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

Jack plane blade

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

edmund

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2005
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Location
South Croydon, Surrey
Question for those of you who use Jack planes. Do you put a camber on your iron? Michael Dunbar (in his book on restoring and using handtools) suggests that the iron should be ground with a 5" or 8" radius. I've just ordered a blade for an old Record 5 1/2 from Ray Iles and when I asked him to grind the iron to an 8" radius I got the feeling he thought I was a bit of a looney :)
 

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2005
Messages
2,836
Reaction score
312
Location
Perth, Australia
I got the feeling he thought I was a bit of a looney
Hi Edmund

My Stanley #5-1/2 has a blade with a 6" radius. I use this after the scrub to smooth off the ridges preparatory to using my jointer. I have not tried an 8" radius, but have been considering this as a less aggressive option.

So I think you are on the right track.

Regards from Perth

Derek
 

ydb1md

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2005
Messages
634
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland
I put a little camber on all of my plane blades except the one for my shoulder plane. In general, the deeper the cut a blade takes, the more I camber it. A jack blade I camber more than my smoother blades but I'm not sure what the radii of my cambers are.
 

edmund

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2005
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
Location
South Croydon, Surrey
Thanks Derek. (I'll wipe the metaphorical sweat off my brow now :)). Sounds like I'm on the right track anyway as I'm truing up some white oak boards. Started off with the scrub plane (my L-N finally arrived last week and it seems to do the job pretty well) and needed something before using my jointer.

On a related point, should I be using the scrub to get the boards as square as possible (i.e. get rid of the cupping) before using the jack to flatten down the rippled surface??
Thanks, Ed
 

Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2005
Messages
2,836
Reaction score
312
Location
Perth, Australia
should I be using the scrub to get the boards as square as possible (i.e. get rid of the cupping) before using the jack to flatten down the rippled surface??
Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: there is a full description of this in my review of the LV Scrub (somewhere on the website).

Regards from Perth

Derek
 

bugbear

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Messages
13,074
Reaction score
1
Location
North Suffolk
Question for those of you who use Jack planes. Do you put a camber on your iron?
That depends what you think a jack plane is, and what you use it for.

I'm not being facetious. For a long time, I owned 2 metal jacks (#5).

One was rough, and used for getting paint off, cleaning up surfaces. The other was clean and tuned. I used he first one to protect the second one. The first one had quoiyte a camber, the second barely any.

I now have a wooden jack, with a very strongly cambered blade. I use this as a fast stock removal jack. The clean jack (#5) is now even more tuned, including a tight mouth, flattened sole. It is permanently set for a fine shaving, and is used for accurate final sizing of small work pieces.

Most planes work as a set. The role of each one depends on its position in the set, and the other planes in the set.

BugBear (who has muddied the question)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Edmund

don't know about actually grinding a camber but i have honed a camber on my 2 #5s and my 4 1/2 for the past couple of years - as DC states in his books, how can you plane an edge perpendicular to the face without a cambered blade? (you pretty much can't without loads of guesswork and praying)

On the 4 1/5 smoother, it is essential to avoid tram lines in a smoothed surface

I don't think you neccesarily need the 8" camber ground in but it may help you to hone the camber nicely
 

Frank D.

Established Member
Joined
2 Dec 2004
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Montreal, Canada
Tony":1f68cmfb said:
as DC states in his books, how can you plane an edge perpendicular to the face without a cambered blade? (you pretty much can't without loads of guesswork and praying)
[-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-o< [-(
 

Midnight

Established Member
Joined
11 Oct 2003
Messages
1,805
Reaction score
0
Location
Scotland
how can you plane an edge perpendicular to the face without a cambered blade? (you pretty much can't without loads of guesswork and praying)
ummmmmm...... shooting boatd an a straight blade...????

<duckin...

:p :wink:
 

Philly

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2003
Messages
6,874
Reaction score
0
Location
Dorset, England.
Here's a question for you history freaks-are the scrub and the (original)jack really the same plane??? As far as I can tell they were both used for roughing down stock prior to using a jointer then smoothing. So how come they seem to be mixed up?
As a definition both these planes have:
heavily cambered iron
wide open mouth
no chip breaker?

And both are used to rough out boards-sounds like the same plane to me!
So any ideas?? Illuminate me! :lol:
PhillyInterested :D
 

bugbear

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2004
Messages
13,074
Reaction score
1
Location
North Suffolk
"scrub" and "jack" are just points on a line. It's just a question of degree.

What the difference between a try plane and a jointer?

At which EXACT length does one become the other?

BugBear
 

MikeW

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2005
Messages
1,933
Reaction score
0
Location
Forest Grove, Oregon USA
Well, as regards the development of the "Scrub" Plane as an individual thing, here are a few parts of emails between an a "person of note" and myself. We were discussing planes, and inparticular, scrub planes.

Of issue was when I was learning about the use of planes, I never remember my grandfather telling me to grab the #5, or the #7. He would say something like, "grab the plane that is about 14" long," and "No, the wood one" and some such thing. He did use the terms of foreplane, jack and so on. But didn't use the numbers.

The gist of my comment below has to do with the fact I believe Stanley et al made up and fostered the division of planes to garner sales. Call it, value added sales.

That said, I also think some of the specialized planes they came up with are pretty darn handy.

Mike

************
[to person of note],
One more thought re scrubs and a related issue regarding ...

I think that Stanely, in their infinite marketing wisdom, are responsible for driving the plane making industry to specialized designations of planes and their use. As regards a scrub, why would a planemaker foster the notion of "modifying" (really repurposing) one of their planes for such work when they could via a value-added approach create a specialized plane and garner additional sales?

This marketing schema I think extends to many of their tools. Make another specialized widget and convince the buying workman it is necessary, or a refinement to, both their work and how they think about their work.

And this idea of value-added tools is alive and well in present day form.
************
Mike,
I’m often amused by the lack of understanding out there for how planes are to be used. It’s all laid out in Moxon and nothing really has changed technologically in the 300 years since. We might have extra gadgets on our planes now, but the two most important features of the planes are the length of their soles and the shape of their irons.
************
[to person of note]
I find it amusing at times the entrenched ideas people have as regards what purposes planes are for. Sometimes people have a very rigid idea of the function of Stanley's planes by numbers scheme.
 

ydb1md

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2005
Messages
634
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland
Alf":c8ojnigm said:
Chris Schwarz? He's been musing on scrubs recently. Mind you, it's getting hard to tell where Chris ends and Adam begins these days. :lol:
Cheers, Alf
I wonder if Chris Schwarz ever lurks on our board? He's pretty active over on WoodCentral.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This discussion has left out the "fore" plane and its changing definition. :lol:

I find a lot of merit in Mercer's method of placing planes in leveling, jointing and molding catagories.
 

MikeW

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2005
Messages
1,933
Reaction score
0
Location
Forest Grove, Oregon USA
Alf":1yi7ka1z said:
bugbear":1yi7ka1z said:
person of note
Adam Chrubini?
BugBear
Chris Schwarz? He's been musing on scrubs recently. Mind you, it's getting hard to tell where Chris ends and Adam begins these days. :lol:
Cheers, Alf
I ain't sayin'. [-X

But the point is that the designations we use are artificial, or to say it another way, they are merely a way to categorize planes. The problem is when we take these designations and ascribe fixed attributes (such as function) to them.

This applies, for instance, to the current issue of what is a scrub? Or, is a LA plane is only for end-grain work? Pronouncements of function as defined by Stanley is a tenuous argument at best. At its worse, it serves to propagate that someone must have one (or more :D ) of each plane in order to do various tasks.

Too, we often take fettling to heights that historically may never occurred and then inform others that this is a must to get "top" performance from a plane. This I think is false, but aside from that it puts on edge a person new to the slippery slope. Not only do they feel inundated with choices of planes, but frustrated by their seeming lack of fettling abilities.

Another area I feel we often go wrong is assigning status to perceived qualities of various maker's planes, or even within their own various lines of planes. For instance, Dina recently received a Handyman as a gift. Now, most people would definitely say it is unworthy of consideration as a "serious" user plane. Why? Are they of lesser build quality than a previous generation had available? Sure they are. But will it do the work at hand? Yep, it will. Most likely for a few more generations to come.

Oh will someone tell me to take a pill and go lie down in order to get me off the soapbox? What's that? Ok. I'll go.

Mike

Edit. Added the following link to Dina's Handyman. The pictures show the plane as received with just a moderately sharpened blade (200 grit) and a fairly opened mouth.
Dina's Handyman
 

CMSchwarz

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
Kentucky, USA
Alf":x1viq49j said:
bugbear":x1viq49j said:
person of note
Adam Chrubini?

BugBear
Chris Schwarz? He's been musing on scrubs recently. Mind you, it's getting hard to tell where Chris ends and Adam begins these days. :lol:

Cheers, Alf
Alf,

This is an easy one: Adam drinks Tetleys. I prefer Flying Dog Porter.

Adam and I do see eye-to-eye on workbenches and fore planes. But Katie bar the door when it comes to metal planes, glasspaper and finishing. And sharpening? I'm a total heretic.

And, to stay on topic here, if you're going to use your jack as a roughing plane (a fore plane as per Moxon), then a camber is desirable and necessary. Dunbar's 8" radius has always worked for me. It allows me to take off 1/16" with a 2"-wide blade.

Love this board, by the way.

Chris
 

MikeW

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2005
Messages
1,933
Reaction score
0
Location
Forest Grove, Oregon USA
Welcome to the best, most civil site on the web, Chris!

Lots to read and share here--and people who appreciate each other's contributions.

Mike
Who prefers his G&Ts. By doctor's orders, of course.
 
Top