Chinese smoother contructed via the Krenov method
Hi All:
I have wanted a Chinese style (some call this style Hong Kong) smoother for awhile so I decided it was time to make one using the Krenov method. I purchased an HNT Gordon 1 ½” iron from Highland Woodworking and built this plane around it. The plane is 2 3/8” wide by 8 ¼” long by 1 ¾” high. The mouth is set 4 ¼” back from the toe with a 60 degree bed (frog) supporting the iron. The slightly tapered handle is 10” long, ½” thick, and 5/8” wide. The tapered hole for the handle is located 5 ½” back from the toe and ¾” up from the sole of the plane. The toughest part of making the plane was getting the taper just right on the handle so that it protrudes equally on both sides. On my first attempt I over planed the handle by just a bit which forced me to start over with a new one. I tapered the inside of the hole with a round rasp. The plane and handle are of Makore, a brownish red wood that is fairly dense and seemed perfect for this project.
Using this plane on most woods I can get away with planing against the grain without any tearout. The plane works well either pulled or pushed. HNT Gordon (http://www.hntgordon.com.au/) has some great tutorials on his website for using this type of plane. While there check out his planes. They are beautiful, work incredibly well, and are fairly affordable. I own one of his 1” shoulder planes, it is a super plane. I was surprised by how well it works across grain in spite of the steep pitch of the iron.
gdblake
Replies
Sweet
I'm told that's what us youngsters would say. No tearout against the grain? That is impressive. How tight of a throat did you make? No chipbreaker, right?
To get the handle centered, I would have shaped an over-long one, then cut it to length afterwards.
That's cause your smarter than me
Hi Chris:
I built the plane from a free 8 quarter scrap of makore that was only about 10 1/2" long to start with (pulled it out of the throw-away bin while I was buying some popular to build a small workbench). Otherwise I would have done as you suggest and made the handle out of a longer piece. As it was, I had just enough wood to make the second handle. I hadn't even heard of makore before making this plane. It's a nice color and fairly dense.
The throat is tight, just wide enough to pass a thin shaving. Correct, no chipbreaker. In a wooden plane they aren't really needed. I much prefer a single thick iron, 1/4" if I can find it.
gdblake
No chipbreaker needed...
"Correct, no chipbreaker. In a wooden plane they aren't really needed. "
I've heard that too. Why do you believe that is the case? Is it because of the mass of the larger iron normally associated with a thicker iron? Or because of the custom-fitted throat? Or something else?
Plane iron can of worms coming up
Chris:
Clark and Williams have a well written article on their website that discusses this. http://www.planemaker.com/articles_single_v_double.html
Chipbreakers are needed in Bailey style metal planes because they are part of the adjustment system. The whole design of Bailey planes call for relatively thin irons, their major weakness in my opinion. (By the way, I think Lie Nielsen has gone as far as possible with the Bailey design to tighten the tolerances and thicken the irons which is why they perform as well as they do.)
With a wooden plane (or some infills without adjusters) the iron is held in place by a wedge and adjustments are made with slight hammer taps to the iron and/or plane body. With this configuration a chipbreaker isn't needed for adjustments. In fact the chipbreaker can cause problems. Even with the short thick double irons specifically designed for use in Krenov planes I have had the chipbreaker remain frozen while the iron advanced down the mouth or moved laterally. A flat bed and well fitted wedge firmly hold even a thin iron in place and reduce vibration and the need for the extra iron mass a chipbreaker provides. My strike block has a bed angle of 38 degrees and uses a LV wooden O-1 plane iron without a chipbreaker. Even with the low angle the shavings tightly curl up and out of the way. All a chipbreaker would do is clog the throat. This is especially true of a high angle plane such as the Chinese smoother. A chipbreaker would only serve to narrow the escapement passage and possibly cause the plane to clog up.
Plus, with all things being equal, my own experience from experimenting with making wooden planes using the Krenov method is that thick irons generally out perform thin ones with or without chipbreakers added.
gdblake
GD, A serious question
GD,
A serious question (just so you know, :-)
I was asked by a customer at Woodcraft about improving an old Stanley #7. He wanted to know which I recommend: Cosman's combination of a thick blade and thick chipbreaker, or just the thick blade? Cosman includes a DVD to show you how to increase the size of the mouth to allow the thick iron and chipbreaker to be used. I told him that I don't have enough information or background to answer that good question. He know about the writeup that Gonchour did on both. Chris liked the iron but thought that the iron/breaker combo was overpriced. He didn't talk about any improvement made by adding the chipbreaker, which requires widening the mouth.
Your message adresses the issue. I am very familiar with the article on Williams and Clark's site that you referred to. I am a great fan of Larry and his gang of three. They are EXTREMELY knowledgeable folks when it comes to the use as well as the making of planes. It talks about the issue, but doesn't answer the question directly. It hints that a thick blade and a well tuned breaker might be sufficient. As you know, they are not big fans of chipbreakers.
My experience with my Stanley #7, which took me two days to fettle, is that it works fine, with the original iron. I don't reach for it as often as I reach for my LN#8, but what the heck. My guess is that with a thick IBC blade, my Stanley would work even better. I don't know how much better it work if the thick chipbreaker was added, which requires filing the mouth.
My GUESS is that adding the thick chipbreaker wouldn't add that much, but I don't know. As you said, LN has taken the old design and improved it with a thick blade and thick chipbreaker. If that combo is good enough for LN, it is probably a pretty good idea.
So what is your guess/advice - if someone wants to improve an old well-fettled Stanley, should they just replace the original thin iron with a GOOD thick one, or should they also get a thick chipbreaker?
Looking forward to your answer, even if it is only based on wisdom, and not on actual experience with the two alternatives.
As an aside, I used to wonder why the IBC irons are so expensive. They cost the same as replacement blades for LN and LV. Well, the answer is that IBC makes he irons for LV.
As a second aside, I generally wouldn't put too much money into to souping up a Stanley. I'd recommend going with a LN or an LV as a better investment. I know some folks don't like my idea that a nice plane is an investment which may be sold at some point, either because the woodworker died or he decided that he wanted something else instead. But it is quite easy to sell a used LN, and I don't think it would be so easy to get your money back by trying to sell an old Stanley which has had its mouth size increased and has a thick blade and chipbreaker. A REALLY nice feature of the LN's is their adjustment mechanisms. You can make depth adjustments as you are planing, with the greatest of ease, and the side to side adjustments are very precise and smooth. The old Stanleys can be made to work well, but not nearly as well as the LNs, IMHO. BUT THAT WASN"T The man's question. He wanted advice on getting either the thicker iron, or the thicker iron/breaker combo.
Your thoughts (which I value greatly).
Mel
Mel.. I wonder why
Mel.. I wonder why a old NASA folk would wonder about what the old folks did with stone tools and maybe with stone, copper and iron tools?
I know that you are MUCH SMARTER than your comment... I heard on BSS that no animal will follow a finger point to a object except of a human child and a dog rasied with humans for a few thousand years,, I have a common squrille that is brave enought to come near my shops open doors...,,, I feed him/her? common peanuts. She/aHe sometimes get mixed up wher I threw the nuts,, I point to where the nuts are and after more than a bit looking around they seem to realize where I am pointing at...
The common tree rodent is not dumb as they seem... IF they are not afraid of the gift giver,,,
Replacement irons for a Stanley #7
Mel:
Let me start by stating if the plane does everything your friend needs as is, then he doesn't need to spend the money on a new iron or chipbreaker (buy some wood instead). If the existing iron is sharp and the plane still doesn't allow him to take a fairly thin, continous shaving the plane needs to be feddled first by someone who knows how. The frog should be adjusted to line up with the back of the mouth to form a continuous bed for the iron all the way through to the bottom of the sole and left that way. Forget trying to close up the mouth by adjusting the frog forward, it leaves the iron unsupported which makes things worse than a wider mouth opening. My Stanley #7 is a late 1940s or early 1950s model with a fairly thick casting as compared to other Stanley's. The plane is highly tuned (I've feddled dozens of old Stanleys and have learned how to get the most out of them) and does everything I need it to do. I also own a LN #7 (no I didn't need it, my Stanley #7 works extremely well, I wanted it okay). In most woods I can't tell any difference between the two planes. However, because of its extra weight and slightly thicker iron, the LN stays in the cut better on really hard woods. The other advantage to the LN is that it required no fettling out of the box beyond a couple of minutes to hone the iron. Most of the Stanley or Record #7 planes I have ever used needed some major tuning before they performed at a level I was satisfied with.
With that out of the way, I am a big fan of thick irons and chipbreakers in Bailey style planes. To satisfy my own curiosity, over the years I have used my Stanley #7 (and other vintage Stanley planes) with the original Stanley iron and chipbreaker, original iron and Hock chipbreaker, Hock iron and original Stanley chipbreaker, and Hock iron with Hock chipbreaker. I also tried a Clifton stay-set chipbreaker with both the Stanley iron and the Hock iron. I decided the Clifton chipbreaker is a piece of junk which is probably why Record stopped making them.
Not all Stanley plane irons are the same. Some are better at taking and holding an edge than others, my guess is inconsistency in heat treating. Assuming the original Stanley iron is one of the good ones then a thick aftermarket chipbreaker is the first improvement I would make (I like either the Hock or the LN). The old Stanley chipbreakers are too thin and flexible to help much with plane chatter. If the original Stanley iron won't take or hold a keen edge then I would replace it as well. Like Larry, I prefer O1 steel so I use Hock high carbon irons in my old Stanleys (my #5 is the exception, it has an A2 iron because it holds an edge longer while doing rough work). By the way, I've decided all Record plane irons are junk so if someone else is reading this and has a Record plane they are frustrated with get a new iron and chipbreaker.
The IBC irons are good and if my memory is correct, they come with the backs (nonbevelled side) already flattened. I don't recall IBC offering chipbreakers though. Bottom line, I replaced all of the irons and chipbreakers in most of my old Stanley planes because I wanted the "bump" in performance they gave me.
Hope this helps,
gdblake
Wait...did someone confirm that IBC made the irons for LN?
IBC at one point supplied irons to LV, but they do not any longer.
I thought LN did their own, but I could be wrong.
I gather the cosman iron and chipbreaker is expensive because that's the price point when you have a manufacturer, retailer and an endorser all involved.
At any rate, I have used all of them - including the IBC, LN and LV replacements, as well as hocks. I wouldn't get an iron that required mouth filing, though a lot of older planes could benefit in the realm of serious smoothing by having the mouth touched up (it would make whether the chipbreaker is tuned and set perfectly less important).
I found durability between them to be similar, especially from a practical standpoint.
And a last comment - I think it's a mistake to think that a thick iron makes a plane something it wasn't before. The place where a thick iron really shines, working really hard woods, is the same place that a plane benefits from more mass, and not just from a thicker iron. A light plane with a thick iron is not going to hang with a more massive plane in the tough stuff.
The one nice thing about the IBC iron that I do recall (I haven't gotten rid of it or anything) is that it has an anti-rust coating and it can be used out of the box, albeit with the same faults as any other new iron (a shallow primary angle and prone to slight chipping for the first few hones - I have noticed this with all irons, not just IBC, though sometimes you get ones from the same brand that the last one chipped, and you get a really well done one that is not brittle ever, not even on the first hone).
David,
I don't think anyone said that IBC makes LN irons. I had heard that they make Lee Valley irons. WHere did you hear that that is no longer the case?
So if you were going to try to improve an old Stanley #7, would you just fettle it well, or would you replace the iron, or the chipbreaker, or both, if it could be done without filing the mouth?
Mel
There's a typo in a post further down the page then where someone said LN and intended to say LV.
I recall reading a post from Rob Lee that said something along the lines of "no longer do business with" IBC. I don't remember the details, though.
What would I do? If the plane is going to see much hardwood, I would replace the iron and chipbreaker with something from hock, because it's the cheapest (by far), and it does the same job. If that combination chatters, then something is wrong with the plane setup. If it chatters because the wood is something really heavy and hard (like cocobolo or ebony that isn't straight grained), then a plane with more mass is of more benefit, anyway, and putting a thick iron in an old light plane is still going to be a teeth chattering exercise.
If the plane was only going to see softwood, I wouldn't bother to change the iron and chipbreaker if it's in good shape.
I personally change the iron first if I only do one, because to me, the increase in time between honing is a lot nicer when you get in the flow flattening boards.
I think there's some argument to a new chipbreaker doing just as much to steady the iron vs. an old one that may be beaten up and not set up correctly, but I like less honing - especially when working hardwoods. My jack plane ( a bedrock ) has the old chipbreaker (it's in good shape) and a new iron, and I haven't been convinced of the need to take one of the chipbreakers out of my iron box and put it on just "for sport".
Cost-wise, a hock iron can be had for $31.50 shipped, and I think $2 more than that if it's for a 4 1/2 or 7 sized plane. Chipbreakers aren't much more (combo costs a total of $55 for a 2" iron bench plane), and I've gotten more planes with mouth erosion and a beat chipbreaker than with the iron totally worn out, so sometimes it's nice to have both. Money talks unless there's a big performance difference.
The ibc iron is nice, but it'll have to come down some in price to match the others. I also don't understand the pricing scheme - why a heavier LN replacement iron is cheaper than a thinner stanley replacement. If the IBC irons are going to cost more, it might be worth their while to try making them in HSS as a differentiator.
Actually Mel, you're the one who said IBC made LN irons
Mel:
Look at your own post, you stated IBC made LN irons. A typo propably, but there just the same. David and I pretty much gave you the same answer. He is correct about the weight of the plane making a difference. Years ago when I first started setting up shop I looked for Stanley planes with thicker castings for three reasons: increased weight, typically slightly tighter mouths, and usually straighter soles that needed less work. I have never found the newer webbed frog vs the old solid faced frog to make any difference once the frog face was trued.
In regards to cambering the iron on your jointer, take your pick. You are correct that you want a straight edge on the iron to joint both boards back to back at the same time. However, if jointing a single board at a time a slight camber allows you to remove more wood from the high side just by cutting with either the right or left side of the iron. I was taught to do the same thing with a straight iron by using the lateral adjuster to cant the iron in relation to the sole so as to remove more material from the high side. Either method works and helps to compensate for not holding the plane square to the board as you joint it. A little practice will tell you which approach works best for you.
gdblake
GD,
Thanks for the thoughts about edge jointing. I am getting better at using a jointer, but am not up to your skill level yet. When I am a little off of square on an edge, I sometimes use the lateral adjuster. Sometimes I use the edge plane. Either way, I get it done.
I really wasn't asking which it the "Best" or the"Only" way of doing edge jointing. I was asking a specific person which practice he uses. That is a quite different question. I enjoy finding out what techniques different people use.
So far, I have not tried cambering the iron on my jointer, because I often do two boards at a time. But I may try it just for the heck of it. As you said, both ways work. That has been said enough times so that everyone should know that by now. :-)
It has been decades since I even thought there was a possibility of there being one right way to do anything. My wife taught me that.
Thanks for writing. I will edit my typo in the previous message. Have fun. Why not write a real good article for Knots on "the real world of fettling old planes for best performance"? I'll bet your article would be excellent.
Mel
Chinese planes with or without capiron?
In the wild you see both, chip breaker and no-chip breakers. Either way irons tend to be rather thick, just a bit thicker than a LN blade. You see the wedbe behind the iron or in front of the iron.
In short, it appears to me as if the traditional Chinese woodworker is less hung up on the tools but uses whatever is available to produce the best results possible.
Chris,
"In short, it
Chris,
"In short, it appears to me as if the traditional Chinese woodworker is less hung up on the tools but uses whatever is available to produce the best results possible."
How can this be? Are these people sick? What do they talk about? Why would anyone want to focus on "best results" rather than on the details of the tools? THAT"S JUST PLAIN UNAMERICAN. Of course, they're Chinese, so they can get away with it. Must be awfully dull there. :-)
I have been thinking that the Hand Tools section should be broken into two different sections. One would be called "Galoot city", and would be for folks who enjoy "tools qua tools". Galoots are a lot of fun, and there is a little galoot in all of us. The other section would be called "Use of hand tools", and it would be for those with questions, comments and ideas on the use of hand tools for doing good woodwork. We would see more of tools like "saws" rather than merely planes. Also, we would see more about the use of "non-flat" planes eg. Hollows and Rounds", and we would see more about "infinite mouth" planes such as the Stanley 45s which require a lot of practice. We would see more discussion about the making of moldings, as in Don McConnell's DVD. In other words, we would see more about the use of hand tools to do useful work. THis, of course, is not the domain of the galoot.
Have fun. Thanks for bringing up a great idea -- focussing on using whatever is available to produce good results. A strange but beautiful idea.
Mel
PS I am a "closet galoot". :-)
Chinese tools... My baby girls that are now going to fifth and sixth grade... They are just like my Daughters but have different shaped eyes and as lovely as any woman here on earth..
I have two jointers. An LN 8 an LN 7. One is straight, one is cambered (but not much).
The 8 is straight across. I have to admit that I've thought of selling it several times over the last year, but I can't bring myself to do it. As charles says, I could sell it and buy a lot of wood. But next project, I will probably just buy a lot of wood and keep it.
I have done panels both ways (pair with a straight iron and individual panels checking for square with a cambered iron), and both turned out fine. Faster with the straight iron, but I have no regard for my time in the shop - i'd use power tools if I did.
I had an edge trimming plane from one of the premium brands. I couldn't get along with it - no clue why - boards turned out more square off the jointer with the check of a square, a mark of the high spots and a corrective pass or two. I sold it on ebay.
David,
Thank you for letting me know that you have experience with both approaches to jointing. I understand your problem with the edge plane. I spent a four hour session one day, trying to figure it out. I tried lots of things. Finally, I got it, and when I tried again the next time, I still had it. One has to get it set up so that it cuts square - obviously! and that took some doing. I have the LN. I have also used the LV. From a short period of time with it, I believe it is a bit more intuitive to set up.
Based on what I have learned, I believe I will keep my LN #8 straight, and put a slight camber on my old Stanley #7, and have some fun in trying both ways. Obviously, not a "fair" comparison, but it is not a contest, just a skill building session with myself. Like you, I don't plan to get rid of either of them.
SO, while we are discussing variations in using handplanes, I would like to hear your take on the use of a scrub plane versus a Fore Plane. Indeed, I have three, a scrub, a #5 with a 8" camber on the iron, and a foreplane. All work in flattening a board, in concert with a few other planes, but there are real differences in the process. I am wondering, what is your weapon of choice in this battle, or do you use different ones in different circumstances?
As before, this is a discussion of personal preferences and ideas as to why, not a discussion of what is the one absolutely correct way to do something. :-)
Mel
Not that it matters other than counting votes in a bin for different methods, but I don't use a scrub a lot. It's rare I can't resaw close to thickness, and rare that I have a board twisted or cupped enough to use the scrub plane.
Cherry and softer, I start with a wooden jack. Harder, with a bedrock jack. Soft woods after that to a woody jointer, and hard to a panel plane (now that I finished one a couple of months ago) or LN 7.
Smooth with whatever is handy that's sharp, or whatever is needed to remove tearout.
I think I could get along a lot without a smoother just using a jack and a panel plane. The extra mass makes it (panel plane) nice to use for a heavy shaving without cambering as much - to get out the jack ruts, and you can back it off quickly and still smooth with it. I have only had it for a little bit, though - maybe it's just initial excitement.
I have a woody fore and trying plane and a #6, but I don't use them much - my woody jointer is also set a little aggressive compared to my metal planes.
I don't know what my jack is camber-wise, I just do it up on the belt sander to whatever seems right, but it's pretty drastic, but not such that it takes a panel or jointer plane long to remove the marks.
What is 8" camber - 8" radius or 8" diamter?
If you're not in need of the money, and you're not following one plane or the other why sell. It's nice to have planes around for when you go through phases.
What is your fore plane, is it a #6?
I'd bet you're right about the edge trimmer - I probably didn't have the iron ground as square as it should've been, and maybe I just wasn't patient enough. Mine was an LV. One of the few times I listed a tool on ebay and didn't get a good sale (it was a bronze one and someone got it for $80).
David,
I really enjoyed your response. You know how to have fun in the shop. And nothing is more important than that. You asked about the camber on my #5 old Sears Craftsman plane that I use as a foreplane (ala David Charlesworth). It is an 8" radius. and it allows about a sixteenth of an inch shaving to be removed. Chris wrote a number articles on foursquaring, and recommends three planes: the old #5 with that camber on the blade, a jointer with a smaller camber, and a smoother with an even smaller camber. Nice article. I have enjoyed and profited from reading his book "Handplane Essentials".
Schwartz is an interesting guy. He is in a rough spot. He makes his living writing about tools and skills. If he upsets the tool makers, his career is over. So one would think that he would just suck up to all of them. Well, he does, but he still maintains a bit of distance and doesn't treat any one of them any better than any of the others. He seems to me to be pretty fair (with a bent to the positive side, of course). In any case, I had so much to learn, that I was able to learn a bunch from both his book on planes and on hand tools.
I like to find out how others do things too, especially people with real experience. That is the reason for my questions to you and to gdblake. I get a lot of hands on experience in my shop, but it is nice to get hints from others on things to try out, and ways to solve problems - and there are a lots of different ways of solving any of them. That makes it fun. Everybody nas their own "style". I enjoy learning about different approaches to getting things done and seeing if they work for me, and how they differ when I try them.
Like you, I don't come across much use for a scrub plane. My foreplane is quite sufficient for what I have done so far. I have developed some good skill with an nicely fettled old Disston D-8 crosscut saw, but I haven't acquired my own hand rip saw yet. I have been using my band saw to thickness pieces. So I have't had much need for my Schwartz-type foreplane. I do plan to make a big table top out of rough hewn planks, so my time will come.
Have fun. Make some masterpieces. Thanks for sharing your approaches to tool use.
Mel
I like Chris's posts, too, as well as the workbench book. I'd read more of his stuff if I had it and had more time (starting next year, I'll have a lot of time). He has stated before that he only says he likes what he actually likes. The other tools are damned by no praise. I don't consciously keep track of much that anyone says anymore, though, in terms of buying habits, but it's pretty clear that he's generous with his time and goes as far out of his way as possible to be impartial, and it seems at least like what he's doing is fun - not an obligation to "do it like someone else did" and feel guilt if not.
I wonder how many people on here work only with hand tools and make a living at it. No magazine article income, no teaching classes or selling tools. There's really no point in doing that unless you like to, but I think I saw warren mickley once say he doesn't have any power tools. I don't know if the nature of his business is repair and restoration or if it's new furniture, though.
It doesn't really matter, I guess. It wouldn't change what goes on in my basement and garage. I used power tools almost exclusively for a year when I started playing with tools (which is only about 4 or 5 years ago?), but I got tired of picking projects based on what tools I have and I got tired of the space they take up and I just wasn't having fun moving them around in my small shop and dealing with the not-so-intuitive adjustment and workflow issues. If I was going to make a kitchen full of cabinets, I would unbunch them and use them without question, but I don't have a lot of interest in a project like that. I still like spraying lacquer, though - not about to give that up.
David,
Do you ever get to the Washington, DC area? I live 18 miles southeast of it, in Burke, VA. You and your family are invited for a visit. We'll burn some burgers and trade some woodworking lies.
Mel
>>Do you ever get to the
>>Do you ever get to the Washington, DC area? I live 18 miles southeast of it, in Burke, VA. You and your family are invited for a visit. We'll burn some burgers and trade some woodworking lies. <<
Not often, every five years maybe, but if the opportunity comes up, I'll give you a yell and come up with some fish stories on the way.
link to David Charlesworth's handplane tuning article
Mel:
David Charlesworth wrote a great article on tuning up a bailey style plane for FWW. Here is the link https://www.finewoodworking.com/SkillsAndTechniques/SkillsAndTechniquesPDF.aspx?id=2933
It is available as a PDF download.
gdblake
GD,
I am very familiar with that basic article. I was looking for something much more broad and deep - which includes suggestions on when a new thick blade is worth adding, and when it is worth adding a new thick chipbreaker, and on the circumstances in which those would be useful ideas. You have all sorts of ideas on which Stanleys are better to fettle than others because they were made differently and better. You have ideas on what woods would benefit from a thicker blade. There are lots of basic articles on how to fettle planes, but there is far more that is known than exists in these articles. My guess is that you could put together an article that would make charlesworth's seem trivial. Indeed, I'll bet you could write a very useful book on the subject.
Thanks,
Mel
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled