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

[Blister]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Richard T]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Paul Chapman]

:lol: :lol: