Hello everyone, I have been reading this forum for some time now and picked up a lot of valuable information a long the way as well as seeing some beautiful handmade planes from some of you.
<!—-><!—-> <!—->
So I thought I would share with you my first attempt at making my own plane. I basically designed it myself and used many different resources for functional elements, proportions and inspiration. I created everything on this plane with the exception of the blade that was re-ground from a bevel up to a bevel down. The knob was offset turned and then carved. The handle was shaped on the bandsaw then carved. The wood is Curly Jarrah with Red Heart for decorative reasons. It fits my hand well and functions as it should. I guess you could call this a more contemporary or abstract design but I like it.
<!—-> <!—->
http://theturnersshop.com/images/myplane1/IMG_0173.jpg
http://theturnersshop.com/images/myplane1/IMG_0177.jpg
http://theturnersshop.com/images/myplane1/IMG_0178.jpg
http://theturnersshop.com/images/myplane1/IMG_0183.jpg
In Action
<!—->http://theturnersshop.com/images/myplane1/DSCF1620.jpg<!—->
<!—-> <!—->
<!—-> Let me know what you think, thanks. <!—->
<!—-> <!—->
Replies
It looks very nice to me, and appears to work well. Congratulations!
Very, very nice plane! Looks like it pulls the shavings off quite nicely, too.
Next thing you know, you'll be giving Philip and Malcolm a run for their money!! :-)
James
Edited 4/18/2006 12:38 pm by pzgren
I have been curious for some time of how you are able to make the metal sole and sides by hand. How do you start? What kind of metal do you buy (stainless steel, brass, alloy, etc.)? What tools get such precise cuts that fit so well?
Just curious.
Tim
Edited 4/18/2006 12:59 pm ET by timflugum
Tim,
Perhaps you intended this for kwgeorge?
Anyway, based on my very limited experience at building planes (a partially completed Sheppard kit that has been set aside for the moment, due to more pressing projects....), I'll give the best answers I can; I'm sure that others with more extensive knowledge and experience will jump in here as well. (Also take a look at the many plane-making posts by Philip and Malcolm, mainly in the Hand Tools section.)
Metals: generally mild steel, brass of your favorite flavour, and sometimes your favorite flavour of bronze.
Cutting: several ways to do this -- even if you don't have milling equipment -- a hack saw will do a basic outline; one can also drill out a series of holes; clean-up of the saw cuts or drilled holes can be done with a file.
The apparent precision fit is something of an illusion. The joints connecting the sides and the sole are compound dovetails; that is, they are dovetailed both along the plane of the sole and along the plane of the sides. The tight fit is accomplished by peening the metal in the dovetails (it is left slightly proud on both pieces) into the gaps -- filling those gaps with metal -- and then filing and sanding the excess metal off to produce a smooth and elegant appearing joint.
That's the quick and very, very simplified version; there is more to it, but I'm not that familiar or experienced at doing it, so I'll defer to those that can better answer your question.
James
> The apparent precision fit is something of an illusion <
Well, yes and no, James!
It's possible to peen together a poorly-cut joint and fill the gaps, but the result (unless it's all in the same metal) will be pretty messy. Clean, sharp, regular (consistent) dovetails in metal, especially in contrasting metals like brass and steel, do require some precision - however they are shaped.
There is an all-machine approach, milling the joints, and at the other end of the spectrum, there's an all-hand-tool approach, based on saws and files. There's skill in both approaches, or anything in between.
My own evolved approach is to finish-cut the tails in brass with a router dovetail bit, producing consistent, sharp-cornered, dead-square joints, then mark from them to the steel. Works for me!
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Edited 4/18/2006 10:03 pm ET by Malcolm
My own evolved approach is to finish-cut the tails in brass with a router dovetail bit, producing consistent, sharp-cornered, dead-square joints, then mark from them to the steel. Works for me!
Hi Malcolm
I have not attempted to do this myself. Are you using the router bit in a router (the thought terrifies me!) or a drill?
