting angles on bevel up planes gained momentum, and then this was accelerated when the close up chipbreaker returned to the equation.

My high mass planes have sat on the shelf for many years as I found a preference for lighter, more nimble planes which require less physical effort to move around. In smoothers, I like small planes, such as #3 size, and have a few that get rotated, such as a Stanley #3, LN #3, and a Veritas Custom #4 (come on Rob, where’s the #3?). I also have a wonderful high angle woody by HNT Gordon.

In recent months, spurred by curiosity, I have used a Marcou BU smoother and a LN #4 1/2 Anniversary.

https://i.postimg.cc/0jmTDGFK/X5.jpg

Note that the LN is planing into reversed grain in interlocked Jarrah ...

https://i.postimg.cc/FR4220hz/3a.jpg

What was this like?

Well, firstly it brought a smile to my face. Planing was effortless. Push the monster forward, and it peeled off a shaving and left a glowing surface behind. “Monster” is the appropriate term since these planes are not just large physically, but they feel large .. and there is the rub. They disconnect one from the wood. It is a little like pushing a board over a power jointer (although the other way around). There is little that is delicate about this experience so, for those who have a yen for the Jim Krenov spirit, these planes are not for you.

But they perform or, rather, I believe that the extra mass makes performance easier to achieve, which is likely to suit a lesser experienced person.

Interestingly, many years ago I described the Marcou as the best performing smoother I had used. This is a bevel up plane, which I set up with a 60 degree cutting angle. I wrote a review years and years ago about this plane, and my esteem for it has not altered. One of the planes it was compared with was a LN #4 1/2. That did quite well .. but that was pre-chipbreaker days. The LN Anniversary, used here, has a lot more mass than the standard LN #4 1/2. It came with a 50 degree frog, which I have replaced with a 45 degree from (after an unhappy and brief time with the 55 degree frog .. can one say immovable tank?). Closing down the chipbreaker is a revelation with this plane. It could go into reversing grain where the Marcou could not. Simple a powerhouse in every way.

High mass? Definitely not for someone planing all day and every day. But otherwise .. yes .. it does add up to more in a number of ways.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Your a hoot Derek. Some philosophical hogwash about James Krenov spirit and lesser experienced woodworkers. The feel of the wood and connection to it. All the while pushing a plane with the chip breaker trying to force the chip back into the wood and leaning on the front knob to keep the the chip breaker from forcing the plane out of the cut. 😂

[Jonathan Elliott]

Interested to read the thoughts and experiences this hopefully spurs. Personal preference is a large player but there are other interesting points to be discussed.

Thanks for starting this conversation Derek.

Jonathan

[Derek Cohen]

... All the while pushing a plane with the chip breaker trying to force the chip back into the wood and leaning on the front knob to keep the the chip breaker from forcing the plane out of the cut. 

Jim, in all seriousness, that is part of the equation.

I have written ad nauseum over the years about planing with a low centre of effort. This equates into planing by pushing the plane horizontally and not downward. These heavy planes do not need to be pushed down at the toe - they do this very well on their own.

Of course, one still needs to push them forward, and then pull them back. :)

Regards from Perth

Derek (disciple of Krenov)

[Will Blick]

Well stated Derek, as always. I have the Marcou S20 smoother, 8.5 lbs, and just love it.
My LV smoother is my daily driver for sure, cause it works GREAT and is lightweight...
but when its time to relax and have some fun for slow go projects, out comes the S20.
I love the fact it uses Veritas blades, so I always have a series of blades sharpened and ready for use.
While the cutting is effortless, the back stroke and the moving of the plane on and off the work piece, would wear down my arms / hands if I used it 5 hrs a day. Of course, I am not 20 and super strong either ;)
Mass is not the answer to everything, as I mentioned in a previous thread, adding weight to a LV Jack and Jointer offered minor benefits. I inserted large metal blocks as passengers on the plane. The weight needs to be in the right components in the plane, primarily in the bed, blade and lever. My S20 has yet to chatter at me!

[David Eisenhauer]

I seem to have gone the other way as I have gravitated towards wooden planes (double iron) over the last two-three years. I enjoy the lighter weight and (to me) the "slicker" feel of the plane sole gliding over the surface of the wood. Before I went almost completely to wooden planes, I was gifted a LN bronze #4 a few years ago and my first impression was that it was a heavy plane, but worked (mechanically) very well as compared to my refurbed older Stanleys. I still use the LN #4 and alternate it with a #3 sized coffin smoother for most of my smoothing tasks. I can't hardly imagine going back to the weight of a #7 when compared to a wood 22" long try plane. I never bought in to the need for a thick iron to assist with the prevention of chatter, or for using an extra heavy plane in general. To me, chatter is a product of a dull iron, too big a bite and a poorly adjusted plane.

[Jim Matthews]

All the while pushing a plane with the chip breaker trying to force the chip back into the wood and leaning on the front knob to keep the the chip breaker from forcing the plane out of the cut. 😂

Dude.

Where's your website and collection of Museum quality furniture that you made with your own hands?

[Rob Luter]

I like a stout plane too. My LN #4 (bronze) and #4 1/2 (iron) are favorites for smoothing. My LN 62 (iron) weighs the same as my bronze #4. That said, it feels lighter because of the increased footprint. I honed a steeper angle (35*) on a spare iron and it makes for an agile, easy to push smoother at an included cutting angle of 47*. I'll be honing to 40* next so I can use it on tougher grain.

[Thomas Wilson]

Hi Derek,

There is a lot of science in planing but it is difficult to measure and make the observations quantitative and “scientific”. We fall back on feel and preference by necessity. We talk about the planes themselves but the sharpening, set up, the technique, and the piece of wood itself makes everyone’s experience so different. I agree about mass. It powers through irregularities in the grain. I have an ECE Primus smooth plane. It is light and has 50 degree bed angle which make it difficult to operate without hanging up on the grain.

Enough on agreeing with you at length. My question is why did you need to plane the jarrah against the grain? Did it just work better that way or something else?

Thomas

[Warren Mickley]

I tried a Marcou "smoother" in 2009 and wrote about it on another forum. David Weaver later reminded me that I said it was like playing ping pong with a cast iron frying pan. The response on the forum was interesting. I was called "delusional", idiotic, stupid, silly, fool, poser, yutz, bozo etc. Somebody from the Marcou camp alerted an old pensioner named David Trusty, who then joined the forum just for the purpose of berating me. Trusty thought his colorful language would make up for his inexperience with planes. Raney Nelson wrote me a private note of sympathy, but he did not take on the pack in public. I think the moderators thought I deserved the treatment I got for daring to criticize something so shiny and expensive.

Historic smoothing planes were not much more than a pound. The workers could have added weights to the plane if such were any benefit; they did not. People talk about momentum as if it comes out of the air, but in fact it is created by the force of the user. It takes more effort to get a heavy plane going, more effort to stop it, and more effort to lift it. More work just to put it on the shelf. We don't wind up the propeller and let the plane fly. We have more control guiding the plane as we work. With a smoothing plane especially the effort to push it is minimal.

It looks like Marcou still hasn't figured out how to use a double iron plane, or that a plane iron 1/4 inch thick is easily three times what is needed, or that those six extra pounds are not a benefit. Why can't these guys learn how to use a plane?

[Derek Cohen]

Warren, to be fair to Philip Marcou, he was a furniture maker first-and-foremost, and a very good one, turning to plane making when he migrated to New Zealand and discovered there was not a market for his furniture. His own choice in planes were Records, and he knows how to use a plane.

These heavy planes - and not just his - were a sign of the times. It seems a lifetime ago, but it was only a decade. Heavy planes, high angle beds (these remain relevant), back bevels, ultra thick blades (which are still with us) ... all were considered relevant then. For some, these remain the zenith for plane design.

I would like to say that Jim Krenov got it right - light, simple planes that become an extension of the hand. I have one of his planes., and I have made copies. They work and work well, both on performance and feedback. But, as far as I am aware, Jim worked with less complex woods and did not use a chipbreaker in his planes (when he sent me a plane of his, the chipbreaker was pulled back). He never wrote about it in his books.

