Quantcast
  • We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

4 - 4 1/2 , 5 - 5 1/2 why ?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

Blister

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2006
Messages
6,652
Reaction score
68
Can someone enlighten me on this ?

Why do they make a no 4 and a no 4 1/2 and the same with the 5's ?

Surely you are better of with the wider / heavier planes ?

Or have I missed something

They don't do a 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 ,7 in 1/2 sizes or is the No 8 a wide No7

.?
 

Jacob

Established Member
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
3
Location
Derbyshire
Blister":2ub5hca7 said:
Can someone enlighten me on this ?

Why do they make a no 4 and a no 4 1/2 and the same with the 5's ?
I think the half sizes were afterthoughts, the 4,5, having been fixed earlier. And it's marketing. Any one of these four will do, but if you supply other sizes people will buy them. Though to some extent a plane suited to the strength of the user and the size of the workpiece is a good idea
Surely you are better of with the wider / heavier planes ?

Or have I missed something
Lighter is better - less work involved, and no wider than necessary is good.
They don't do a 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 ,7 in 1/2 sizes or is the No 8 a wide No7

.?
I guess there was no demand for in-between sizes.
 

Paul Chapman

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Messages
8,657
Reaction score
0
Location
Bookham, Surrey
Jacob":2ku8sl5w said:
Lighter is better
I disagree. In my experience heavier planes perform better in most situations. And they are not harder to use because most of the weight is supported by the work piece and the bench. One of the reasons I chose to buy Clifton planes is that, size for size, they are heavier than most other planes.

Cheers :wink:

Paul
 

Vann

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2008
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
8
Location
Petone, New Zealand
They made a No.5¼ which, instead of being half way between a No.5 and a No.5½, is both narrower and shorter than a No.5.

And the 10½, instead of being a wider version of the No.10, is a shorter version. Go figure :roll: .

Then there's the No.9½ compared with the No.9... (hammer)

Jacobs right (wash my mouth...) Stanley started with planes 1 to 8. Then when marketing opportunities for in-between sizes were developed they had to add fractional sizes. There's no logic to it, it just grew...

Cheers, Vann,
 

Jacob

Established Member
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
16,119
Reaction score
3
Location
Derbyshire
Paul Chapman":5v3n6gn5 said:
Jacob":5v3n6gn5 said:
Lighter is better
I disagree. In my experience heavier planes perform better in most situations. And they are not harder to use because most of the weight is supported by the work piece and the bench. One of the reasons I chose to buy Clifton planes is that, size for size, they are heavier than most other planes.

Cheers :wink:

Paul
Yebbut you have to work them to and fro against inertia. If you are doing a lot of work this will be significant.
Mass might have an advantage sometimes I suppose - like an axe the momentum of a heavy tool will help with a cut, but then you have to lift it or pull it back. I don't suppose the physics is at all simple!
 

monkeybiter

Established Member
Joined
23 Dec 2009
Messages
3,055
Reaction score
3
Location
doncaster
Just a thought from a planing know-nothing; I would have thought heavier would be better with difficult grain, where a lighter plane might be subject to 'stuttering' ?
 

Paul Chapman

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Messages
8,657
Reaction score
0
Location
Bookham, Surrey
Jacob":3k5ij48e said:
Paul Chapman":3k5ij48e said:
Jacob":3k5ij48e said:
Lighter is better
I disagree. In my experience heavier planes perform better in most situations. And they are not harder to use because most of the weight is supported by the work piece and the bench. One of the reasons I chose to buy Clifton planes is that, size for size, they are heavier than most other planes.

Cheers :wink:

Paul
Yebbut you have to work them to and fro against inertia. If you are doing a lot of work this will be significant.
Mass might have an advantage sometimes I suppose - like an axe the momentum of a heavy tool will help with a cut, but then you have to lift it or pull it back. I don't suppose the physics is at all simple!
When it comes to planing I always do a lot of work because I don't have a P/T :) I've concluded that the reason heavier planes work better is that the plane has to work against the resistance of the wood. A light weight plane requires more effort to overcome this resistance. I've been able to do direct comparisons because in some plane sizes I have both Records and Cliftons and I've found that the heavier Cliftons require less effort to obtain good results.

Cheers :wink:

Paul
 

Phil Pascoe

occasional purveyor of blunt tools.
UKW Supporter
Joined
29 Jan 2012
Messages
19,522
Reaction score
484
Location
Shaft City, Mid Cornish Desert
I used to work with an elderly chippy who maintained that 4 1/2s and 5 1/2s were bench joiners tools, and 4s and 5s were site tools because they had to be carried around. That has little relevance to the numbering system, though. I like the weight, so use a 4 1/2 and a 6 most of the time, although a 4 and an 8 occasionally.
 

AndyT

Established Member
Joined
24 Jul 2007
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
472
Location
Bristol
As well as the half sizes mentioned, Stanley did briefly offer specially heavy versions of some - the 4 1/2 H and the 5 1/2 H. Apparently they are not very common but were sold to conservative British customers - presumably as an alternative to the (heavy) infill style planes.

As for the use of halves or quarters, that is just a way of introducing extra numbers into a series that is already full. There are street numbers like that in London (and probably elsewhere too).
 

Scouse

Established Member
Joined
3 Aug 2009
Messages
738
Reaction score
0
Location
Just North of Liverpool
I wonder about Stanley's motivation for the half sizes. An interesting aside to the 1/2 size planes is Stanley's introduction of the 5 1/2.

While both the 4 and 5 sport 2 inch irons, the 4 1/2, introduced in 1884, had a 2 3/8 inch iron while the 5 1/2, coming along later in 1898, has a narrower 2 1/4 inch blade, not joining the width of the 4 1/2 until 1939.

From a business perspective, it seems odd that Stanley wouldn't share the tooling of the 4 1/2 frog/iron/cap iron/lever cap with the 5 1/2 from the start to cut costs, if all that was required was a money-making no5 marketing spin off; and why would they take almost 40 years to increase the 5 1/2 size allowing shared components?
El.
 

Benchwayze

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2007
Messages
9,272
Reaction score
42
Location
West Muddylands
Scouse":3erequls said:
From a business perspective, it seems odd that Stanley wouldn't share the tooling of the 4 1/2 frog/iron/cap iron/lever cap with the 5 1/2 from the start to cut costs, if all that was required was a money-making no5 marketing spin off; and why would they take almost 40 years to increase the 5 1/2 size allowing shared components?
El.
Scouse,

I thought they were always interchangeable.

I have a post war Record No 5 and a half, with a pre-war four and a half frog fitted.
Guess I was lucky when I bought it then. :D
 

Richard T

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2009
Messages
1,743
Reaction score
0
Location
Wet Midlands
Seems to me that the 5 -1/2 has the equivalent width and weight of the average infill panel plane. So if the #5 is the fore, the #5 - 1/2 is the try. ??
 

Scouse

Established Member
Joined
3 Aug 2009
Messages
738
Reaction score
0
Location
Just North of Liverpool
Benchwayze":1lrcmn3c said:
I have a post war Record No 5 and a half, with a pre-war four and a half frog fitted.
The width difference only applies to pre and post 1939 USA planes, AFAIK.

El.
 

jimi43

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2009
Messages
6,921
Reaction score
0
Location
Kent - the Garden of England
Richard T":37iw8myr said:
Seems to me that the 5 -1/2 has the equivalent width and weight of the average infill panel plane. So if the #5 is the fore, the #5 - 1/2 is the try. ??
You are quite correct Richard...in fact the 5 1/2 is slightly longer and a few ounces heavier than my panel infill.

However...the panel infill feels more assertive if that is possible. It may be that the weight distribution is better but it certainly seems to have more inertia and is able to plough through knots and the like with more ease.

I like the half series over the normal ones for most cases...especially when trying to keep things square. The extra footprint is probably the reason for this.

Jim
 

Vann

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2008
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
8
Location
Petone, New Zealand
Scouse":37xbl5xd said:
Benchwayze":37xbl5xd said:
I have a post war Record No 5 and a half, with a pre-war four and a half frog fitted.
The width difference only applies to pre and post 1939 USA planes, AFAIK.

El.
Nope. The pre-WW2 Record 05½ also had 2¼" irons (as did the pre-war T5).

Cheers, Vann.
 

bugbear

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Messages
13,074
Reaction score
0
Location
North Suffolk
Paul Chapman":1jts6kpf said:
When it comes to planing I always do a lot of work because I don't have a P/T :) I've concluded that the reason heavier planes work better is that the plane has to work against the resistance of the wood. A light weight plane requires more effort to overcome this resistance. I've been able to do direct comparisons because in some plane sizes I have both Records and Cliftons and I've found that the heavier Cliftons require less effort to obtain good results.

Cheers :wink:

Paul
I have no reason to contradict your reported experience, but your explanation seem to imply that the mass is somehow providing energy - which is obviously not true.

Mass can provide downforce (via gravity) and can provide a reservoir for YOUR energy (via momentum). The latter would be helpful is the resistance of the wood is not constant (knots etc).

BugBear
 

Paul Chapman

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Messages
8,657
Reaction score
0
Location
Bookham, Surrey
bugbear":2df5jk2s said:
Paul Chapman":2df5jk2s said:
When it comes to planing I always do a lot of work because I don't have a P/T :) I've concluded that the reason heavier planes work better is that the plane has to work against the resistance of the wood. A light weight plane requires more effort to overcome this resistance. I've been able to do direct comparisons because in some plane sizes I have both Records and Cliftons and I've found that the heavier Cliftons require less effort to obtain good results.

Cheers :wink:

Paul
I have no reason to contradict your reported experience, but your explanation seem to imply that the mass is somehow providing energy - which is obviously not true.

Mass can provide downforce (via gravity) and can provide a reservoir for YOUR energy (via momentum). The latter would be helpful is the resistance of the wood is not constant (knots etc).
Whatever :lol: I'm afraid I don't share your fascination with the laws of physics - all I know (based on experience) is that heavy planes work better than light weight ones and require less effort to produce good results. In fact I've found that with very difficult woods, it can sometimes be problematic to get light weight planes to cut at all, whereas a heavy plane will work quite easily.

Cheers :wink:

Paul
 

Scouse

Established Member
Joined
3 Aug 2009
Messages
738
Reaction score
0
Location
Just North of Liverpool
Vann":1nhp1wee said:
Scouse":1nhp1wee said:
Benchwayze":1nhp1wee said:
I have a post war Record No 5 and a half, with a pre-war four and a half frog fitted.
The width difference only applies to pre and post 1939 USA planes, AFAIK.

El.
Nope. The pre-WW2 Record 05½ also had 2¼" irons (as did the pre-war T5).

Cheers, Vann.
Well you live and learn! I should have had a quick look here http://www.recordhandplanes.com/production-periods.html

I'm still curious as to why the sizes were not compatible before though...

El.
 

bugbear

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Messages
13,074
Reaction score
0
Location
North Suffolk
Paul Chapman":k8z4z7kd said:
I'm afraid I don't share your fascination with the laws of physics
"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson (to Lisa)

:lol:

BugBear
 
Top