Re: About handplane design


<Samu.Aalto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1179350463.168732.228130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello,

I am just an amateur woodworker, who just awhile ago got into building
handplanes. I like krenovian approach (gives me an excuse to use
combinations of flashy hardwoods :). I have finished now about a dozen
wooden handplanes and conditioned (or actually re-built) some cast-
iron english Stanleys and one Anant smoother by machining their soles
and sides, mouths, beddings and assembly surfaces with a precision
milling machines and other such methods. I think they work now as well
as those expensive (and beautiful) Lie-Nielsens and Veritas planes.
Well, I'd say the Anant smoother costs now about 400-500 USD :).
Nothing further on that, just to say that now I have some preliminary
experience about making and conditioning planes to somewhat useful
woodworking tools.

Okay, during these exercises, it got me thinking one seemingly
fundamental design-based thing, on which I have not yet found
discussion or comments anywhere. It may be because english language is
not my native language and that's why I have missed something. But it
still bothers me, and I still I would like to receive some comments
and guiding in this matter, which actually fights against certain
fundamental classic design principles I have used to keep as rock-
solid approach when talking about woodworking handplanes.

Consider the side profile of for example Stanley #5, just to mention
one basic design. It's side profile starts as shallow at toe, rising
along the side where blade is and then again decreases to the heel.
This side profile says that the body construction is most rigid
against mechanical bending in the mid-section where the blade and it's
adjustments are.

The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
surface. Then again, when I think of the generally accepted principle
that plane sole should be levelled at least at toe region, at heel
region and especially at the area right in front of the blade edge, it
means that if there is very rigid mid-section structure, the sole must
be no only incredibly flat to work well, it is in some cases also
difficult to avoid tear-out in very figured wood if the sole region in
front of the blade does not stay pressed against the wood surface to
be planed. Quite unforgiving system, I'd say.

So, the bothering question is that why plane profile could not be
allowed to be a bit more flexible at that region where plane blade and
the surface area are? I do not mean paper-thin soles or clearly
"springy" action or such, but just enough to utilize that force
created by blade. It would still not mean loss of rigidity beyond
practical level.

This bothers me, the question why general design fundamentals consider
such an unforgiving structures for cast iron handplanes. I know, it
works, I have experienced and even created it by myself. I have also
experienced surprises that it does not work although everything should
be in order. Then again, I have found that I score with better
surfaces with wooden planes more often than with cast iron bodied
planes despite they are nominally more accurately adjustable. Could it
be that this "flexibility" is readily available in the more elastic
behaviour of the wooden sole? I somehow do not think that this
difference appears directly because of my contribution. For example,
due to my day job, I have access to machinery that makes really very
true surfaces (for flat surfaces manufacturing, human craftsmanship
has really no deal compared to how those machines do and measure their
job) and I have for a curiosity done surface truing for some
handplanes with them. The result is kinda clear, with similar settings
of planes (iron angle, mouth clearance etc.) wooden plane sole works
better more often than cast iron plane. To me, this result is also a
kind of evidence to support the existence of my current disturbing
thoughts of "flexible" sole. I say that I am not starting a crusade,
not even arguing anything but just presenting my experiences.

But because here in this newsgroup there seems to visit both
professionals and very advanced amateurs, I decided to ask this here.
Please, bear with me :)

Yours,

Samu



.

Relevant Pages

  • About handplane design
    ... wooden handplanes and conditioned some cast- ... and sides, mouths, beddings and assembly surfaces with a precision ... The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes ... will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: About handplane design
    ... There are people who know more about the use and design of planes than ... and sides, mouths, beddings and assembly surfaces with a precision ... The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes ... will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: About handplane design
    ... Chattering of plane iron is of course a problem in some cases, ... It is true that any length of plane iron, protruding from sole would ... The downforce of advancing plane iron taking a shaving increases up to ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: About handplane design
    ... "incredibly flat" may be time consuming, ... say the achieved "flatness" is at submicron level over entire plane ... sole of this English Stanley #5 and one other metal plane. ... accuracy does not hold for long due to the living nature of wood. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: De plane has arrived!
    ... Good review on the plane. ... Good to know that the free fence doesn't work as advertised, ... better...hope the mouth is level with the sole. ...
    (rec.woodworking)