A simple box...(a slow and lightly updated thread)

[D_W]

Coming along....tons of physical work, but the bottom is nearly flat. I guess peining the sole plate onto the buttom sucked the area behind the mouth up. If the rest of the bottom is close to being in plane except for the first fraction of an inch behind the mouth, I'll have to think about how far I'm going to go chasing perfection.



I really lucked out, for all of the unexpected things that have occurred so far, the right side is almost dead square to the bottom. I'll have to do very little to it other than clean it up cosmetically and make sure there are no burrs on it that would beat up a shooting board.

The left side is close to square, but it's not flat like a sole. That is completely inconsequential.

 

[patrickjchase]

Coming along....tons of physical work, but the bottom is nearly flat. I guess peining the sole plate onto the buttom sucked the area behind the mouth up. If the rest of the bottom is close to being in plane except for the first fraction of an inch behind the mouth, I'll have to think about how far I'm going to go chasing perfection.

I'd have gone "full Holty", and be running for the surface grinder in the shop at work by now.

 

[D_W]

Sometimes, that crops into my head. I remember seeing a blog post of Konrad's when he was making a titanium plane (bad idea given its resilience to peining, but everyone has to try things or we don't learn), and he intimated that his machining at that time was done by someone else (may still be). Which actually isn't a bad idea, because accurate machining isn't always that costly and I'll bet he can make two planes for every one he could make if he was doing the machining himself.

Anyway, I've thought about a mill and lathe, but no need for a surface grinder. But I'd miss the physical work. I added a portaband this year and did some of the bulk metal cutting with it (it's quite nice, because it's simple, and you still work to the line with files, so it's safe).

If the lifting gets too heavy on the sides, removal in spots is surprisingly easy and fast with a 1x42 kalamazoo sander and a coarse belt. The belt is tight enough that only the very last bit of work needs to be done with files to remove any surface convexity. And it's satisfying to do it by hand rather than to set stuff up and stare at it.

Besides, with the iron, I needed a taper of about 1/16th of an inch, a bevel on each side of about 15 degrees, and a hollow in the taper, both in the length and width - to bias in my favor. All of that tapering probably took two hours.

A precise mill setup would certainly eliminate some issues (the width between pins varies by a hundredth, so the infill needs to be made tapered to a hundredth - but you're sawing and planing it by hand, so it's not a big deal. You just have to stop and check and get everything within a couple of thousandths of square/thick/wide, etc. It's quite pleasant to do. All of the peining would be easier with clean mill cuts, though. If I dawdled with the filing pins and tails, I could be twice as accurate, but on this plane, a solidly bedded iron, a flat sole and a square right side are really the goal.

 

[D_W]

I mentioned previously that I'd post a tip about getting rid of pinholes when they appear (after peining), so this is that:

First picture, about an inch front the front, you can see a void - a little bit more than a pinhole, actually.



In order to get rid of it, you tap (pein) lightly on it and all around it to close it mostly (not hard - disregard the dark spot, it's just a pein mark that didn't reflect light). This one is actually quite deep, but I still don't want to see it on the finished plane. The dimpling looks garish, but it's not deep, and you can file it off. It might be a thousandth or two. At this point in finishing the surface, I take care of each of these as they show up, and at some point, you'll be finished light draw filing and they'll be gone.




And then after a few passes of the vixen. A bit of the tail still telegraphs, but that's because the vixen is so rough with metal removal. Some draw filing with a decent single cut file, and that will be gone, and I always surface finish these planes to 220 grit sanded finish (cosmetic). that seems to be a grit level that looks good without looking boutiquey, it's easy to refresh if needed, and it manages to hide the tails well, which is what we want. It will not hide voids, though, if you don't take care of them.



On a typical build like this one where I "busted out" the pins and tails and filed as fast as I physically could, I'll probably make this repair a dozen times around the plane (perfectly milled pins and tails would make peining perfection a little bit easier), but it looks very amateurish if those pinholes are left on the plane. I already filed the mouth a skosh wide and don't need any other sloppy stuff on this plane.

The front of the plane is a bit ugly, but squaring it off and cleaning it up is last.

 

[D_W]

lapping, by the way, is a good way to get nowhere fast.

You can see that this plane is on a lap, but the lap is only used to find high spots, then those are it with files, vixen, spot sanded on a hard platen, etc. When this is nearly finished, I will probably do a finish lap to make everything uniform before going over the surface with a block and 220 grit, but there's no reward for grabbing a sharp bunch of unfinished metal and running it over ever dulling sandpaper. It'll end up proud at the toe and heel doing that, anyway. Just a few thousandths, but I don't want that.

 

[Bodgers]

It is looking good. D_W, do you recommend any books for plane building? I have a fantasy that one day I will build something like one of those Marples transitional style planes...

 

[D_W]

The only material I've looked at closely has been Larry William's excellent video on making side escarpment planes.

Other than that, I've learned mostly by looking at planes I like and trying to do everything by hand so that equipment doesn't limit what I make.

I have heard, though, that Whelans book on planemaking is good. Otherwise, everyone I know who builds planes has generally learned by trial and error, but it's quite pleasant to build planes, so trial and error isn't bad.

 

[D_W]

Wedge and handle are left to go yet, as well as some cosmetic work, but we've nearly got a working plane.

The iron is hardened and tempered to low 60s I'd guess (both by temper temperature as well as this iron's resistance to an arkansas stone - a wonderful stone to have on hand to gauge hardness).

This plane will not be in a track at the outset. The back is about a hundredth higher than the front, which isn't a big deal for working by hand, but it's not machinist tolerance. I can nail this within about a thousandth with hand tools, but it can be done at any time later if needed yet.

https://s13.postimg.org/5p3jsxkzr/20180303_120922_1.jpg

 

[D_W]

For practical purposes, finished. A little bit of cosmetic work to do, filing, a little bit of lapping and then scraping off any remaining burnished/burned areas from trialing a belt sander to spot remove (vixen by hand turned out to be a better method).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWZE4vC ... e=youtu.be

 

[knockknock]

Wow, nice work on the plane, and thanks for sharing. 8)

 

[AndyT]

I'd call that a success! Well done and thanks for taking us along with you.
I hear what you say in the video about wanting to get on with some rapid woodwork though. I find I really like to do something quick and rough after a slow careful job. Chipboard and screws rather than dovetails and careful planing.

What's next? Did you ever finish your kitchen cupboards?

 

[D_W]

Thanks guys.

Andy - yes, cabinets are done, but not up yet. I have to find a time that the Mrs. isn't home, because she's the opposite of helpful when she's around (my kitchen job is fairly easy - floor, cabinet installation, countertop and sink (where they already are now, just new ones) and backsplash.

 

[Oskar Sedell]

Very nice David, thanks for showing your build and for doing the video.

I have built a wooden skew miter, in pretty much the same configuration. 38 deg bed, 20 deg skew and I’m not entirely satisfied with the ergonomics. Next thing will be adding a handle like yours, with a threaded insert.

How’s your edge holding up in use? I find my iron is chipping rather than wearing and I’m not sure if this is because the iron is not broken in (honed enough times back from the raw edge) or because the angle is too shallow. Do you have an estimate of your clearance angle?

 

[D_W]

Hi Oskar -

My bed angle (if you take an infinitesimally small lateral section) is 40 degrees. I've honed the iron around 30 and left it a bit overhard (it's tempered, but only to about 350 degrees) hoping that it will sort of max out O1 performance. It holds an edge well and wears uniformly (I took about 80 swipes off of the cherry stick in the video and noticed that the iron dulled some over the span, but no chipping - chipping is a bugaboo for me). Trying to shoot a piece of purpleheart 1.2 inches thick and 4 inches wide pretty much killed it, but I don't think you can shoot wood like that. It needs to be assaulted (I planed the bed with a smoother, but it's more like assault than it is planing to plane it).

On my wooden plane (that's behind the bench), I am contemplating adding a metal sole to it. Normally, I like the slickness of the wood, and the easy tunability, but it takes a lot of wear ahead of the mouth, and the slickness of the plane allows it to move laterally really easily (not an issue if it's in a track). this one has a lot more friction and is easy to use. I contemplated, also, just building an actual skew (like a badger) plane and boxing it in with brass or something similar to get a poor man's infill, but I think it wouldn't have saved any time.

 

[Oskar Sedell]

thanks David!

I measure the bed angle the same way.

My iron is made by Phil Edwards, and it´s pretty hard. Judging from the stones it´s harder than all my vintage irons, and about as hard as my Hock blades. Give or take. I will slowly keep raising the angle with each honing and see if the chippiness persists.

I don´t shoot too many edges so I can´t comment on sole wear yet. Would you put a full metal sole to your wooden plane, or a metal inlay in front of the mouth?

 

[D_W]

I'd probably start with a screwed-in insert of brass or steel in front of the mouth - since the plane will be on a shooting board, there shouldn't be much wear behind the mouth, and even if there is a little, it won't matter.

It doesn't seem like it should matter much in front, but it takes away your ability to adjust the iron depth by eye.

I'm sort of curious as to why some irons don't seem to take a fine edge. I never found Hock's O1 irons to be as good as the ones I've made on my own, and not as good as an O1 iron that I received from St. James Bay Tool Co in an infill kit (that one needed to be tempered).

If your iron fails to stop chipping after the following:
* several iterations of honing and use
* a total angle at the bevel of 32 degrees or so (you can treat it with a back bevel so that you don't lose clearance - 10 degrees is my personal rule, but you can go a little bit lower.
* accurate tempering to 400 degrees F

I'd perhaps try a different iron. There is the possibility of damage or decarb on the surface of an iron, but my heat treating conditions are far from ideal (coffee can forge, mapp torch, vegetable oil quench in a separate paint can, and then tempering in an oven to color on large irons - my oven is accurate, though - I have checked it with a separate thermometer.

Beach's page of irons shows the same thing I found with Hock's - that they are a bit more chippy than some others. I found Steve Knight's O1 irons to be absolutely wonderful (but they're not available in a shape that you'd like, and Steve is out of business), and Hock's larger custom efforts (one that I bought from Ron Brese and one that I bought directly from him) have also been good. It's the HCS stanley style irons that I've had trouble with.

I remember Ron Hock once saying that an O1 iron is ruined if you see any tempering colors, but I've found the range of 62 hardness tempering colors (straw) to be my favorite - the irons hold an edge well and are tough enough.

temperature schedules can be a bit inconsistent, but I'm guessing that the iron the plane in the video is somewhere around 62 or 63 hardness. It's too contrary to be sharpened on a washita.

Rambling on here a bit, because at one point, I believed harder was always better. Then I believed that 59 was probably more ideal, and now I'm sort of in the camp of trying for 62 hardness or so and if the iron works well, leave it alone. If it's too hard for my washita to remove material at a reasonable rate, then I just do the initial work with a fine india. I found the extremely hard untempered iron from st james bay tool to hold up to smoothing - surprisingly, and only tempered it later because it was such a pain to sharpen and grind.

 

[Bm101]

Just wanted to say many thanks for sharing an excellent build in such an informative way David. It's been a fascinating read and I've learned a huge amount from some of the insights you've shared. It's been a real pleasure following it.
Regards
Chris.

 

[Oskar Sedell]

I'd probably start with a screwed-in insert of brass or steel in front of the mouth - since the plane will be on a shooting board, there shouldn't be much wear behind the mouth, and even if there is a little, it won't matter.

It doesn't seem like it should matter much in front, but it takes away your ability to adjust the iron depth by eye.

I'm sort of curious as to why some irons don't seem to take a fine edge. I never found Hock's O1 irons to be as good as the ones I've made on my own, and not as good as an O1 iron that I received from St. James Bay Tool Co in an infill kit (that one needed to be tempered).

If your iron fails to stop chipping after the following:
* several iterations of honing and use
* a total angle at the bevel of 32 degrees or so (you can treat it with a back bevel so that you don't lose clearance - 10 degrees is my personal rule, but you can go a little bit lower.
* accurate tempering to 400 degrees F

I'd perhaps try a different iron. There is the possibility of damage or decarb on the surface of an iron, but my heat treating conditions are far from ideal (coffee can forge, mapp torch, vegetable oil quench in a separate paint can, and then tempering in an oven to color on large irons - my oven is accurate, though - I have checked it with a separate thermometer.

Beach's page of irons shows the same thing I found with Hock's - that they are a bit more chippy than some others. I found Steve Knight's O1 irons to be absolutely wonderful (but they're not available in a shape that you'd like, and Steve is out of business), and Hock's larger custom efforts (one that I bought from Ron Brese and one that I bought directly from him) have also been good. It's the HCS stanley style irons that I've had trouble with.

I remember Ron Hock once saying that an O1 iron is ruined if you see any tempering colors, but I've found the range of 62 hardness tempering colors (straw) to be my favorite - the irons hold an edge well and are tough enough.

temperature schedules can be a bit inconsistent, but I'm guessing that the iron the plane in the video is somewhere around 62 or 63 hardness. It's too contrary to be sharpened on a washita.

Rambling on here a bit, because at one point, I believed harder was always better. Then I believed that 59 was probably more ideal, and now I'm sort of in the camp of trying for 62 hardness or so and if the iron works well, leave it alone. If it's too hard for my washita to remove material at a reasonable rate, then I just do the initial work with a fine india. I found the extremely hard untempered iron from st james bay tool to hold up to smoothing - surprisingly, and only tempered it later because it was such a pain to sharpen and grind.

Thanks for rambling on David, I always appreciate your thoughts. (btw. a virtue of the videos you make, the rambling that comes with the making of stuff).

I have the working assumption that the tendency to chip will be solved by one of the two first bullet points. I have no reason to believe that Phil haven´t worked out his heat treating process. If it however keeps chipping, then I will write Phil and ask what he thinks of it.

Making my own irons is the next step in my planemaking endeavours, and I´m really looking forward to try out the results of tempering on my own.