FWW's "Every Handplane Needs a Tuneup" - a video response

[Pat Megowan]

I realize this is quite strong for a first post, and hope you will forgive that. I'm mostly a messenger here, with knowledge expressed earlier and better by generations of hand plane experts, and making no claims about any "best" answer.

The recent Fine Woodworking article "Every Handplane Needs a Tuneup" and accompanying video are incomplete (at least) on some critical points, posing a real risk of ruining a good tool. This is particularly true for folks starting with high quality handplanes like Veritas and Lie-Nielsen, which are a) quite unlikely to need several of the recommended procedures, and b) quite likely to be screwed up if you don't know a good deal more than is presented in the article and video.

Here is the original FWW video:


http://www.finewoodworking.com/toolg....aspx?id=35026


And here is a video response, which points out the most serious issues and recommends an alternate tuneup:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLhQE...ature=youtu.be


There are fairly extensive comments in the description section of the video as well.

No disrespect is intended to the author Tommy MacDonald, who responded quickly and kindly to my concern, or to FWW, both of whom have taught and inspired many woodworkers. Tommy's high end planes apparently needed at least some of this work. On the other hand, I have set up many planes for friends, students, customers, and myself, and while some brands needed everything in the book--or relegation to paperweight--none of the top quality planes needed frog removal, sole flattening, or chip breaker work. After blade prep, honing, and setting the cut, they worked beautifully.

It's a matter of playing the probabilities; doing what's sure to help (super sharp, light shaving) and letting the plane tell you if it needs more. If it does need more, look to a thorough treatment of the subject like Garrett Hack's "The Handplane Book".

I'll be interested to hear the collective Neanderthal wisdom on this subject!

[george wilson]

Your link to the FWW video does not work,nor did I think it would. You have to pay to see those videos. Even I do,although I am featured on one with my journeyman,Jon,showing how we made planes in the toolmaker's shop in Williamsburg. Some others feature my journeymen. It might not be legal to post links like that. I'm sure others know better than I about doing that.

I agree that one does not need to be fiddling around with high quality new planes by LN and LV. Inexperienced operators could foul one up. I didn't quite agree with all of your processes,though. You did not wipe the roller off of your sharpening guide before going to the finer stone. Also,I don't trust the flatness of those thin,plastic core diamond stones. I don't rest the end of metal planes on my bench top,nor do I lay planes on their soles on the bench. The bench looked clean,but I always at least have a strip of wood to raise the front end of the sole off of the bench,just in case. I do not recommend making sideways adjustments to the chip breaker after I've finished adjusting it,without viewing the adjustment again.

Thank you for your video.

[Bob Jones]

I have tuned several Stanley's, but I have never done anything to a LN or LV plane except sharpen the blades. The just don't need it. I have not watched the videos.

[Pat Megowan]

Sorry about the link George! I checked the video while logged out of FWW and thought that was proof of concept, but obviously not.

As you say DMT duosharps are often wonky and need to be checked for flatness; I took a Starrett straight edge to the store. Raising the sole off the bench is prudent, I usually use shavings; setting it flat is a holdover from working crowded tool classes/demos where a tool on its side is prone to being hit by another tool, chipping the blade. Double checking the chipbreaker after tapping is smarter too--I was hastening to beat the youtube 10 minute limit, which I had missed more than once--a bit overwhelmed, and you caught me!

Thx,

P

[Jim Koepke]

Pat,

Welcome to the Creek. I see you have been around awhile without posting. I was also going to say your profile doesn't show your location, but your video tells us you are in Oregon.

I agree with your comments about using the plane before taking it apart. Even old Stanley planes deserve a trial before being dismantled. Most of my planes haven't had their soles lapped. It can be a tricky procedure fraught with the possibility of messing it up.

I used to read FWW regularly. There was too much plywood and power tools for my liking. It seems all of their hand tool articles are more or less filler content for them to appeal to hand tool users.

I will watch their videos sometimes, but most of the time they are just lead ins to their paid subscription.

Most of my work on the sole of an old plane is to remove any rust. Most of the time taking them apart is to clean out any old wood dust that may accumulate moisture and cause rust.

I used to think anyone could learn to tune a plane. Since then, I have learned some folks just do not have the mechanical abilities needed. Also, I have ran across a few planes like a newer Stanley that just didn't have the proper machining to be put together right.

There is a post of mine in the Neanderthal wisdom/FAQs section, "Fettling a Plane From Junker to Jointer." There was an old type 7 Stanley/Bailey plane in an antique mall. I had passed on it a few times. A member was wondering about getting a jointer for cheap. My thought was if need be the handles would sell for the cost of the plane if need be. We went into town before the person got back to me. The person at the shop let me check it thoroughly. It looked good, so it was purchased and offered to ship it to them at cost. They changed their mind, so it was a project for me to document and post here. The plane turned out fine and works great. I liked it so much that I sold off my type 10 or 11, can't remember now, #7. Didn't think two were needed.

The only Lie-Nielsen bench plane that I have bought only needed the lever cap screw loosened. This was explained in the instruction sheet. Worked great right out of the box otherwise.

The other two Lie-Nielsen planes in my shop worked fine right out of the box. My fettling on them didn't enhance the performance one bit. It did make for a smoother feel to the adjustable mouths. My work there was just to polish the mating surface of the sliding pieces so the slid a touch smoother. I didn't think to put a caliper to it before and after, but it was probably less than 0.001" of metal removed.

Hope to see more posts from you and maybe some pictures or builds of of your furniture.

jtk

[george wilson]

Pat,you are right. As I am well aware,trying to film is a high pressure situation,especially when you have a strict time to squeeze it into. Been there several times. I take straight edges with me,too,when selecting a diamond stone. Selecting one is a bit tricky. They are packaged under shrink wrap,and the height of the diamonds keep the straight edge from mating down on their surfaces anyway. Even the all steel ones(which are the ones I use),are not surfaced very flat most of the time. They seem more like they have been roughly Blanchard ground.

I enjoyed your video,and I agree with not undertaking excessive tinkering with high quality LN and LV planes.

[Steve Branam]

I met Pat at the Lie-Nielsen 30th anniversary open house, where he was working as one of their demonstrators. I found all of his advice very useful, helping out with my body mechanics using jointer and smoother. So I'm definitely willing to listen to what he has to say.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll just mention I'm a total LN fanboy. But that's based on the fact that I've found their tools to be excellent, very well-made, ready to use right out of the box with no tuning required. As he says in his video, that's part of why you buy a premium tool. You have high expectations, and they live up to it. On the rare occasions where something goes wrong, they stand behind their products and make it right, as has been noted several times here.

One lesson to be gleaned from this is to give each new tool a thorough test run before doing anything to it, rather than assuming that every one needs work.

[Tony Shea]

I am also in agreement with Pat. I would never lap the bottom of a $400+ handplane right out of the box. Not only is it completely uneccessary but the ductile iron would take a tremendous amount of work to remove a humped sole anyway. But if you happen to ever get a new handplane in need of sole flattening then send the thing right back. If it is a used plane and you discover the sole is out of flat, talk with the maker of the plane and chances are is they will flatten the tool for you at no cost. I have been through this with a LN #5 that was in very used condition. I brought it to LN in Warren and they flattened the sole and tuned everything else at not cost, even though I expected to pay for the service.

[Josh Rudolph]

Tommy's high end planes apparently needed at least some of this work. On the other hand, I have set up many planes for friends, students, customers, and myself, and while some brands needed everything in the book--or relegation to paperweight--none of the top quality planes needed frog removal, sole flattening, or chip breaker work. After blade prep, honing, and setting the cut, they worked beautifully.

Just a general observation here. The handplane that he is tuning up in the FWW video is one from his sponsor for the show that of which is not LN or Veritas.

I am not trying to start any arguments over what people can do with whatever price planes...
I think if I were to purchase the same plane that he tunes in the video, I would most certainly take it apart and clean the machined edges as I think you can find burrs and chips that hung around into assembly. A very large percent of the time I don't think you would have this with the LN or Veritas line. There was also what I would consider a considerable amount of oil on the frog in the video, something that I would certainly wipe down before it made its way onto my work surface. I can only assume the same amount of oil would be under the frog. The plane he tunes is roughly 47% the cost of a LN.