I was using my HNT Gordon smoother today: light, effortless, high cutting angle with a single iron. Wonderful performer.

The point is, that there is no one way to get it right. What can we learn from the different approaches?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Steve Voigt]

Derek, below is the reply I posted at wood central.


I appreciate you bringing up the topic and laying your cards on the table. As a maker of wooden planes, I am obviously biased, so that's my disclaimer. All the same, a couple comments are in order.
First, I have a bone to pick with how you frame the issue. You define a "premium, custom" plane exclusively as an infill or metal-bodied plane. Raney did the same thing in an article that someone recently reposted on Sawmill creek. I think this is very unfair. Wooden plane makers build planes one at a time or in small batches; they are every bit as custom as the metal planes. They are made to very high standards, so they are every bit as "premium" or "high end" as the infills, even if the price tag is lower.
Second, I disagree with how you lump metal Stanley planes in with "woodies" as being "lower mass." A Stanley jack is roughly twice the weight of a beech jack: the difference is huge. The only "low mass" planes are woodies: metal planes are either heavy (Stanley), really heavy (modern copies of Stanley), or extremely heavy (infills and related).
As to the issue of which is preferable: it has to be framed in terms of the work one does. If one is merely smoothing the ripples left by an expensive combo machine like you use, then it doesn't matter that much. But if one is doing heavy work, it matters a lot. I would suggest a simple formula: the ideal weight is inversely proportional to the amount of physical labor required. Try flattening a large table top with a no.5 followed by no.8, then try the same with vintage beech jack and try planes. I think there is no comparison, none. Though I will close by reiterating that I am biased on the topic.

[david charlesworth]

I find it interesting that serious cabinetmakers, in the UK, chose to equip themselves with heavy infill planes, for about a century. Norris, Spiers, Addis, Mathieson & sons, Melhuish, and many more.

It is also told that craftsmen in the 19th century would build their own infill planes, in their lunch times.

Is Warren suggesting that they did not know how to plane?

David

[Frederick Skelly]

The response on the forum was interesting. I was called "delusional", idiotic, stupid, silly, fool, poser, yutz, bozo etc. Somebody from the Marcou camp alerted an old pensioner named David Trusty, who then joined the forum just for the purpose of berating me. Trusty thought his colorful language would make up for his inexperience with planes. Raney Nelson wrote me a private note of sympathy, but he did not take on the pack in public. I think the moderators thought I deserved the treatment I got for daring to criticize something so shiny and expensive.

A quick aside.....
This sort of ill treatment is why I favor a well-moderated forum like SMC.

Sorry to distract from your point Derek.
Fred

[Andrew Seemann]

Prior to WWII, serious cabinetmakers all over the globe also bought #4 Baileys-style planes by the boxcar load. Something apparently worked for them with that combination of size and mass.

[Will Blick]

Steve, very nice web site, very cool woodie planes... I was not previously aware of your planes. Nice to see more custom plane builders.

I dont want to speak for Derek, but I think he was referring to "premium" as the very high cost planes which was referenced in a previous thread regarding an article recently written by Popular woodworking magazine. That thread is running concurrently. I fully agree with your assertion, that the task at hand matters when discussing plane performance. A simple task, with a friendly soft wood with no complicated grain, making thin cuts, well, nearly any plane can perform well. But going to the grocery store does not require a Bentley, yet, people still buy them. These are tools, most of us are hobbyist, we all have different preferences and likes / dislikes.

As for the mass and inertia issue... from my experience, I disagree with your position. You must generate the inertia with human power, true with all planes. But the difference is not proportional to the plane weight. It does not take 4x the force to push a 8lb plane vs. a 2lb plane, specially if the sole is waxed. I can push a 4k lb car on a flat surface, so generating forward force on a 8lb plane is not extreme. Hauling the plane around is more cumbersome. From my experience, the inertia benefits are apparent when you hit rough grain, or on a long stroke... the added inertia from the mass powers straight through the difficult parts of the grain or the end of a long stroke.

As for chatter comments above... I will have to wait for my S20 to chatter before I comment. Remarkably, it has never chattered yet, which is not the case with my lighter weight planes. All my planes share the same blades, so its not the blades. My Marcou M12 also never chattered as well. Its highly unlikely this is coincidence.

My daily drivers will remain the more lightweight planes due to convenience. But, I love the feel of my premium planes... nothing but a luxury for sure. As we all know, custom plane are not required to build fine furniture.

[bill epstein]

There's a lot to be said for using the plane that one has :D

For surface work I have two, a 7 1/2 lb. WR Jack and a #4 George H.W. Era $60 (new) Stanley.

I've just come downstairs from planing chamfers on the walnut outside edges of some cabinet legs with the Stanley. There's some tearout from grain reversal. Not to worry, I have a $10 scraper. Otherwise, the surfaces came out shiny and ready for 220 Garnet from the plane alone.

Only thing I notice when going from surfacing/leveling with the Jack to smoothing with the #4 is the first few passes feel like I need to hold on tight so it doesn't float away.

[Derek Cohen]

Steve, just to re-post from WoodCentral to connect with your re-post above - now that's one hellava sentence :) ...

Steve, you have my sincere apology for not referring to wooden planes under the premium category.

I do have an excuse! :)

The topic was heavy vs light, and I was more focussed on the heavy than the light. Premium, per se, was not really the issue, and so I hardly spent ant time mentioning this in regard to wooden planes.

Still, as I mentioned, this was not really about Premium but about mass.


And Will, you can speak for me any time. So much more eloquent! :)


Regards from Perth


Derek

[steven c newman]

hmm......there are some days, when even a little block plane can be a bit....much...
435856
Then, on other days...
435857
When only a hundred year old Stanley No. 7c, Type 9 will do a job....like flattening a top made of Ash.....then clean up around a knot with a No. 3, Type 11.....because I am worn out.

There is an Auburn #81 sitting on top of the plane til.....22" long, nice wide double iron...distracting when the long, thin shavings will shoot straight up, then wrap around my left wrist....
435858
If one had a choice between pushing this No. 6 around all day....or a No. 8.........my arms will choose the No. 6 everytime.....

[Will Blick]

thx Derek! But no one says this stuff better than you... a lot of my plane knowledge came from reading your insightful writings through the many years you have tirelessly posted on these forums and your website. Of course, I could blame you for my hearty plane collection too...but I won't ;) One of the things i love about the ww community is the members generosity of sharing knowledge.

While this thread was about heavy vs. light, I felt the concurrent thread running about the Popular woodworking article is what started this thread... just to be clear for those who did not read that thread.

On Bills comment... soo true, we all work with what we have...and some of us obsessive type, tend to read stuff, get curious and buy more. There are ww who spend 99% of their time building pieces. On the other end of the spectrum, there there are ww fascinated with tools and their use, and spend 99% of their time experimenting with tools, and occasionally produce some finished work. And everywhere in between. I oscillate between the two from year to year. It seems some ww have not come to grips with this spectrum, and must always point out, "where is your body of work" ?

Like others, I have always been fascinated by hand planes, not sure why...I guess its the clean thin shavings, the noise, hard to quantify the obsession that many have with hand planes. Even newbs that walk up to my bench and start shaving end grain, they cant stop, they un roll the shavings, go fast, go slow, etc.

Don't want to hijack Derek's thread, but as a side note...
Interestingly enough, recently I have shifted my fascination to sanding planes... I put roll sand paper on the bottom of my planes (no blade of course ;) and plane away. (or a long 36" flat jointed board with roll sand paper) I marvel how effective this is, it overcomes a lot of planning issues such as tracks, tear out, sharpening, etc. Its not for everything, such as hogging out areas for flattening a twisted board, but for simple and common tasks like edge flattening, its very effective to get an edge glue ready FLAT! Even more effective than planing IMO, as planning digs more into the starting end of the board vs. the middle, etc. Sandpaper does not care about grain direction, and with a level flat sanding board, the entire board is in contact with the edge the entire stroke, which often is not possible with a hand plane.

