Hand Plane restoration/tune up

[Zeddedhed]

I came across this video on youtube and thought it might provoke some interesting debate.

I've never seen anything quite like it before.

The music can be a bit 'irksome', but the guy even gives you some instructions in the comments section to help with this!! Typical German. (I should know, I married one.)

Anyway, enjoy and discuss. (It's quite long by the way, but there is a table of contents in the text below so you can jump to the bits that interest you if you want.)

Here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvZFOyo63Ks

 

[rafezetter]

I've heard of similar before, but why do you need a plane sole to be accurate to "highest possible geometrical accuracy"? I've had to explain several times to people who've watched me spend hours fettling my engineering squares and straightedges why it needs to be so accurate "so that, good enough, as gauged against that is probably better than I need for wood". But I stop at 0.03mm or so and even that is probably the wrong side of obsessive.

(and I was told you should never run a metal file backwards).

 

[AndyT]

There is a lot of discussion about the need for a plane to be flat and square. If you are only doing relatively crude woodwork the need is less than if you are, say, making a theorbo. An accurately set up plane can be relied on to make a fine shaving at any part of its blade with any part of its body touching the wood. You would not find it going from not cutting to suddenly cutting too much, which is what you can get with a poorly finished plane.

How to achieve a flat surface on a cast iron plane is another matter. The 'obvious' technique of rubbing the whole body on flattish abrasive can make some improvements, which may be enough, but is not the best way. This has been discussed many times and BugBear, for one, has explained what is going on and has consistently pointed out that the established metalwork techniques using a surface plate, blue, filing and scraping can achieve a higher level of accuracy.

I think this video is useful in providing a very clearly shot demonstration of how this is done.

There is more that could be said about what to use as a surface plate, and the various sorts of scrapers but that is covered elsewhere. Here you can see the change in the pattern of marks and scrapes, and just how much light shines round a straight edge.

 

[Zeddedhed]

There is a lot of discussion about the need for a plane to be flat and square. If you are only doing relatively crude woodwork the need is less than if you are, say, making a theorbo. An accurately set up plane can be relied on to make a fine shaving at any part of its blade with any part of its body touching the wood. You would not find it going from not cutting to suddenly cutting too much, which is what you can get with a poorly finished plane.

How to achieve a flat surface on a cast iron plane is another matter. The 'obvious' technique of rubbing the whole body on flattish abrasive can make some improvements, which may be enough, but is not the best way. This has been discussed many times and BugBear, for one, has explained what is going on and has consistently pointed out that the established metalwork techniques using a surface plate, blue, filing and scraping can achieve a higher level of accuracy.

I think this video is useful in providing a very clearly shot demonstration of how this is done.

There is more that could be said about what to use as a surface plate, and the various sorts of scrapers but that is covered elsewhere. Here you can see the change in the pattern of marks and scrapes, and just how much light shines round a straight edge.

I totally agree. The kind of woodwork that I do doesn't require anything like this degree of accuracy. I quite often find myself thinking that a good session of lapping my planes soles would be a good idea, but normally get bored after 10 minutes. I then look at my small collection of woodies which are mostly untouched since they were rescued from various boot fairs and ponder on the fact that they can get most of my boards nicely jointed and are great fun to use - who knows how accurate the soles are on those old-timers?

Still, like you said this guy clearly knows his stuff and goes to a lot of trouble to explain why and how he achieves the levels of 'geometric precision' that he feels he needs.

I actually quite like the finish he ends up with though. Very utilitarian.

 

[rafezetter]

There is a lot of discussion about the need for a plane to be flat and square. If you are only doing relatively crude woodwork the need is less than if you are, say, making a theorbo. An accurately set up plane can be relied on to make a fine shaving at any part of its blade with any part of its body touching the wood. You would not find it going from not cutting to suddenly cutting too much, which is what you can get with a poorly finished plane.

How to achieve a flat surface on a cast iron plane is another matter. The 'obvious' technique of rubbing the whole body on flattish abrasive can make some improvements, which may be enough, but is not the best way. This has been discussed many times and BugBear, for one, has explained what is going on and has consistently pointed out that the established metalwork techniques using a surface plate, blue, filing and scraping can achieve a higher level of accuracy.

