Harbor Freight plane video

[Mark Gibney]

I very much enjoyed this video on fettling a Harbor Freight #4 plane, presented by Woodshop Companion on youtube.
It was a random algorithm suggestion.
The presenter, Nick Engler, has the lovable persona of a Disney Christmas movie uncle, and has an unhurried but knowledgeable style.

The most interesting part is his investigation into what steel the cutter might be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSnLgE7fWCQ

[Reed Gray]

I left a comment about how you should do this with any plane you buy, no matter who makes it. Still learning.

robo hippy

[steven c newman]

Have seen this video....have also seen Rex Krueger have to do almost the same things to a BRAND NEW Bronze $300 plane that would NOT work right out of the box...Interesting...

[Stew Denton]

Mark, I have restored a few Stanley planes, but did learn some from the video.

The quality is there in the old Stanley planes but I would never buy one from HF.

As one of the commenters below the video pointed out, you would want access to thousands of dollars in machining tools to redo the FH. Taking that much steel off the iron would take a long time by hand, too much time in my view. When I was first starting out I would not have had a clue how to fettle that HF plane.

I looked up the price on the HF website, $14.99 for the plane. If you look a while you might find an old Stanley, or one of the other good brands at a garage sale, flea market, or garage sale for that price or less....maybe.

I have a number of the old Stanley Bailey and Bedrock planes, but none of them were rust buckets, and restoring them was much easier than what he faced. If I were a young fellow or on a fixed income with not a lot of money (was in that situation for many years when I was young), I would look for a Stanley #5 in reasonable shape to restore.

Restoring the Stanley planes I've completed was much easier than what Nick had to do, although flattening the iron is no bargain on an old Stanley either, if it needs it. I missed part of the video, but I did not see where Nick used a file to flatten the rough bed casting with a file. If he did not do that, I think the plane would give problems.

All in all, I would go for an old Stanley instead of the HF plane, and restore it. I would prefer one from before 1930, but one from the 1930s would be far superior to and easier to put in good shape than the HF plane. That said, I have done enough of them that I would look over the Stanley plane pretty good before buying it. I would rather spend an extra $20 for a plane requiring only a little restoration than put in an extra 20 or 30 hours to redo a rust bucket by hand.

Also, if I was young and needed to start using the plane fairly quickly, I would not go for the nice looking job I tend to like, rather I would concentrate on functionality to save time. Making the old planes look good doesn't help them work one whit better than just restoring functionality.

That grinding machine to flatten the back of the iron is the way to go.

Regards,

Stew

[Mark Gibney]

Stew, thanks, I have no intention of buying a HF plane, or any plane at this point. I've restored more than enough Stanley planes to satisfy myself for years to come.

The most interesting part of the video for me was when he tries to work out what metal the HF plane cutter is. I hadn't seen that before.

[Stew Denton]

Mark good point, I also was impressed by the work to identify the metal used.

Stew

[Reed Gray]

I am starting to think that any plane you buy needs to go through this process. I watched another of his videos about taking an old Stanley #5 plane and checking it out. Some of my problems with learning to use hand planes comes from the planes not coming dead flat. This includes Lie Neilson and Bridge City. If I am getting inconsistent results, some times it is me, some times it is the castings on the plane. Most, that have a raised casting for the handle to sit on, seem to have a dip in the tail end of the plane sole. I have a couple that seemed to cut on one side, then the other, and in those cases, the sole seemed to be convex. I am going to be spending a lot of time with abrasives...... and magic markers....

robo hippy

[Patrick Baney]

Have seen this video....have also seen Rex Krueger have to do almost the same things to a BRAND NEW Bronze $300 plane that would NOT work right out of the box...Interesting...

Not at all.... From what I can recall, all Rex had to do to get the LN #4 running was loosening the lever cap screw (as LN instructs) and moving the frog forward (which he didn't actually have to do). He certainly didn't remove material from or alter the plane in any meaningful way. Though, the lever did seem a bit tight. The thumbnail suggesting the plane wouldn't cut was clickbait. Not sure how you can compare it to this video.

I am starting to think that any plane you buy needs to go through this process. I watched another of his videos about taking an old Stanley #5 plane and checking it out. Some of my problems with learning to use hand planes comes from the planes not coming dead flat. This includes Lie Neilson and Bridge City. If I am getting inconsistent results, some times it is me, some times it is the castings on the plane. Most, that have a raised casting for the handle to sit on, seem to have a dip in the tail end of the plane sole. I have a couple that seemed to cut on one side, then the other, and in those cases, the sole seemed to be convex. I am going to be spending a lot of time with abrasives...... and magic markers....

If you come across a LN or Bridge City with flaws that affect performance, they should be sent back. I can't speak to Bridge City, but LN is more than happy to correct any issues you may have with their planes. I'd avoid the abrasives on those ones.

[Reed Gray]

The first plane I got from Bridge City was bad enough that I sent it back. They returned another one to me, and said nothing about the first one. The second one is useable, but the sole still needs some work. My Lie Neilson planes are years old, and I would rather work on them to get them right. Maybe I am being too persnickety, but I want them to work correctly, and having dead flat soles seems to be a necessity. I am wondering if the plane soles do move after manufacture. Perhaps some of the flaws come from trying to flatten the soles before the metal has had time to 'adjust' kind of like wood does.

robo hippy

[Rob Luter]

A very folksy guy with an entertaining manner. He could have saved us all some time by just revealing it was junk at the onset.

That said, fettling is an honored tradition. I’ve refurbed a number of Stanley’s and fettled them to achieve performance well beyond what they will do in stock trim. I’ve tweaked my Lie-Nielsen’s as well. Why not go for 110%? Even so, if you need to put hours into a plane just so it will work ok, you are missing the point.

[Jim Koepke]

Most of my old Stanley planes have not had their soles lapped. Those that have, more times than not it was to remove rust.

If one wants to take shavings measuring in the sub thousandths of an inch, then a "dead flat" sole is in order. For me this is only necessary on smoothing planes. At least one of my jack planes was capable of this without lapping the sole. My planes from LN have been capable of this after setting them up out of the box.

My jointer planes do not need to take a sub thousandths shaving, though they can take a fine enough shaving to reduce the work of the smoothers.

Of course, as Patrick Leach has mentioned, there are those who will put a straight edge to the sole of a scrub plane.

A plane needs to give me a good reason and measurable proof before its sole is altered.

jtk