Oh, and that new plane of yours is wonderful. Well done!
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 4/19/2006 12:22 am ET by derekcohen
> Are you using the router bit in a router (the thought terrifies me!) or a drill? <
Sorry for hi-jacking the thread!
A big hand-held router!
Next time, I'll take some photos. Jigged-up properly, it's a safe and surprisingly benign operation. Only trimming up to a line (less than a mm of metal to remove), and sharp carbide cutting edges deal with brass and bronze no trouble. Next challenge is steel! Seriously considering buying a small table saw, setting it up with one of the new ferrous metal blades, and cutting the matching tails that way.
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Malcolm,
<<Well, yes and no, James!.....It's possible to peen together a poorly-cut joint and fill the gaps, but the result (unless it's all in the same metal) will be pretty messy. Clean, sharp, regular (consistent) dovetails in metal, especially in contrasting metals like brass and steel, do require some precision - however they are shaped.>>
Exactly...thus my qualifier "something of an illusion." One must take into account that there has to be a (very) minor degree of looseness to the compound dovetails to be able to physically get them together, something that -- obviously -- is undesirable in wooden dovetails. Although metal is a bit (and really only a very little bit) more forgiving than wood when it comes to small gaps in dovetails (at least as far as plane-making goes), I don't see that there is all that much room for slop (and didn't intend to imply that there was...).
I'm not arguing the need for precision and neatness, regardless of how it is achieved. Neater and more precise will always result in both better-looking work and better mechanical "adhesion" for (metal) dovetails. My point was that metal compound dovetails are different from wooden dovetails: wooden ones are tight from the beginning (ideally), whereas metal are (necessarily) looser and then peened tight. I suspect that my wording did not quite allow the intended thought to come through.....
Regardless....your work speaks for itself, as do the methods you've developed to get there. All exquisite planes, well-designed and very nicely made. They are certainly tools that I would be proud to own and use.
Once I get some time to get back to working on the plane, I'll finish it up and post some pics. It's not likely to be of quite the calibre of your work (or of Philip's or kwgeorge's), but we'll see....
Cheers!
James
The apparent precision fit is something of an illusion...
LOL Good one!
I'll leave it at there.. Reminds me of my old boss I trained under..
If you are interested I have a habit of writing up things like this that I venture into. The details on how this plane came to be are here;
<!----><!----> <!---->
http://www.theturnersshop.com/woodwork/woodwork.html
<!----> <!---->
<!----><!---->
<!----> Hope you find something of interest. Thanks.<!---->
<!----><!---->
Tim
There's a LOT of stuff on the web about infill planes - history, refurb, making, commissioning. It's all over the place - we badly need a book - but readily available. Keep a watch in this forum, do a Google search (or several) and you'll quickly build up a good list of references.
More and more people are having a go at plane-making (see my 'making a market' message) and there's plenty of free help available.
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
DANG! I made one and the 'shavings' come out in 'Chunks'
NICE work!
Well done - some interesting ideas.
Shaping the rear end to aid hand grip (and enhance appearance) is something that will benefit from exploration by you and other plane-makers - you've made an excellent start.
So what's next?
Malcolm
Taken a second look (more time after work tonight!)
What are the dimensions? You seem to have used quite thin (1/8in?) steel and brass, is that so? Did you peen the joints, or just force them together? How are the sides fixed to the infill? Are you happy with the shape of the front knob (the one-piece approach is interesting!).
Your workmanship is very good, BTW. So what IS next? This is not a one-time thing, you know.
Malcolm
Thanks everyone for the nice comments on my plane, it was a lot of fun making.
