Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Union x plane thoughts?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    317

    Union x plane thoughts?

    Hi all,

    Ive been following the development and relaunch of the xplane from union. It is based off of an old design with a 2" blade and a 9" sole. The union planes have an interesting design where they have an adjustable mouth (this run with have a fine adjuster screw), a latera adjustment lever that pivots the blade in the same direction as the adjustment (should take some getting used to) which is placed much lower then the stanley based models. This means you need to creat a lot more travel to move the blade lateraly . Again, a finer tuning then the Stanley's. Lastly the blade advancmwnt screw is a vert8cal mechanism that claims to give much finer control of blade advancment the equivalent Stanley planes. It seems to me that this plane might be an ideal smoother. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with the company (as a relaunched brand) and can give any informal into QC, fit, finish and machine performance. It se3ms on paper like a really good plane.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dayton Ohio
    Posts
    909
    They also are using a thick blade to reduce chatter. They just announced that Isaac Smith of Blackburn Tools is the new vice president. He will remain with Blackburn and work for both.

    https://www.unionmfgco.com/

    They only sell through distributors and are working on stock.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    827
    Their planes haven't been released yet.

    These planes are not common to find, even here in the US. If you are curious about them, you could try to find a vintage one and test it.

    That mechanism for closing the mouth was patented by the Metallic Plane Co. In the 1860s, I think. I've a couple of their planes, talk about a complicated frog.

    It's cool to see a plane with a precisely manufactured tight mouth. In reality, that and other features still being touted today were superseded a very very long time ago by the double iron.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    317
    I'm hoping this wont devolve into a double iron vs mouth argument. Isaac has an outstanding reputation which I'm hoping will translate to a well designed hand plane. Really curious to try this one out.
    Last edited by Assaf Oppenheimer; 04-28-2023 at 12:58 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Im hoping this wont devolve into a double iron vs mouth argument.

    Okay, this has me confused.

    I vaguely recall seeing a #7 sized X plane in an antique shop years ago and it was a double iron plane. At one time I owned a Union #4 sized plane. It had the lateral adjuster with the pivot below the disk like on the Union X plane.

    It was a fine plane and a family heirloom. I gave it to my older brother who is keeping a bunch of the family heirlooms. I have a few items my father gave me that still get uses in my shop. I like to limit my planes to mostly the same Stanley/Bailey series for interchangeable parts. It was only recently that all my type 6 planes have been retired so all my depth adjusters move the same way.

    Found this on the Union X planes > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeRUcj0_nZ4

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dayton Ohio
    Posts
    909
    The X planes are in fact a double iron in that they have a blade and a chipbreaker, just like the common Stanley. The main differences are the way the adjuster works and the movable mouth. The earlier X planes did not have a movable mouth and the frog is not movable. The later types and the new one coming out do have a movable mouth. My understanding is that the blade adjustment is tighter, meaning less slop in the adjustment and the double nuts ensure it doesn't change by itself.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    827
    Shoot, I said I wasn't going to comment, oh well.

    Yes, the X plane is a double iron plane. My comment related to the incompatibility of the double iron with a tight mouth. If you set the CB close to the edge and then close the mouth, the shavings will choke at the mouth. You can retract the CB to allow the shavngs to pass, but that negates the effect of the CB. This is easily demonstrated on a Baily pattern plane if you advance the frog or try to fit an after market thick iron.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Assaf Oppenheimer View Post
    Im hoping this wont devolve into a double iron vs mouth argument.
    maybe "devolve" is not the right word here, I learned a ton from these debates on the creek and now the double iron is my go to method.
    I was hoping to get keep the subject on the plane itself

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dayton Ohio
    Posts
    909
    Looking at the design it looks like the adjuster lever is long, which provides tow advantages over the Bailey design. First because of where the pivot is, there is a mechanical advantage making adjustment finer and easier. Second is how the adjustment nuts work the lever pivots a little at the nuts, which is why their surfaces are rounded. Dissimilar metals help but this area should be lubricated. Because the frog is pinned to the frame and is not adjustable it probably raises the necessity of keeping the edge of the blade square. Not sure how hard removing the frog might be.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    Lets see...Stanley thought so much about Union planes....they bought out the company....and...as soon as all the parts were used up, Stanley closed the place down......
    A Planer? I'm the Planer, and this is what I use

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dayton Ohio
    Posts
    909
    Lots of companies had better ideas than Stanley. It was somewhat political in buying up competitors and then closing them down, selling the assets. Stanley could not keep ideas such as the X-Plane around as then people would question the superiority of the Bedrock design.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    827
    Buying a company to later shut it down is an obvious anti-competitive move. I doubt they were stupid enough to buy the company, realize the plane was crap, and then decide to shut down production.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Brown View Post
    Because the frog is pinned to the frame and is not adjustable it probably raises the necessity of keeping the edge of the blade square. Not sure how hard removing the frog might be.
    I don't have one of these planes in front of me, but from the patent drawings and pictures it seems the frog is part of the plane body, similar to how block planes are designed.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Between No Where & No Place ,WA
    Posts
    1,339
    "They only sell through distributors and are working on stock."
    --Eric Brown

    What does "working on stock" mean? If I recall correctly, the "new" Union had some problems with the pattern an/or foundry for the making the X plane?

  15. #15
    Apparently, I still do not have enough planes in my arsenal! Blessed or cursed to be one who has to 'experiment'....

    robo hippy

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •