Replies

1. 
   Eef | Feb 04, 2010 12:12pm | #1

   hey charley,

   great looking website. i have bookmarked it for later. as we speak mr. finck's book is on it's way to my eager self. i too am looking to get into hand plane making. it is difficult to imagine that ordinary yellow glue is insufficient for holding together wood plane bodies. i guess we'll see what others may say.

   eef

2. 
   WillGeorge | Feb 04, 2010 12:38pm | #2

   Not a Plane maker but I will watch this post. Great question. I want to know more!

   In my way of thinking..

   ALL wood moves. Even a solid block of wood. Maybe what is needed, for a 'quality' plane, is using ONLY old growth hardwoods with annual ring spacing less than 10 Microns?

   I wonder if this is 'Really' a serious problem for most hand made planes? I think it is relative to what wood is being used to make the plane and how it is all fitted together.

   Sorry folks,,, Just how I think.

   I would say... even metal expands and contracts. A way bit less than wood... I admit.

1. 
   Eef | Feb 04, 2010 03:12pm | #3

   hey will,

   total novice, me-self, but i suspect heavy,dense wood will be called for in plane making. we have a type of elm in my area that is most intriguing. every log i have ever seen of this stuff, and it is VERY common, is exceedingly heavy and dense. furthermore, and this is the interesting thing, it does not check or crack. logs that are years old and have not been de-barked, end sealed or in any way treated with an eye to future wood working, are devoid of any splits, checks or cracks.

   eef

3. 
   flairwoodworks | Feb 04, 2010 04:56pm | #4

   I'm sure Larry Williams has a
   I'm sure Larry Williams has a good reason if he was quoted correctly, but I, personally, don't see any problem with making a laminated plane.

   To all,

   The glue reference is in the reply second to bottom at the link provided by the OP.

4. 
   danmart | Feb 04, 2010 06:56pm | #5

   Dave Finck's book is great.
   Dave Finck's book is great. Just make the plane. Ron Hock's blades are the best bang for the buck in my view. If this is your first plane, just do it. There's a learning curve and you won't find that plane that fits your hands till you make one and realize... this needs to be adjusted this way or that way. With wood you can start over and use the same blade to make a killer plane. Go to the bank with Hock blades. I like the high carbon stuff and its very reasonable. Check Craftsman Studios for the best prices on Hock blades.

   Just do it.

   dan

5. 
   gdblake | Feb 04, 2010 07:11pm | #6

   Charles:

   I use Titebond II or III. Think about the issue raised concerning laminating the plane body for a second. Companies glue up blanks for LVL beams, church beams, newel stair posts, table legs and tops, gun stocks, airplane propellers, you name it all the time. Do we hear about all kinds of failure in these applications because of moisture not being able to move through the wood? No, if anything these components are stronger because of the glued laminations.

   Don't get me wrong, Larry Williams knows far more about plane making than I will ever know. Plus Larry and Don make great planes, some of the best you can buy at any price in my limited opinion. Way better than any plane I'll ever be able to make, I don't have their skills. I'd love to own several of them, but thanks to current unemployment it isn't going to happen any time soon.

   Meanwhile, I am using a 24" razee jointer I made 8 years ago, a 16" fore plane, and several other wooden planes I made via the Krenov method (plus several LN and old Stanley's, yes I have a problem). I have also given several wooden planes away to family and friends. None of them have failed due to wood movement.

   Use the Krenov method to make any type or style of plane you want and enjoy it. It's easy and a lot of fun. The key is getting the cheeks, front ramp, and bed perfectly square before glue up. Also pay attention to making sure the crosspin is at a perfect 90 degrees to the cheeks or you will have trouble fitting the wedge. Totes are mortised in per a previous reply. The glue is strong enough to hold them in place. Use quarter sawn wood if possible. Run the growth rings with the bark side facing down (the sole is the bark side). Keep in mind that the natural movement of wood is to "straighten out" the curve of the growth rings. If the rings are cupping up if you have any natural movement it will cause the sole to become concave side to side. It is far easier to lap true a concave sole than a convex one.

   As Mel would say, have fun!

   gdblake

1. 
   lwilliams | Feb 04, 2010 10:18pm | #7

   I was "there" but got an e-mail suggesting I come here to look at this thread.

   I don't recall suggesting structural failure of laminated planes though I do know of some instances. What I try to explain is the differential moisture content between the core of a plane body and its surface. The problem with trying to explain what happens in a wooden plane is tainted by the fact that woodworkers always look at seasonal movement as though the plane's body is a 1" X 12" which is what gdblake is doing when he talks about the stock cupping.

   The issue is really about core moisture content vs. surface moisture content and what the stresses a differential cause. If the plane has been in a relatively dry environment for a while and the humidity goes up the core is more dry than the surface. If you took a thin cross-section slice through the solid part of a trying plane in this state, for instance, all four sides that make up the square you're looking at will be cupped. If the plane had been in a wet location and moved to a dryer location that same cross section slice would have convex sides because the core is wet and the surface dry.

   This all has little effect except for the distortion on the sole. The amount of distortion also depends on how far from end grain the slice is taken. What this all boils down to is when the plane experiences a rise in humidity you get concave sections ahead of and behind the mouth. When the humidity falls these same locations will be proud of the rest of the sole. This has a significant impact on the plane's performance and also tends to distort the location of the leading edge of the mouth opening. It doesn't take much movement of these surfaces to change things and make a plane difficult to use and adjust.

   In traditional plane design wood choice, grain orientation and a continuous grain pattern limit this. The ray structure of beech is heavy and effective at moving moisture to help the core of the plane's body reach equilibrium quickly. Proper grain orientation helps limit the effect on the flat sawn surface because the wood movement is less between the surfaces and the sole. Even the coffin shape of the smooth plane, where very fine control is needed, contributes to moisture movement along the whole side of the plane so that the sides of the plane, where thin at the escapement, moves at the same rate as the sides where the wood is thick because there's no escapement.

   All this limits the movement in traditional designs. When tuning is needed on a traditional plane, that tuning is pretty limited. I'm sorry but those who favor laminated style planes, especially those that also have a laminated sole and sides, seem to want to ignore the way a relatively thick and relatively square chunk of wood moves and what distortion shows up on the sole of a plane. Maybe they work in a shop where humidity never changes. I've never had that luxury.

   I started making planes with laminated bodies. Back in the 1970's I made myself a set of laminated planes. They were difficult and time consuming to keep finely tuned and I eventually gave up on them. They just seemed to keep moving and never settled down. Maybe I just expect more of a plane than others.

1. 
   gdblake | Feb 04, 2010 11:54pm | #8

   Larry:

   Thanks for jumping in and pointing out the real issue of water movement within a wooden plane. Most of us are aware of the movement of moisture through endgrain, but don't stop to consider the movement of moisture through the rays. What you are saying in terms of the uneven swelling and shrinking of wood fibers within the sole due to moisture content at the core versus the edges seems like common sense once it's explained so clearly. I appreciate you clarifying that the issue isn't the structural integrity of the plane itself, but rather the discrete movement of the sole (and really also the bed) in response to changes in humidity. Given this information, what are your recommendations in terms of lapping or dressing the sole of a traditional plane?

   I stand by my statement concerning the distortion of plane bodies due to the orientation of the growth rings. I've got a traditional coffin plane that was made with rift sawn wood. The plane has become warped beyond use due to the typical trapezoid distortion that rift sawn blocks of wood are prone to. I also have a large jointer (28" with a 2 5/8" wide iron) that has the quartersawn growth rings cupping up. As stated in my post, even though this is an old plane, it continues to move in the predictable pattern of flattening out the cupping so that every now and then I have to lap the sole to flatten it. Interestingly, the 24" jointer I made eight years ago by laminating several 3/4" eucalyptus boards together has stayed stable and doesn't require routine lapping to keep the sole flat. Still, I hope you could tell from my post that I don't consider laminated planes to be superior to traditional wooden planes. I've gotten pretty good at making them, but know from getting to try out a couple of yours that the traditional planes you make are superior in performance. I do see laminated planes as a relatively inexpensive way, in terms of time and materials, to play with different configurations. They are also an affordable way for many of us to have a few planes that are superior to the cheap Bailey knock offs that seem to be everywhere.

   I hope you will continue to regularly post on Knots. Over the years I have learned a great deal from you. You are clearly a thinking man's man.

   Thanks,

   gdblake

1. 
   derekcohen | Feb 05, 2010 01:16am | #9

   Just for perspective - not to agree or disagree with the points made by Larry ...

   For the average woodworker who wishes to build a plane or two or three, remember that thousands of planes have been made with the laminated method, such as those by Krenov and his school, and they have proved more than adequate users. Indeed, there are planes being made by professional planemakers who prefer this method because it works for them (e.g. Crown planes, Steve Knight - just to mention two).

   Get in there and build a plane. Don't be afraid - whether laminated or solid, both are capable of becoming excellent users.

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

1. 
   charlemagne | Feb 05, 2010 10:46am | #10

   I was hoping to stir something up ...

   In the laminated block plane construction what is the point of the bark side facing down (sole) ?

   In Japanese kanna's there are 2 grain direction configurations. One is the block having 3-sides of straight grain (the sides and the sole have straight grain, bark side down) and another is the false-quartered block with the core of the tree facing one of the upper corners of the block (grain running at 45% of the sole).

   I've got several cheap kanna's, but the block's need to much work and are of to inferior quality that i'm considering using the blades. I would need to make them straight sided though, as the kanna blades tend to be tapered along their lenght. They also don't have a fixed chipbreaker so i asked Ron Bresse about the lack of chipbreaker on the blades he sells. This was his respone : With thicker irons the cap iron is not necessary especially at bed of angles of above 45 degrees. 50 Degrees, also know as York pitch, is the bed angle I would recommend. It will reduce the possibility of tear out and will also allow you to reduce the depth of the iron and do some finer surfacing with your plane.

   More food for thought...

   I've got some walnut and padoek for the sole aclimatizing before i'll do any cutting. As the padoek is a 20mm thick quatersawn board, which will be resawn to about 1/4 inch, i guess i need to make the the block quarter-laminated as well.

   G

6. 
   gdblake | Feb 06, 2010 02:43pm | #11

   G:

   To answer your question let me direct you to an internet site that has a discussion about wood movement and a cross section diagram of a tree show how a board will distort based on where it is cut from the tree. http://www.woodworkdetails.com/Knowledge/Wood/Movement.aspx

   To determine the tangential and radial directions of a piece of stock, you need to look at the end grain. The tangential direction is parallel to the growth rings while the radial direction is perpendicular to the growth rings. As it dries, wood tends to shrink more along the tangential axis (parallel to the rings) than along the radial axis (perpendicular to the growth rings). The reasons to have the growth rings running side to side with the bark side down are:

   1. Most of the shrinkage from water loss will be in the width of the plane. Were the shrinkage in the height of the plane it would have a greater negative effect on the flatness of the bed and the bedded iron’s angle of attack.

   2. A flat sawn surface is generally more wear resistant than a quarter sawn surface.

   3. The natural overall tendency of a wooden block as it takes up and releases water is to straighten out the growth rings. With the bark side down the sole will tend more toward becoming concave from side to side. It is far easier to joint or lap a concave surface flat than a convex surface.

   I don’t believe that these factors are as big of an issue with laminated planes, but I don’t have a long enough history with laminated planes to back this up with any hard data. Anyone who has worked with exposed beam construction will tell you that solid stock beams are more likely to twist and warp than laminated beams of the same wood. Even though we are dealing with smaller stock, I can’t help believe the same is true for handplanes. I have looked at dozens of old traditional wooden planes and most had checks and some casting (dimensional changes that take the plane out of square). Some to a great degree, others to a minor degree. The ones with the fewest problems were constructed with the growth rings running side to side with the bark side down. The few Japanese planes I have seen also used this same general growth ring orientation. Granted, I wasn’t around during the useful life of these planes to know whether or not checking and casting was an issue for the craftsmen who owned and used them. Only time will tell if a laminated plane has a useful lifespan that is as long as or longer than a traditionally crafted wooden plane.

   In terms of useful lifespan, metal planes will long out live wooden ones. However, I have come to believe that wooden bodied planes have five unique advantages over their metal counterparts. First, they accommodate much thicker irons (thick irons perform better than thin ones). The wooden bodies absorb vibration better than metal planes so you get a smoother cut and less chatter. A wooden sole generates less friction than a metal sole and so requires less force to take a shaving. Wooden planes generally give more tactile feedback than metal planes. And finally, Bailey and Norris adjusters have a certain amount of slop to them. Once you learn how, adjusting a wooden plane with slight hammer taps is actually more refined and precise.

   gdblake