<!----><!----> <!---->
Malcolm, I am really glad you like my plane as I have seen the ones you have posted so your approval on mine is especially nice. As to the dimensions, the plane is 7-3/4” long from tip to tail, it is 1-5/8” wide with an overall height of just over 3”. You are correct that the brass for the sides and the steel for the sole are all 1/8”. I originally made many test double dovetails when getting ready to make the plane but I was not happy with the consistency of the cheap “weldable” steel I had bought so in the end I made box joints. To start I made them the exact same size and then later removed just a bit of brass and then soldered the frame together. It is quite secure and you could stand on it with out breaking the joints. The handle is affixed to the frame with 3 1/8” brass pins peened into place and the front knob uses two pins. I undersized the holes in the infill so all is very tight. On the knob I played with many designs and originally it was to be a two piece but then I decided to make it out of a single piece. I offset turned the knob on the lathe and then carved it.
<!----> <!---->
As for what’s next, well I have been playing with some designs for a shoulder plane as I could use one. The plane came out very nice in its functionality. While I was making it most of the final shapes came from how it felt in my hand. It is quite comfortable to use and pushing it requires little effort. I know the design is not conventional but that is one thing I have never been accused of!
<!----> <!---->
Thanks..
To all,
This was my first post and I am not sure how to reply properly. I will learn.
I am fascinated by your use of a woodworking router and carbide bit to essentially mill brass. I did not think many woodworkers had access to machining tools (metal).
What did you mean by soldering the joint? I was taught soldering is not really structural ... it is primarily for electrical connectivity. Do you use a special type of solder?
I am so fascinated by making my own tools. I assumed I need special tools or access to special tools (metal working machining) to make my own precision hand tools.
Your plane looks so professional and solid. I hope to make my own some day.
Thanks for all the information,
Tim
You do not have to have special metal machining tools to make a plane. For example if you were to make box joints such as I did you could user your table saw with a Non-Ferrous metal blade installed and machine the brass just like you were making box joints for a drawer. The shaping I did on the brass was done with a Band Saw with a metal cutting blade installed, an Orbital Spindle Sander and a hand file. You would be surprised at the strength of a well soldered joint. In my case I used solder and flux commonly available for plumbing use. They now have blades for ferrous metal but I have no experience with these.
<!----><!----> <!---->
Again, if you want to see how I made mine you can go here;
<!----> <!---->
http://www.theturnersshop.com/woodwork/woodwork.html
<!----> <!---->
And look in the Hand Plane sections. This will show you how mine came about. Not nessaraly the best way or even a good way to make one but this is what I did. I have been on a kick making my own hand tools lately so there are several things around there that I have made.
Great looking plane there, kwgeorge. I especially like the contour work you've done on the infill. Congratulations.Malcolm - Yes, there should be more books on the subject. I know of one that was being written a few years ago but I'm not sure what stage its in at the moment. I also started writing one way back in around 1997-98. Did a couple of chapters on it, but quickly got distracted with other things. It was always going to be on my "to do" list to finish it but, earlier this year, I had a bit of a change of heart.Now, instead of writing a book, I've decided that I would prefer to make any planemaking knowledge I've acquired over 20+ years available for free over the internet through the HC website, along with a ton of other handplane related stuff. It's one of the main reasons why I re-launched HC a few short months ago, in fact. I love the anarchic nature of the web and the fact that it can rout the "established system" somewhat. It still takes time to organize, of course, but I hope to build HC up as an "un-missable" site for handplanes within a year or two.I should add that if anyone is interested in helping out at all - article writing, tutorials, plane reviews, suggestions etc - then it would be much appreciated. Drop me a line through the contact form on HC if you're interested.
Handplane Central
> I've decided that I would prefer to make any planemaking knowledge I've acquired over 20+ years available for free over the internet <
Cameron, that's the rationale for my commercial web site (http://www.baldrigeplus.com) and it's brought me a lot of well-paid work over the past few years.
All strength to your elbow. Now, a suggestion. One problem with Knots is that when a converstion peters out, it drifts off into archive country, and is lost. What you might consider is capturing the passing dialogue, and building it into a permanent, accessible resource. How about a real virtual book, a bit like open-source computer code, that people could continaully update, add value to, and verify by practice and experiment? You'd quickly gain THE status, and you'd be leveraging one of the great strengths of the internet, which is timeliness.
If I wasn't so busy, I'd offer to help!
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Edited 4/20/2006 7:31 am ET by Malcolm
How about a real virtual book, a bit like open-source computer code, that people could continaully update, add value to, and verify by practice and experiment?
It's called a wiki. There's software out there to administer them so you wouldn't have to start from scratch even if you decided to host one of your own.
I haven't searched, but a woodworking wiki would be awesome. Sort of like a user-maintained FAQ, it might reduce the number of "what table saw should I buy" threads (like the one I started last year). :)My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
Yeah, I was thinking a wiki at first, but the danger/advantage of a wiki is that users can change what has already been written. This is good in some respects but its also very open to abuse. As its difficult to reach consensus on several matters it would be a case of people changing what they don't like or don't believe. In short it's a good way to spread misinformation or opinion, as well as fact. An FAQ might be a better way to go?Any addition thoughts on this?I'm trying out a few things on Handplane Central at the moment so I'll report back if anything looks promising.
Handplane Central
What you want is a wiki you can moderate and lock down.
There must be a way!
Too much good stuff gets lost!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
I agree 100%. If you required registration to contribute, and logged all entries, you could ban people who did actual damage (and restore what they'd defaced), while still giving free and easy access to the vast majority who would be helpful and careful.
Some of the bad publicity around wikipedia is due to trolls, and the rest is due to people with opposing interests (politicians trashing opponents' pages) trying to mislead people on purpose.
I've seen very little in the way of trolls here; only one person comes to mind to whom I would not grant write/modify access.
I hope someone takes this challenge on. :)My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
You would be able to lock down certain parts of a wiki from what I understand, so that's definitely a possibility. Policing it may be a bit of a headache but there might be ways around that as well - plugins etc.On the other hand, would it not be an idea to set up some form of "article software", in which a person can apply for an account, write an article, a thought, theory or what have you, and then have other people who are able to comment and expand upon it? Similar to a forum in some respect, but different insofar as each article would remain "live" (and not archived as such), would be verified for accuracy in some way by a committee (possibly made up of other plane makers who would try to be as impartial as possible), along with a database which could be fully searchable. Would people feel that this could be a possible way to go?In some respects I guest it's similar to a wiki but I could probably have the second option ready within a day or so.Also, just talking about this, would someone be able to give an example - as in an actual sample, however small - of a practical application of this? I'm finding it a little difficult to ascertain the difference between a wiki-like approach and a forum, insofar as there are many "rights" in making a plane.How would one determine what is being said when it comes to, say, the bevel up vs bevel down argument for example? I mean both approaches are right and correct and valid as such. but how would you stop the wiki degenerating into an "us and them" situation? We've all seen this sort of thing many times before on forums, and some people can be very strong in their opinions. With so many different responses to the same question/article etc. it can become very confusing - especially to a newbie. What would be your solution to this sort of problem, for instance? (this is an open question to everyone by the way)Just some more thoughts...
Handplane Central
Some thoughts:
As in many things (especially organisational development) structure should follow purpose.
The problem with the wisdom on knots is that it is effectively transitory - here today and gone tomorrow. Another problem is that there's no way of distilling common wisdoms and rounding up a consensus, and then settling that somewhere so it is continually available.
So, if structure should follow purpose, do we need to start with a discussion about what it is we're trying to achieve, and for whom? If our purpose is clear, then how to deliver that purpose might be more easily revealed?
And, should this be a seperate discussion (we've hijacked the original thread!)
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
You speak wise words, Malcolm....and yes, we should start a new topic and stop hijacking this one ;-)Sorry folks!
Handplane Central
Well it’s my original thread and I find the discussion very interesting so “Hijack On”!
Very cool plane. Where the screw contacts the blade it would appear it could potentially scratch. Did you give some thought to distributing the load through a foot of some sort attached to the screw?
Again, well done. Very original.
Andy
Great looking little plane.
Garry
http://www.superwoodworks.com
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled