mY BEST SMOOTHERis my Mujingfang polishing plane which of all my planes is the lightest. The plane is amazing, better than any of my smoothers -#4 w Hock blade, # 4 1/2 with L-N blade, Shephard Tool Spiers 7, St James Bay Norris-. That I think puts the weight issue as Jeff G. said to rest.
Remember that the stanley bench planes are cast while the original (Spiers, Norris) infills are dovetailed. Having built a dovetailed smoother and a cast infill smoother, I believe that the infill was added not for mass but as a structural component. Both the front and rear infills support the sides to prevent outward and inward movement. Think of build a dovetailed drawer with no bottom or back, just front and sides.
I feel that the infill bailey on the link you provide benefits from the Sorby blades mass (less chatter, etc) AND the fact that the thicker blade provides for a tighter mouth.
regardless of bed type - adjustable frog or infill fixed- the last portion of the blade in a bevel down plane is unsupported. So a thicker blade, as the infillshave would, in addition to the thicker chipbreaker, provide a more stable (slightly) cutter.
In general the brittish infill smoothers may plane better, but as Jeff G said it may just be folklore that exaggerates the difference.
Scot
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 03:25:53 GMT, Steve Knight
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I think the weight benefit would depend on what wood your planing. if you going
>along with domestic hardwoods and 45 degrees I don't think extra weight will
>help much. but at 55 or 60 degree the extra weight really does make the plane
>work better. because at that high angle the plane wants to stop far more then a
>lower angle. so the mass keeps it moving.
>
Out of curiousity, have you ever gone the other way round and found
yourself lightening a plane?
And off on a random tangent here, why is the grain oriented the way it
is on the totes? Seems like it would be less likely to split if it
were running on the diagonal, or vertically on a straighter handle.
Everyone seems to run it horizontal though.
-Leuf
Leuf wrote:
>And off on a random tangent here, why is the grain oriented the way it
>is on the totes? Seems like it would be less likely to split if it
>were running on the diagonal, or vertically on a straighter handle.
>Everyone seems to run it horizontal though.
That bugged me the first time I saw it as well. I've been
orienting the grain vertically or diagonallly since I started
making my own totes. The only problem that I've found has been if
the tote flexes too much there is a possiblilty of cracking the
lower horizontal leg of the tote where it attaches to the
vertical. As a result I've gone to making shoulders to that lower
leg of the tote so that it not only goes on top of the pad htat
holds the holes for the tote but reaches over each side of the pad
and give additional base support to the tote. That seems to make
it much stronger, and since standard totes feel too small in my
hand, makes them more comfortable. The whole tote ends up being
slightly over-sized. Hope that helps,
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:02:33 GMT, "srazor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>mY BEST SMOOTHERis my Mujingfang polishing plane which of
>all my planes is the lightest...That I think puts the weight issue as
>Jeff G. said to rest.
The thing is though, it doesn't. It says that weight by itself isn't
the determining factor of the plane's effectiveness, but it doesn't
say that plane X might perform better with more (or less) weight.
There's too many variables: different blade, different angle,
different mouth, different clamping force, etc.
> I believe that the infill was added not for mass but as a structural
>component.
This makes sense, but then is there any reason besides aesthics that a
denser wood would be used as the infill? If you're making your own
infill, can you use maple instead of an exotic and not affect anything
other than having to answer why you did that every time you show it
off?
>In general the brittish infill smoothers may plane better, but as Jeff G
>said it may just be folklore that exaggerates the difference.
I think something like that Bailey conversion offers an interesting
opportunity to separate myth from fact. If you don't do anything to
the Bailey to prevent the original frog from being used and you mount
the blade to your infill with the Bailey's lever cap you've held just
about everything else constant. It'd be interesting to see if there
was any difference.
-Leuf
>The thing is though, it doesn't. It says that weight by itself isn't
>the determining factor of the plane's effectiveness, but it doesn't
>say that plane X might perform better with more (or less) weight.
>There's too many variables: different blade, different angle,
>different mouth, different clamping force, etc.
I think the weight benefit would depend on what wood your planing. if you going
along with domestic hardwoods and 45 degrees I don't think extra weight will
help much. but at 55 or 60 degree the extra weight really does make the plane
work better. because at that high angle the plane wants to stop far more then a
lower angle. so the mass keeps it moving.
I did not care for how my 60 degree planes worked as they were so hard to move
through the wood. but when I stuck in 2.5# of extra weight the plane was far
easier to move through the wood. and since it did not tend to stop it planed
better.
>This makes sense, but then is there any reason besides aesthics that a
>denser wood would be used as the infill? If you're making your own
>infill, can you use maple instead of an exotic and not affect anything
>other than having to answer why you did that every time you show it
>off?
except for weight? I made a few infills out of maple and such and I don't
remember them working any different. it's been awhile though.
tropicals and oily woods once dry tend to be more stable though.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
Steve Knight <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> >And off on a random tangent here, why is the grain oriented the way it
> >is on the totes? Seems like it would be less likely to split if it
> >were running on the diagonal, or vertically on a straighter handle.
> >Everyone seems to run it horizontal though.
>
> it should be. but I don't make the totes. that's the way they have always been
> made.
If you ran the grain along the diagonal the horns woudl break off even
easier than they do now, right? Also there would be no point to putting
a screw through the toe of the tote on larger planes as it would break
off as well.
> I do use these spring washers that let the wood move without cracking (atleast
> I hope)
Bellvelle springs would be good for that.
--
FF
On 20 Sep 2004 12:14:48 -0700, [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt)
>Bellvelle springs would be good for that.
that's what I use three pairs.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
Steve and Dave, thank you both.
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:54:03 GMT, dave in Fairfax <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Leuf wrote:
>>And off on a random tangent here, why is the grain oriented the way it
>>is on the totes? Seems like it would be less likely to split if it
>>were running on the diagonal, or vertically on a straighter handle.
>>Everyone seems to run it horizontal though.
>
>That bugged me the first time I saw it as well. I've been
>orienting the grain vertically or diagonallly since I started
>making my own totes. The only problem that I've found has been if
>the tote flexes too much there is a possiblilty of cracking the
>lower horizontal leg of the tote where it attaches to the
>vertical. As a result I've gone to making shoulders to that lower
>leg of the tote so that it not only goes on top of the pad htat
>holds the holes for the tote but reaches over each side of the pad
>and give additional base support to the tote. That seems to make
>it much stronger, and since standard totes feel too small in my
>hand, makes them more comfortable. The whole tote ends up being
>slightly over-sized. Hope that helps,
It does. What I was thinking was with the #4 with the wobbly tote due
to the lack of a second screw I would make it two pieces. I'd do a
pseudo-infill, just even with the metal with a depression at the front
for access to the frog adjuster screw, and either a dovetail or
mortise to accept the tote. The tight fit to the sides ought to keep
it from twisting. That said, you will not see me doing this on my new
old #4. Worn down black paint, well repaired split. It's a thing of
beauty.
However I did just bid it some company, (this is how it starts, isn't
it?) a lot with a #6, #5, and another #4 all with knob/tote issues to
varying degrees but otherwise ship-shape. ($58 bucks shipped, I think
I did okay) so I may end up putting this to use. I haven't got a
lathe with which to turn knobs though.
-Leuf
>Out of curiousity, have you ever gone the other way round and found
>yourself lightening a plane?
>
I have used lighter woods. maple and oak and such. the lighter the plane the
more feedback you get when cutting the wood. but you need speed to overcome the
cutting effort.
>And off on a random tangent here, why is the grain oriented the way it
>is on the totes? Seems like it would be less likely to split if it
>were running on the diagonal, or vertically on a straighter handle.
>Everyone seems to run it horizontal though.
it should be. but I don't make the totes. that's the way they have always been
made.
I do use these spring washers that let the wood move without cracking (atleast
I hope)
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.