My biggest issue with his video was flattening with the plane disassembled. As you pointed out, this is a big no-no. The only planes I think a consumer should have to spend any time flattening would be an old plane. If I purchase a brand new plane out of the box that is out of flat, I would be sending it back.

Having said all of that...I too am LN fanboy.....I am also a Veritas fanboy.....I am also a Stanley Bailey fanboy......I am also a Stanley Bedrock fanboy.....I am also a wooden plane fanboy....I think you get the point. I think quality work can be done with almost any plane, just some take more time and attention than others.

The video fails in that it lumps all planes into needing the same attention and as we know not all planes are created with the same attention to detail as others.

[Pat Megowan]

Thanks for the welcome Jim, I updated the profile. Only one jointer plane though, how do you survive;-)? I'll check the #7 fettling story, and have to admit I keep my restored Stanley 5 1/2 mostly for the rosewood tote and knob!

My LN block plane from a million years ago needed a little love to make the mouth adjustment nicer--just as you say, hardly any metal removed, mostly polishing.

I occasionally put pics of complete pieces or a build (or a disaster) at patmegowan.blogspot.com, though I'm not very diligent about getting online so it's sparse.

Hi Steve, I remember that discussion at the open house. I had to cut a section of the video (one of many, my first try was 33 minutes!) that briefly discussed reading the shavings for feedback on both the wood surface and body mechanics. Just as well, it needs more than 60 seconds:-).

I'd be interested to know whether anyone here has measured a change in casting shape with the frog and blade in versus out. I've been taught it's a legit issue, but haven't measured it myself.

[Jim Koepke]

Only one jointer plane though, how do you survive;-)

LOL, not just one jointer. There is also a #8 in the shop and an old Sargent transitional jointer. Just recently I bought a "train wreck" of a #8 to fix up and sell. The lateral is busted off of the frog. Another member sent me newer frog. It is not as badly broken, but will require some modification to work. In the dead of winter when all of the other things are done, I'll get into the frog hunt in ernest.

jtk

[george wilson]

I haven't tested the frog in/frog out flatness issue. I used mostly wooden planes or infills I made most of my career.

However,I'd not be surprised if the frog issue is valid. As a machinist,also,I've found that the smallest things can cause changes when working to .0001"(tenths) accuracy. For example,years ago,I machined a back plate in situ on a lathe to install a 5 C collet chuck. It was bolted from behind with 6 bolts. I was tightening the bolts. The metal was all squeezed together very tightly. Yet,even with all the bolts tightened as tight as I thought I could get them,I found that tightening one of them just a tad bit more caused the collet to run .0001" truer!! You'd see what I meant if you were there,and realized how tight those bolts already were.

Things can get weird and unexplainable when you get down into extreme tolerance ranges.

The much smaller screws on a plane frog can't begin to be put under the tension that much larger,tool steel bolts can. The plane is many times thinner,though,and easier to bend. Since the plane is also long,a bit of tension in the frog area would very likely be magnified towards the extreme ends of the plane's sole.

[Jim Koepke]

I do not recommend making sideways adjustments to the chip breaker after I've finished adjusting it,without viewing the adjustment again.

Thank you for your video.

Yes, thanks for the video Pat.

One thing that slipped by me was the attaching the blade and chip breaker. Because of being a bit of a klutz and trying to do things in a safe manner, my practice of tightening the chip breaker has developed into setting the assembly on a piece of hardwood, at least as long as the blade, while turning the screw. When loosening the screw, the sharp end is to the left. When tightening the screw, the blade edge is to the right. To me this seems safer than trying to hold the blade in the air and it keeps the blade and breaker in alignment. Usually before tightening, the assembly's edge is lightly pressed with the blade of the screwdriver while it is setting on the block of wood or bench top.

jtk

[Jim Matthews]

I thought the whole point of the LN and LV planes was their readiness for use.

Tommy Mac gives me hives. The rare article on FWW that appeals to my methods is well, rare.
It was liberating to realize that I could make furniture (albeit slowly) without $20k in power tools.

That, and I can park two cars in my garage.

[Sean Hughto]

Tommy Mac gives me hives.

Glad to know I'm not the only one. ;-)