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

heavy plane

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

sunnybob

wysiwyg
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
8,399
Reaction score
157
Location
cyprus
In a very rare moment for me yesterday, I had to resort to using hand planes.
I have a stanley 4 1/2 and a 5 1/2 among others, none of which I choose to use because of my arthritic hands, but while using the 5 1/2 I found it was a bit blunt and swapped to the 4 1/2 because I didnt want to take the time to sharpen the blade.
I was amazed how much heavier the 4 1/2 is compared to the 5 1/2.
I just always assumed the larger plane would be the heavier.
The 4 1/2 got the job done, its back on the wall where it belongs, but I just wondered why?
 

MikeG.

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2008
Messages
10,176
Reaction score
667
Location
Essex/ Suffolk border
Dust, Bob. Your 5-1/2 was probably last used a decade or two after the 4-1/2. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I can only assume that it's just a difference in the thickness of the casting, so either different makes of plane, or same make but different eras.
 

sunnybob

wysiwyg
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
8,399
Reaction score
157
Location
cyprus
That spurred me to go check.
After removing some dust, they came in at ;
5 1/2 = 6lb 4.4 oz.
4 1/2 = 5 lb 4oz.

According to that book I have an overweight 4 1/2 and an underweight 5 1/2.
But still proved me wrong, its just the fact the smaller plane is , well, smaller, making it seem more unwieldy.
But even after weighing them, lifting them back to the wall shelf the 4 1/2 still seemed the heaviest.
 

sunnybob

wysiwyg
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
8,399
Reaction score
157
Location
cyprus
novocaine":w64ajohs said:
to much sun me thinks.

maybe spend a few days inside fella.
You obviously dont watch the weather channel. :roll:
We've swapped with you. the wettest winter in a 120 years, night time temps of low single digits, and even now at 10 am its not even 15c outside.
i'm starting to suffer from lack of vitamin D. Thats whats affecting my judgement.
 

shed9

Established Member
Joined
3 Nov 2013
Messages
1,302
Reaction score
45
Location
In a forest in Wales
sunnybob":3j4h64gn said:
But still proved me wrong, its just the fact the smaller plane is , well, smaller, making it seem more unwieldy.
But even after weighing them, lifting them back to the wall shelf the 4 1/2 still seemed the heaviest.
This is pretty much it. It's the distribution of the weight as opposed to the weight itself.
 

Ttrees

Iroko loco!
Joined
18 Nov 2012
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
76
Location
In me workshop
I find on my near identical 50's Stanley 51/2's, that one tote is angled more acutely and seems lighter because your holding it closer to the middle of the plane, I designated this plane to use for face grain work, I feel you can "get sthuck into the work" a bit more solidly
I'm guessing the tote makes my stance a bit wider so I put my back and my legs into it, especially with a heavy set cut.
The other plane got designated to the shooting board, I may get another some day :roll:
With the other it's a bit more upright.. to over-exaggerate... it stands more upright like with the Veritas planes.
This is near unnoticeable when looking at them though.
 

sploo

Somewhat extinguished member
Joined
8 Nov 2014
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
117
Location
West Yorkshire
sunnybob":35d17595 said:
That spurred me to go check.
After removing some dust, they came in at ;
5 1/2 = 6lb 4.4 oz.
4 1/2 = 5 lb 4oz.

According to that book I have an overweight 4 1/2 and an underweight 5 1/2.
But still proved me wrong, its just the fact the smaller plane is , well, smaller, making it seem more unwieldy.
But even after weighing them, lifting them back to the wall shelf the 4 1/2 still seemed the heaviest.
No pics, as I'm at work, but there's a huge difference between the castings of even the Stanley planes through the eras. All the older (approx 1880-1910) planes I own have really delicate thin wall castings - be that a No 4 or a No 8.

The WWII era No 4 1/2 generally seems to have a really chunky casting with very thick walls. I've not weighed the planes to check, but I assume the casting thickness will have a fair impact on the weight.

My preference is very much for the older planes, but these days there seems to be a desire for heavyweights.
 

sunnybob

wysiwyg
Joined
11 Oct 2014
Messages
8,399
Reaction score
157
Location
cyprus
I have no way of dating mine, unless someone has a special system?
But I got them from retired carpenter who would have been using them thoughout the 90's at the very least. If he had them as an apprentice they would be 1950's or early 60's.
 

Brtone

Established Member
Joined
2 May 2015
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Location
Lancashire
It’s just down to the balance of the planes, pick up a Clifton 41/2, now that does feel heavy.
 

sploo

Somewhat extinguished member
Joined
8 Nov 2014
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
117
Location
West Yorkshire
phil.p":6t6icnn1 said:
Isn't that for U.S. made ones though?
Yea, but it seems to be pretty accurate for the UK ones too from what I've seen.
 

ED65

Established Member
Joined
3 Dec 2015
Messages
3,593
Reaction score
1
sunnybob":3i2lsm2x said:
I have no way of dating mine, unless someone has a special system?
You'd have to post pics Bob, or at the very least describe all the relevant details (and there are many, sorry) for us to try to narrow the date down.

But it's not always possible to accurately date UK-made Stanleys as touched on in many previous threads, most recently this one 5-1-2-jack-and-low-angle-jack-planes-t115421-30.html
 

ED65

Established Member
Joined
3 Dec 2015
Messages
3,593
Reaction score
1
sploo":377zgnlx said:
phil.p":377zgnlx said:
Isn't that for U.S. made ones though?
Yea, but it seems to be pretty accurate for the UK ones too from what I've seen.
How's that? English-made Stanleys started as basically type 16s, not exact clones but just after the introduction of the ogee-shaped frog. Then when type 19s were being produced in the US the sorta-type 16s were still in production with minor tweaks.
 

sploo

Somewhat extinguished member
Joined
8 Nov 2014
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
117
Location
West Yorkshire
ED65":29ema4ou said:
sploo":29ema4ou said:
phil.p":29ema4ou said:
Isn't that for U.S. made ones though?
Yea, but it seems to be pretty accurate for the UK ones too from what I've seen.
How's that? English-made Stanleys started as basically type 16s, not exact clones but just after the introduction of the ogee-shaped frog. Then when type 19s were being produced in the US the sorta-type 16s were still in production with minor tweaks.
Fair point. I guess I've mostly only owned (and thus classed) the UK made Stanley's as being "pre WW2", "likely during WW2", and "not really interested because it was probably made in the 1960s or later" ;)
 

Latest posts

Top