I think this video is useful in providing a very clearly shot demonstration of how this is done.

There is more that could be said about what to use as a surface plate, and the various sorts of scrapers but that is covered elsewhere. Here you can see the change in the pattern of marks and scrapes, and just how much light shines round a straight edge.

I'm not dismissing the methodology, which is excellent, and far quicker than lapping on abrasive medium for those with the developed skill, I'm just not sure on the merits of showing the technique to the level he goes to - to my mind it just adds to the group of vids "you don't NEED to go this far to get a good working plane", except for those cabinetmakers producing pieces requiring the utmost finesse, which many are not and those who seek such "how to tune up a plane" vids are most definitely not.

But then I've never had a chance to use a plane fettled to such incredible tolerances, maybe it's a total revelation and I'm talking out of my hat.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I'm always a little sceptical about the need for perfection, especially when it come to the necessity for the sides to be dead square to the sole - the cut should be check for square anyway, as we cannot guarantee the cutting edge is dead parallel to the sole, and if the angle is not perfect it can be compensated anyway. Having said that, about 25 years ago I had a Record 5 1/2 ground by a machine shop that did cylinder heads and to this day it always feels slightly better/different to my others. Psychological? Who knows?

 

[griggs]

I often wonder at what point a plane is "good enough" to do its primary task as opposed to tuning it further because you can?

I was working with a site chippie some time ago, a good chippie by all accounts, and we got to talking about planes etc and he commented that there was nothing you could do with a Lie Nielson that he couldn't do with his considerably cheaper Stanley planes. My initial reaction was that he was wrong, but for his day to day work of shooting in doors, scribing and tweaking various bits of timber he was probably right.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Have you ever seen a Veritas, LN, Quangsheng, Woodriver or whatever advert start with - "here's what this plane will do that no others can!"
Thought not ...

 

[AndyT]

I'm always a little sceptical about the need for perfection, especially when it come to the necessity for the sides to be dead square to the sole - the cut should be check for square anyway, as we cannot guarantee the cutting edge is dead parallel to the sole, and it the angle is not perfect it can be compensated anyway. Having said that, about 25 years ago I had a Record 5 1/2 ground by a machine shop that did cylinder heads and to this day it always feels slightly better/different to my others. Psychological? Who knows?

Yes Phil, the same thought occurred to me - where would you want to use a block plane for shooting, on a shooting board, where a perfect right angle would matter?

I wonder if it's in some sort of miniature work, maybe with geometric patterned decorative inlays? (The sort of thing you might find on a theorbo?)

And I guess most of us are living proof that we don't NEED to go to these lengths, having produced acceptable work without doing so. To be fair to the YT video maker, he did not say that all planes need to be tuned this way, for all work.

(Though there is the side issue that he started with a cheaper line of plane in the first place, which maybe had more faults than the planes I use.)

 

[Zeddedhed]

I'm always a little sceptical about the need for perfection, especially when it come to the necessity for the sides to be dead square to the sole - the cut should be check for square anyway, as we cannot guarantee the cutting edge is dead parallel to the sole, and it the angle is not perfect it can be compensated anyway. Having said that, about 25 years ago I had a Record 5 1/2 ground by a machine shop that did cylinder heads and to this day it always feels slightly better/different to my others. Psychological? Who knows?

I have a Lie Nielsen 102 block plane and am 'convinced' that it's a better plane than any of my other blockies, but I'm also pretty sure thats because it helps me justify the cost. I can tell myself that it was worth it because it performs better and makes me a better craftsman. Obviously not true, but it also helps convince SWIMBO. (I think - although probably she just indulges me.)

 

[Cheshirechappie]

What an excellent video!

The techniques used - filing and scraping to a surface plate - are sound, and have been good engineering practice for at least a couple of centuries. The disadvantage of these techniques are that they require some kit (notably an accurate surface plate) that most woodworkers won't have, the advantage is that if the absolute ultimate in flatness and performance are desired, these are the methods most likely to deliver.

