Need Help from Planemaker(s)

[Harold Beck]

Over the last several years I have tried making several different types of wooden planes and in general have had decent luck. I am now trying to work out how to try a shoulder plane. I have found several different ways to accomplish it, but saw something that has caused me to think.

I always think of a shoulder plane as an end grain type application with a low bed angle and the bevel up. Maybe a 20 degree bed angle and 25 degree bevel on the blade. Looking at the Stanley, LN or LV shoulder planes confirms this. Two of the homemade ones I have found show a 40ish degree bed angle with the bevel down.

I understand this gives the same effective (close anyway) cutting angle but it leaves the end of the blade un supported. Does this have a significant effect on performance?

I am interested in the answer as the higher bed angle with the bevel down seemed easier to make as the construction was similar to side escapement woodies that I know how to make (technical issue) and the overall configuration was more pleasing to me architecturally (emotional issue).

I have found several sources of information on making an infill type shoulder plane using the lower bed angle and the bevel up. I haven't made an infill before but if that is really the way to go, I guess I will have to break out the ball peen hammer.

I would like to know if anyone has made, or knows about, shoulder planes with a higher bed angle and the bevel down. Any help or advice is very welcome. Any advice or help making about a shoulder plane would also be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

HB

[Jerry Palmer]

One of the issues with wooden planes is that they do not support low bed angles very well. They lack strength due to less wood behind the blade. With a bevel up configuration you need a quite low bed angle to get a final cutting angle in the range of even 45 degrees, a minimum of 25 degrees lower than with the bevel down configuration.

Even the bevel down configuration has limitations to how low you can go due to the bevel clearence angle, but in the realm of even low angle planes, this doesn't become an issue unless you are doing complex molders, and then the issue becomes the depth of the round profiles being increased and actually weakening the cutter itself.

If you look at wooden molders you will find they are bevel down leaving some of the blade unsupported also, but with a sharp blade and a very thin setting, they don't have issues with the little bit of unsupported blade.

[Steve knight]

One of the issues with wooden planes is that they do not support low bed angles very well. They lack strength due to less wood behind the blade. With a bevel up configuration you need a quite low bed angle to get a final cutting angle in the range of even 45 degrees, a minimum of 25 degrees lower than with the bevel down configuration.

Even the bevel down configuration has limitations to how low you can go due to the bevel clearence angle, but in the realm of even low angle planes, this doesn't become an issue unless you are doing complex molders, and then the issue becomes the depth of the round profiles being increased and actually weakening the cutter itself.

If you look at wooden molders you will find they are bevel down leaving some of the blade unsupported also, but with a sharp blade and a very thin setting, they don't have issues with the little bit of unsupported blade.
I don't know if it is really an issue or not. low angle is soemthing that metla planes seem to need to get around problems they have that woodies don't.

[Steve knight]

making a bevel down shoulder/rabbet is dirt easy but for the iron.
jsut make a block of wood that is slightly thicker then the iron. and then cut rabbets on one end on both sides to create a tounge in the middle. it just needs to be a bit thicker then the iron shaft. about 1/2 as deep as the block. then cut your bedding angle through the block and thats where the iron sits. the second piece cut at 10 degrees higher for a wedge. then make two pieces of wood that are a ltitle thicker then the rabbest you made and glue the plane back up with a nice tight mouth. then plane the sides flush and make the body a tine bit thinner then the iron and shape it and your done.

[Harold Beck]

Thanks for the validation. That was about how I was going to go about it except that I was going to do it the hard way and sink the wedge mortice through a solid block. I like the pain! I was also thinking about a metal plate or channel to protect the bottom from excessive wear.

Thanks again,

HB

[Jerry Palmer]

I don't know if it is really an issue or not. low angle is soemthing that metla planes seem to need to get around problems they have that woodies don't.

Steve,
I'm wondering if you could elaborate on the problems metal planes need to get around by using lower angles.

[Pam Niedermayer]

HNT Gordon ( http://www.hntgordon.com.au/prodcat1sh.htm ) shoulders, and all other plane types as far as I know, have 60° beds and work just fine. You can also flip the blades so they'll work as scrapers, although this may be of limited utility for shoulder planes.

Pam

[Steve knight]

Thanks for the validation. That was about how I was going to go about it except that I was going to do it the hard way and sink the wedge mortice through a solid block. I like the pain! I was also thinking about a metal plate or channel to protect the bottom from excessive wear.

Thanks again,

HB
I used to think about doing the metal channel till I could nto find any that would work well. then you would have to make sure it is perfectly square too. it would not be cheap.
I wish I could come close to what gordon charges for one but no way. 25.00 for a solid bar and then I would have to mill it. then shape the plane too it. can we say a 200.00 woodie shoulder?

[Steve knight]

Steve,
I'm wondering if you could elaborate on the problems metal planes need to get around by using lower angles.
not really problems but metal planes don't asorb vibrations as well and the irons don't bed in as well as they do on wood. so the planes tend to not be able to ahndle harder to plane wood as well. so they went to low angles to cope with it.

[Harold Beck]

I used to think about doing the metal channel till I could nto find any that would work well. then you would have to make sure it is perfectly square too. it would not be cheap.
I wish I could come close to what gordon charges for one but no way. 25.00 for a solid bar and then I would have to mill it. then shape the plane too it. can we say a 200.00 woodie shoulder?

Steve,

Yes that was a little daunting. I found 3/4 x 3/4 x 1/8 and 1 x 1 x 1/8 brass channel in the McMaster Carr catalog and they wanted more that 100 bucks for an 8' length. I was rationalizing it to myself by figuring that would make 8 or 10. Which allowed me to toss the first one or two and still have enough to experiment.

Thanks again,

HB

[Zahid Naqvi]

Harold, I contemplated the U-channel at McMaster my self. The problem is, as Steve stated earlier, the sides have to be perfectly square with the sole. With a mass produced U-channel you can't expect it to be 100% accurate, on top of that if it is off a hobbyist wood shop is not equipped to correct it. Making a 60 degree all wood shoulder plane is probably more practical, it is on my to do list.

I made a few shoulder planes using LV irons, but anything less than 45/50 degree makes the back ramp (the one on which the blade sits) too flexible, to an extent that if I tightened the wedge a little hard the bed would flex down and the sole became out of line (sorta like a very long V shape). It's hard to explain but much easier to show.

[Steve knight]

Harold, I contemplated the U-channel at McMaster my self. The problem is, as Steve stated earlier, the sides have to be perfectly square with the sole. With a mass produced U-channel you can't expect it to be 100% accurate, on top of that if it is off a hobbyist wood shop is not equipped to correct it. Making a 60 degree all wood shoulder plane is probably more practical, it is on my to do list.

I made a few shoulder planes using LV irons, but anything less than 45/50 degree makes the back ramp (the one on which the blade sits) too flexible, to an extent that if I tightened the wedge a little hard the bed would flex down and the sole became out of line (sorta like a very long V shape). It's hard to explain but much easier to show.

I would have trouble squaring it all up. gordon can do it so cheap that I could not begin to compete. then getting the brass to stay put. epoxy and brass don't work together. I doubt you would wear a all wood plane out. make it from ipe, purpleheart or some such hard tropical.

[Harold Beck]

Harold, I contemplated the U-channel at McMaster my self. The problem is, as Steve stated earlier, the sides have to be perfectly square with the sole. With a mass produced U-channel you can't expect it to be 100% accurate, on top of that if it is off a hobbyist wood shop is not equipped to correct it. Making a 60 degree all wood shoulder plane is probably more practical, it is on my to do list.

I made a few shoulder planes using LV irons, but anything less than 45/50 degree makes the back ramp (the one on which the blade sits) too flexible, to an extent that if I tightened the wedge a little hard the bed would flex down and the sole became out of line (sorta like a very long V shape). It's hard to explain but much easier to show.

Zahid,

My plan with the channel envisioned getting the bottom of the channel square was going to take a lot of filing, sanding and nasty words. I planned to use the belt sander to get close then the lapping plate with sandpaper and a fence. I wasn't seeing that it would have been easy.

I know exactly what you are trying to explain. That is another reason that I asked the original question about bed angle and bevel up/down. I had no expectation that a 20 degree bed angle would be structurally stable made out of wood. I was picturing a geometry proportional to a wooden rebate or H&R which requires the higher bed angle. I was figuring that I would have to flatten with the iron in and wedged just like anyother plane. If I wanted to proceed with the low angle bed I figured that I would have to go the infill route to get the structural stiffness needed.

Someone above had a concern about the joining of the channel to the wooden body. I had planned to put a couple of rivets through the sides of the channel to back up the epoxy joint. I couldn't bring myself to put screws through the bottom of a piece flat brass by itself on the bottom.

I think that I am going to try all wood with a normal bed angle and bevel down first. If I'm not happy with that I can always go back and try the wood with the channel. If that doesn't work out it will give me a chance to try dovetailing an infill. Looks like I have my spring figured out.

Thanks all,

HB

[Steve knight]

it's not the sole thats the hard part but the sides. getting the sides flat and square to the sole with wood and metal would not be an easy thing with normal tools.
an infill is a better idea.

[Michael Pilla]

There is an amazingly detailed thread/tutorial about this very type of brass channel plane construction on the Aussie forum. I don't want to violate the TOS by posting a link but if you google "making shoulder planes" (use the quotes) it should be the first thing that pops up.

Michael

[Harold Beck]

There is an amazingly detailed thread/tutorial about this very type of brass channel plane construction on the Aussie forum. I don't want to violate the TOS by posting a link but if you google "making shoulder planes" (use the quotes) it should be the first thing that pops up.

Michael

Michael,

That looks a lot like a HNT Gordon doesn't it?

Thanks,

HB

[Michael Pilla]

He seems to take his cues from (his fellow Australian) Gordon and that's a good thing in my book! I keep meaning to cut and paste that thread and turn it into a pdf file for my archive. That project is definately on my to-do list although I have no idea when I'll get to it. I was also a little put off by the cost of the brass channel at McMaster. But since it's 8' long I figured it would be easy enough to cut it into lengths good for 2 planes and sell off the extra to other galoots (if I ever actually get around to it).

There is another good demo of the same tehnique on the website of Philip Edwards from England. Just google Philsville to find his blog and look in the step-by-step projects section.

Michael

[Zahid Naqvi]

thanks for the link Michael, it's in my book marks now.

[Michael Pilla]

My pleasure Zahid. I seem to spend a lot more time at a computer than in the shop.

Michael