I started to experiment with making round over sanding planes, something I have pursued for a long time with blade planes... with the proper cove profile for the sand paper to reside in, IMO, its the ultimate neander round-over tool. Sometimes even better than a router when grain changes direction. After this recent experimenting, I started to wonder, was sand paper very good 100 years ago? Was it cheap as it is today? If not, I wonder if it was, would sanding planes would been a better option for many tasks?

[Nicholas Lawrence]

For some reason I only have seen the heavy infills in smoother sizes. Did they use something else for jointing and jack work, or do the other sizes exist as well? How much does an infill jointer weigh?

[Andrew Pitonyak]

While planing a long thick board, it was probably 1.5" thick, 10' long and 8' to 10' wide. I purposely used my heaviest plane to power through it and it did a great job.

My general assumption is that a lot of it depends on personal preference and what you are used to.

[Tom M King]

As long as I have a sharp one, I'm good.

[James Pallas]

Derek you obviously know I was poking at you a bit. There is always a kind of feeling of wood working the way you want it to with the least effort. There is a place for all of the plane types. Sometimes an ax is needed and sometimes a mora knife. Sometimes we cast things away for something “better” and later find some of the excellent attributes were lost. That’s the way we learn to improve things. I’m waiting for the super lightweight plastic with auto chip breaker to hit the market.

[andy bessette]

Perhaps I prefer the extra weight of a heavy plane because it helps make up for sloppy technique. It is an annoyance to experience the light plane's sole lift inadvertently and "slap" back down during a stroke, knowing that I just created a hump.

[David Bassett]

... I’m waiting for the super lightweight plastic with auto chip breaker to hit the market.

Yuck! Well given my skill level, that's clearly what I should be hoping for, but... yuck!

[steven c newman]

The downside of using those heavy planes....is lifting them for the return stroke....you don't want to drag them back flat on the wood...right....

Do the "Lift &Carry" with a 10 pound No. 8 a few times....won't need to go to the gym....

[Ron Bontz]

Interesting read, I must say.:)

[Chris Hachet]

I like a stout plane too. My LN #4 (bronze) and #4 1/2 (iron) are favorites for smoothing. My LN 62 (iron) weighs the same as my bronze #4. That said, it feels lighter because of the increased footprint. I honed a steeper angle (35*) on a spare iron and it makes for an agile, easy to push smoother at an included cutting angle of 47*. I'll be honing to 40* next so I can use it on tougher grain.

I also use a LN #4 for smoothing, love it to the point I ahve gotten rid of some other planes.

[Jerome Andrieux]

Another deciding factor for me is dealing with tendinitis and general back / arm and joints fatigue, which I am very cautious to prevent. RSI, asymmetrical posture, shocks...
Even with the best personal fitness, blade sharpness and proper technique, woodworking takes more than it brings to the body. Not unlike many sports and crafts though.

I find heavy planes to help with fatigue. Their intrinsic stability and inertia allow for looser grip and absorb shocks noticeably.

For rough stock removal, I usually go with a light wooden scrub, with a loose grip and light pressure short passes, then follow with heavier jack or fore plane.

As a side note, pulling the plane or alternating the pushing hand feels like a good practice.

[Graham Haydon]

Modern heavy planes. Good for taking a few fine shavings when the bulk of work is done by machines or lighter planes. They also provide a muse for those wanting to create planes that are faberge eggs, perfection to be admired but don't make the surface of the wood any better.

Stanley planes and their ilk are a good all rounder.

Wooden planes are perfect when you want to work rough timber by hand or do a lot of hand work. There seems to be something for everyone! Steve, one day I'll buy a smoother, one day. Yours would perhaps be useful faberge eggs.

[Tom Trees]

Another deciding factor for me is dealing with tendinitis and general back / arm and joints fatigue, which I am very cautious to prevent. RSI, asymmetrical posture, shocks...
Even with the best personal fitness, blade sharpness and proper technique, woodworking takes more than it brings to the body. Not unlike many sports and crafts though.

I find heavy planes to help with fatigue. Their intrinsic stability and inertia allow for looser grip and absorb shocks noticeably.

For rough stock removal, I usually go with a light wooden scrub, with a loose grip and light pressure short passes, then follow with heavier jack or fore plane.

As a side note, pulling the plane or alternating the pushing hand feels like a good practice.

I am in the same boat in regards to being careful of me bones and ligaments.
I've never really used a woodie but have an old one that I may make again one day.

I would have made a few woodies if I felt the need for one, as the woodies seem unquestionably more practical from what the pro's state.
I just don't like that extra height of the plane, it puts pressure on the wrist on my bench,
It feels heavier to my wrist lifting it single handed, like the tote is too far back.

I've never tried one on a shorter bench though, as then me back/neck would play up doing other things.

It seems to me having your hand behind the iron gives more ergonomics.
Strange that there is not more transitional planes on the go, as there are a heckuva lot of folks who have to be careful of that jazz.

I've made a comment that the no.5 1/2 was the bees knees, when Warren stuck a piccy of a skewed wooden jack and said it were better.

It would be interesting to read some comments regarding a heavier or lighter skew whilst were at it.

To cut to the chase, I'm questioning why there are not more examples of transitional skewed planes

Tom

[Michael J Evans]

cut to the chase, I'm questioning why there are not more examples of transitional skewed planes

Tom

I have virtually zero experience in this heavy vs light planes as I only own old Stanley's or Woodies.

My personal preference is for wood on wood contact, it just glides to nice. I also actually prefer the way you have to grip wood planes as well, I feel like I get more even pressure.

I have a transitional that I picked up for next to nothing. I really like the idea behind it, and maybe it's just the one I have, but it seems like they made the handles for midgets.... I am a 100% average build for North American male, 5'10", etc. I can barely and I mean barely get 3 fingers on the tote, when I try to use it I generally just grip it with the bottom two fingers.

[steven c newman]

Hmmm...Sargent No. 3416....
436141

[Jim Koepke]

To cut to the chase, I'm questioning why there are not more examples of transitional skewed planes

More examples? Are there examples of transitional planes with skewed blades?


I am a 100% average build for North American male, 5'10", etc. I can barely and I mean barely get 3 fingers on the tote…

When one considers the design for many of these planes has not changed since their inception, it might make some sense. During the 1860s when the Bailey design appeared the average North American male was about 3" shorter than today's average North American male. How much of the handle sizing for Bailey's planes was borrowed from earlier planes used by shorter workers?

jtk

[Tom Trees]

Apologies for that red herring folks :o
Had a good look around google to find something of the sorts, but can find nothing in regards to a skew with a low profile tote.
The closest to what I can find being a badger plane, but that aint no panel plane.

Do all you folks who use woodies reckon the tote on top of the plane improves performance compared to the transitional style?
From my fruitless quick search for a transitional skew, it seems so.

I wouldn't have thought hand size would have changed so much since the 1860's or whenever they were at their most popular...
It's not obvious to me that this would be the reason for the demise of this style plane.
I can only guess if you can raise the bench another inch with a Bailey pattern then why not.

I'm still left wondering why skews in general aren't favoured more?
Maybe I'll stumble across one someday and see why for myself.:rolleyes:
Until then, on my bench and happy out with me Bailey's, hell might just have to freeze over to try anything else.

Thanks
Tom

[Alan Schwabacher]

I'm still left wondering why skews in general aren't favoured more?


I think it's just that with bench planes you can skew the whole plane, so there's no need to complicate construction and sharpening. This is in contrast to molding planes that must be used straight on. Skewed molding planes are relatively common.

[Jerome Andrieux]

I also actually prefer the way you have to grip wood planes as well, I feel like I get more even pressure.


For long wooden planes, the European and British style is quite different in shape and handling.

A classic French jointer (varlope) would be 70cm long, with the blade protruding close to the center, at around 35cm, with the tote close to the tail of the plane, far from the blade. I find them better for heavy work on faces of boards and beams.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Varlopes_rabot.jpg/1200px-Varlopes_rabot.jpg


A british plane would be close in length and weight, but the blade would be located further ahead, around 1/3 or 2/5, with the tote right behind the blade. I prefer this design for finer work and edge jointing.

http://www.planemaker.com/images/planes/jointer.jpg

[Jim Koepke]

I'm still left wondering why skews in general aren't favoured more?
Maybe I'll stumble across one someday and see why for myself.:rolleyes:

Skewed blades are common in wooden rabbet planes and some molding planes.

This is just my opinion on why skew bladed planes are not as common.

Almost every skew bladed plane that has come to my way has had the blade's skew bevel off angle from improper sharpening. This makes the plane a pain to use. Were there sharpening holders a century ago to help people hone their blades?

Second might be the makers of planes had to use a larger iron to be skewed. The planes might also take a little extra work to make. Both of these would likely increase the cost. We all know what increased costs can do to sales.

If the buyer didn't see a skewed blade as a clear advantage, they would likely be reluctant to pay more.

The market is the maker. Look at the variety of multi-planes. Big ones and little ones from many different makers. The Stanley #46 is pretty much alone in the world of skew bladed multiple bladed planes. If it was flying off the shelf during its day there would have likely been more planes with similarly skewed blades.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

Skewed blades are common in wooden rabbet planes and some molding planes.

This is just my opinion on why skew bladed planes are not as common.

Almost every skew bladed plane that has come to my way has had the blade's skew bevel off angle from improper sharpening. This makes the plane a pain to use. Were there sharpening holders a century ago to help people hone their blades?

Second might be the makers of planes had to use a larger iron to be skewed. The planes might also take a little extra work to make. Both of these would likely increase the cost. We all know what increased costs can do to sales.

If the buyer didn't see a skewed blade as a clear advantage, they would likely be reluctant to pay more.

The market is the maker. Look at the variety of multi-planes. Big ones and little ones from many different makers. The Stanley #46 is pretty much alone in the world of skew bladed multiple bladed planes. If it was flying off the shelf during its day there would have likely been more planes with similarly skewed blades.

jtk

I have a 1-1/2" wide skewed rabbet plane, and the irin was way off, taking much work to get it working correctly. I also have a Stanley #46, and it never grabbed me the way I hoped it would.

I see no clear advantage for either plane. I do have a LN 140 clone that has a major advantage: that being the ability to have you plane and stain your wood (red) at the same time!

[Chris Fournier]

I'm not a spring chicken but I'm also not an old fart. In my mid fifties at 6'1" and 175 lbs I wouldn't give a moments thought to whether a plane was too heavy to use all day and on many projects I did just that. Blisters got me before physical fatigue every time. And yes I do go to the gym. I have made quite a few woodies for my own reasons an I enjoy them but when the shavings must fly I reach for the iron every time. Nothing outrageous, just standard LNs in cast iron. I've joked for years that woodworking equipment should be bought by the pound, I think that the truth is in that little laugh somewhere. All this being said - SHARP!

[Michael J Evans]

I can believe that Craftsman of old wanted light easy to use wood planes. Humans just like nature generally want the path of least resistance... At my work we see it all the time. Bosses want the heaviest duty longest lasting items (they don't use them). Whereas the actual users want products that are lighter and make their lives easier. So while I have no pony in this fight, yes I believe that if a person was using a plane all day everyday, then yes I believe they would've favored a lighter plane.

[andy bessette]

I can believe that Craftsman of old wanted light easy to use wood planes...

Craftsman = light and cheap.

[steven c newman]

Because, most of the time, they had to carry all their tools with them, from job to job....

[steven c newman]

Craftsman = light and cheap.

WRONG Craftsman? I doubt if a Tradesman back then would tolerate being called "Light & Cheap"

[Rod Wolfy]

Modern heavy planes. Good for taking a few fine shavings when the bulk of work is done by machines or lighter planes. They also provide a muse for those wanting to create planes that are faberge eggs, perfection to be admired but don't make the surface of the wood any better.

Yours would perhaps be useful faberge eggs.

I have a couple of those Faberge Eggs. LN 4½s in bronze. Purdy in their boxes.