I'd agree that most people don't need this level of perfection, and that nobody needs it all the time on all planes. But if somebody does want their 'best' planes to be 'right', this is a much more certain way to achieve it than lapping on abrasive sheets. The latter method will almost certainly give results that are more than adequate most of the time, but has too many subtle imperfections of method to be guaranteed 'perfect'.

(PS - Nice lathe! Lorch are a sought-after make of precision instrument and horological lathes. That one's been around a fair few years, but looks to be doing pretty well.)

 

[bugbear]

To be fair to the YT video maker, he did not say that all planes need to be tuned this way, for all work.

It's similar to the preamble on my pages, which (in essence) say: "If you want to make the sole of your plane flat to a good degree accuracy, here's an effective to to do it"

For those that haven't seen my version of this process;

My original page, feeling my way through the process
A short explanation of why the process works
A practical "how to" page

BugBear

 

[D_W]

I often wonder at what point a plane is "good enough" to do its primary task as opposed to tuning it further because you can?

I'd say most planes, even the cheap ones are probably there after the iron is sharpened.

Seeing other people do nutty things is entertaining, though. Not for nefarious reasons, but just because it's interesting and different.

 

[woodpig]

It really makes you wonder how some of the wonderful pieces of furniture made over the past 200 years were made with such crappy tools doesn't it!? The Japanese seem to also do quite well with wooden planes ...

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It really makes you wonder how some of the wonderful pieces of furniture made over the past 200 years were made with such crappy tools doesn't it!? The Japanese seem to also do quite well with wooden planes ...

One of the many advantages of wooden planes is that getting their soles flat (or at any rate, flat enough for their intended service) is relatively straightforward using woodworking tools and techniques. This is a good thing, since wooden plane soles wear faster than metal ones, and thus need truing up more often.

However, a cast-iron bodied plane that has warped concave in length (as some do - I've had two do this, and I don't make a habit of buying many planes) is neither use nor ornament unless corrected. All the premium planes I've bought over the years (bench, block, shoulder and joinery) were all true when purchased, and have remained so; the malaise tends to be one affecting planes from the budget end of the market. Very heavily used vintage examples can also exhibit uneven wear sufficient to warrant corrective action.

 

[bugbear]

It really makes you wonder how some of the wonderful pieces of furniture made over the past 200 years were made with such crappy tools doesn't it!? The Japanese seem to also do quite well with wooden planes ...

They're very highly tuned wooden planes. Entire books have been written on it.

BugBear

 

[D_W]

I don't think properly made wooden planes need to much sole true-up.

I've been using some long planes since January or so, I don't know exactly when. I made them, and before that I had trued others that had been in disuse, possibly over 100 years.

Most of them don't require much. I haven't re-adjusted any of my planes except for a cocobolo smoother that has a strange habit that beech doesn't have (the wood bulges down under the bed and make a high point at the back of the mouth, and this isn't a good thing).

But the beech planes are untouched and with the understanding now of a double iron negating the need for some ideal mouth, I don't know that they will need to be trued. The method for truing japanese planes makes them wear quickly, but that's just how they like to use them. Presumably when there were a lot of people using those planes, to get a new dai for an iron wouldn't be a big deal. In western planes, a new iron would be gotten before a new body, and a wedge fit to the new iron. Given how folks sharpened when they'd wear out an iron like that, it would probably take a decade or more of regular heavy daily use.

Anyway, I think we're just not in good position as a group of woodworkers to understand how the planes were made, maintained and used. It's difficult over here to come across a little-used properly made plane like some of the english try planes that come up from time to time. The planes sold over here were more loosely made in general and more plain.

I can't speak to single iron planes (I think they require a little bit more seasonal adjustment), but they were eliminated once the double iron was available, except for in low cost planes.

 

[Penfold]

Some people spend more time fetteling their tools than woodworking. Nothing right tor wrong about it. But I doubt a scientific comparison betrween a well fettled plane and this ultra supper dupper plane would reveal much difference. I get just as thin shavings and glass smooth wood without spending half a lifetime using engineering tolerances on woodworking tools.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Ah, another member from down the pointy end - where are you?

 

[Penfold]

Hi Phil
We are Launceston, right on the border, in fact with a good bow and arrow I can just get an Englishman across the border !! :wink: