Jointer or Fore?

[jimi43]

Ok since we are back to another old chestnut....have to put my infill vote in again....

Infill panel plane...Chinese iron of quality...

Since pairing these two pieces of engineering separated by over 100 years I have left my Record SS No.7 on the shelf far more than before.

Most of us have an "accumulation" of various planes...some more than others and my only measure of a "good" or "right" plane is one that constantly gets picked up to do a particular job.

I certainly wouldn't dream of picking up the No.7 for trimming end grain or a tenon but for most other things where flattening was concerned it came out quite often...until now. Which is what I think Alan Peters was referring to. And it's very much dependent on what you make when woodworking.

My favourite post here recently was "if you make little boxes, a block plane is a jointer!". Well said indeed!

Jim

 

[Paul Chapman]

Ok so I'm going to try and buy a bedrock fore plane are there any major advocates of the Bailey pattern plane?

Go for a Bedrock if you can. They tend to be far more precision made than the Bailey pattern and the ability to alter the size of the mouth opening without having to dismantle the lever cap and blade assembly is well worth having.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jacob]

Thanks guys I think I'm looking at a No6 to start as it will be used for flattening and thicknessing but also for joontong short panels together this seems a good compromise.

I'm based in Hatfield so not that close to tring.

Ok so I'm going to try and buy a bedrock fore plane are there any major advocates of the Bailey pattern plane?

You are being lead down the path of plane fashion!
Not many 6s about - mainly because nobody wanted them. They are too big, unless you are a weightlifter (assuming you want to do a lot of planing).
Not that many bedrocks around either as the benefits are somewhat exaggerated and they didn't catch on in a big way.
5s the most popular and hence most common - and dirt cheap.
5 1/2 the "industrial standard" preferred by C&G courses etc since the year dot.
I'd go for 5 1/2 without a doubt and the Bailey pattern has been the most successful and universally popular, since it's inception.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I have to handplane everything - not enough space for a planer-thicknesser, and anyway I don't want to inflict the noise on the neighbours.

What seems to work for me is a two-stage process. Shift the bulk of the waste with narrow planes set deep, and refine the surface with long, wide planes set fine. So scrub plane first (I invested in a Lie-Nielsen, and have been very glad I did), then No. 5 jack set with as coarse a cut as I can push, and as wide a mouth as I can get away with (I used to use a No 51/2, but the 5 is far lighter to push), then finish off with a No. 7, set very fine with a tightish mouth. (Mine is a Record Bailey type, bought new in the late 1980's, and from the accepted wisdom ought to be rubbish. It isn't. The sole is flat and nicely finished, and I've never had to tune it. I have put a Clifton iron in it, which improved performance a lot, and gave it replacement handles, but the basic plane is fine. Maybe the older ones are a bit better, I have never tried one so can't tell, but I've no complaints with mine.)

During the first stage, lots of checking with straight-edge and winding sticks. Get it flat and straight, then take out the last of the lumps and bumps with the long, fine-set plane.

That works for me - but if I had a Wadkin to hand, I'd use it at least to take the bulk of the waste off. It might be worth doing one board from rough by hand just for the experience; but if you do, you'll appreciate the Wadkin that much more, especially with hardwoods!

 

[James C]

Well I've successfully got my Wadkin Bursgreen Planar Thicknesser up and running nicely after school finished.

Maybe I would be better off putting my money into a smoothing plane instead.

Any recommendations as to bevel up, I've been told to go for a Veritas Low Angle Smoothing Plane but this was coming from someone who has more planes than I think one single person could need.

 

[Benchwayze]

James..

I have no complaints with the LN No. 62, Bevel Up. But The Quansheng version is less money, for not so much less quality, with extra blades too.

You pays yer money you takes yer choice.

 

[James C]

Just read my own post, I meant Bevel Up Smoother not Low Angle Smoother.

Isn't the 62 a Jack rather than smoother? Does it make a lot of difference?

 

[Tony Spear]

I have to handplane everything - not enough space for a planer-thicknesser, and anyway I don't want to inflict the noise on the neighbours.

What seems to work for me is a two-stage process. Shift the bulk of the waste with narrow planes set deep, and refine the surface with long, wide planes set fine. So scrub plane first!

I'm in a similar situation, but have to add in a recent mini-stroke which complicates things, added to the fact that due to finances, (another of Fatty Maxwell's victims!) most of the things I do are from shed/reclaimed timber (mainly softwood).

I've got two Bailey No.4's one of which is set up with a bit of camber to use as a scrub, and a really cheap IndoChaiwanese No.5, with a vicous camber, which also functions as a scrub, to be used on unplaned timber before or even after the belt sander! The other No.4 is used for general purpose stuff, often with a small back-bevel if I do get something with difficilt grain.

My "go to" plane for final flattening/smoothing is my Pre-War American Stanley No.5 1/2. I also use this when squaring up shed rubbish (mainly 'cos it's weight distribution seems to make it easier to hold at a constant angle). It's also my shooting Plane, mainly because the relatively small pieces I work with just don't justify anything bigger.

Anything larger would probably need us to postpone the South Oxfordshire cat-swinging Championships! :mrgreen:

 

[Modernist]

.... and I quote..." 1 No7 jointer used for practically every hand planing operation, however short the timber" - Rob

Isn't that a "claim"?
I don't entirely believe him - it would be seriously impractical, albeit not impossible.

Clearly, you haven't read the book Jacob...that's what it says :roll: He does use other metal bench planes, but in a limited way (No4 for site work, small block plane, scraper plane, compass plane etc)...the text is explicit, it's the No7 that gets used at the bench - Rob

For those who do not already know it was true that he and some of his contemporaries used a No 7 for most work and this idea originally came from Edward Barnsley. The idea gained further disciples when Barnsley lectured at Loughborough college in the 1940's sending out echelons of woodwork teachers with the same idea. (My dad is one of them). FWIW he also dictated that it should be honed every 6 shavings. DC was not the first sharpenista

 

[Benchwayze]

James,

The No. 62 has near enough the same 'footprint' as a No 5 Jack. But it is quite light, and set properly, it gives a superb finish. At the moment, I use mine as a smoother. The bevel up smoother is a nice plane too, somewhat the size of a No. 4. It is also much easier to adjust than the 62, as the adjusting nut is on the top, instead of lying at an angle, as on the No. 62. This I find awkward to get my fingers around, for a good grip. I usually have to loosen the cap so I can turn the screw, with the tips of thumb and finger. That's a minor irritation; soon to be solved when I get a bevel up smoother. Probably next Xmas now!' HTH