Home made plane better than Stanley

[Derek Cohen]

Well said, Charlie. Ben, my apology if my comments were taken as a criticism - they were intended to explain Warren's remark. I should not have gone there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[CStan]

Well said, Charlie. Ben, my apology if my comments were taken as a criticism - they were intended to explain Warren's remark. I should not have gone there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

One can almost sense the arms waiving about in the air, no?  

[Bencuri]

Ben, firstly, that is a fine looking plane you have made.

In regard to performnce, for an experienced hand plane user, as with Warren (mwickley) and many others here, just one look at the set up of a plane can say much. In the case of your plane and a Stanley - regardless of how good a performance you are achieving - it is possible to reach a hypothesis why your plane is working better at this moment.

This is my hypothesis, and I assume Warren's as well: your plane has a single blade - no chipbreaker - and is possibly bedded at around 50-55 degrees. Assuming blade sharpness is the same, a Stanley - set up with the chipbreaker pulled back by 1mm ir more - cannot plane as well into reversing grain as it is bedded lower. However - this is the point - the Stanley, with a closed up chipbreaker (roughly 0.4mm from the edge) with the leading of the chipbreaker shaped to 70-80 degrees, will plane reversing grain effortlessly. It is all in the set up of the Stanley.

The question is whether your plane is indeed a single blade, and whether you have used the Stanley with a closed chipbreaker? If this is all new to you, then you are in for a treat


Regards from Perth

Derek

Well, I am not that big an expert on plane physics. But having used the plane for a while, I can share more experience than before:

The plane that I made  is a single blade plane indeed. And it does work better than my normal Stanleys when it comes to rough grain. At the certain sharpening skill level where I am, when freshly sharpened, the Stanley (with a tight mouth and a chipbraker set close to the edge)  cuts quite well. It tears the wood out a bit, but I wouldn't really call it a tearout: at the problematic points it leaves a pit that is just a hair in depth, very very shallow, but you can notice it. My home made plane when freshly sharpened, it can smooth those patches fast, and make the surface totally even, no matter which direction you push it.

But here comes the "catch": while the Stanley with the chipbraker leaves a shallow pit even when becoming a little dull, my homemade plane starts tearing out the wood terribly when it is not dead sharp any more. So even if sharp, ther tearout will be there. And besides that you need to keep the blade in smoothing mode, you can only use it as a final smoother, not as a "scrubber". 

The chipbreaker is a problem here, however: at 60 degrees the chipbreaker will have such a steep angle that clogging starts becoming a serious problem. So at the moment I am planning to make another plane with 50 degree and a chipbreaker instead. I heard Lie Nielsen is 50 degree and capable of being pushed either direction, so maybe that +5 degree will be enough, considering the Stanley almost cuts perfectly at 45 degree.

So all in all, I regret  now that I chose the single blade method. It seemed to work easily for a while, but I noticed I picked easier test pieces in the beginning, however on the worst wood, this blade type has has drawbacks. I assume, if it had a chipbreaker, I woudn't need to worry about sharpening that often. The plane is totally usable and can do the job that I built it for, but due to the sharpness requirements a lot of time has to be spent on sharpening. On the other hand, the result is really impressive, very smooth.

[Bencuri]

Hi Ben,

that is a cool plane! Close to a scraper plane.
The "better than Stanley" is indeed a clickbait title. But it worked!

Take Care,
Pedder

Haha, yes, it is a clickbait tile. I wrote it like that by intention. But not to fool and charm readers. I wanted to emphasize that most people (like me before) wouldn't expect that a homemade plane can work so well, that is it relatively easy to build, and that there can be an easy solution this way to planing rough wood that is a kind of "mystery" nowdays, as these high blade angle planes are rare and cannot really be purchased from shops. So apart from a few 50 degree smoothers available, you need to make it for yourself if you want one, but it's definately worth making them.

[Bencuri]

Well said, Charlie. Ben, my apology if my comments were taken as a criticism - they were intended to explain Warren's remark. I should not have gone there.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Don't worry about that, I welcome even criticism. Especially here. Planing rough grain is a challenge, and it is good to share ideas and experiences about it.

[Derek Cohen]

Well, I am not that big an expert on plane physics. But having used the plane for a while, I can share more experience than before:

The plane that I made  is a single blade plane indeed. And it does work better than my normal Stanleys when it comes to rough grain. At the certain sharpening skill level where I am, when freshly sharpened, the Stanley (with a tight mouth and a chipbraker set close to the edge)  cuts quite well. It tears the wood out a bit, but I wouldn't really call it a tearout: at the problematic points it leaves a pit that is just a hair in depth, very very shallow, but you can notice it. My home made plane when freshly sharpened, it can smooth those patches fast, and make the surface totally even, no matter which direction you push it.

But here comes the "catch": while the Stanley with the chipbraker leaves a shallow pit even when becoming a little dull, my homemade plane starts tearing out the wood terribly when it is not dead sharp any more. So even if sharp, ther tearout will be there. And besides that you need to keep the blade in smoothing mode, you can only use it as a final smoother, not as a "scrubber". 

The chipbreaker is a problem here, however: at 60 degrees the chipbreaker will have such a steep angle that clogging starts becoming a serious problem. So at the moment I am planning to make another plane with 50 degree and a chipbreaker instead. I heard Lie Nielsen is 50 degree and capable of being pushed either direction, so maybe that +5 degree will be enough, considering the Stanley almost cuts perfectly at 45 degree.

So all in all, I regret  now that I chose the single blade method. It seemed to work easily for a while, but I noticed I picked easier test pieces in the beginning, however on the worst wood, this blade type has has drawbacks. I assume, if it had a chipbreaker, I woudn't need to worry about sharpening that often. The plane is totally usable and can do the job that I built it for, but due to the sharpness requirements a lot of time has to be spent on sharpening. On the other hand, the result is really impressive, very smooth.

Ben, reading your description I identify two possible factors to explore:

Firstly, a chipbreaker with a 60-degree leading edge is fine. In fact, you can take it higher - 70-, even 80 degrees. The problem you experience with clogging is more likely to be that the mouth is too tight to pass shavings. Open it up (pull the frog back). Don't be concerned - a closed chipbreaker does not need a tight mouth.

Secondly, the "tearout" you describe is possibly caused by the blade. It may well have a chip or wire edge that is scratching the surface of the wood. Resharpen the blade. Check the sole of the plane, especially around the mouth, for burrs. Alternately, the plane is leaving tracks, which is caused by the edges of the blade digging in. If so, give the blade a slight camber and round the corners.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[CStan]

I've found that a combination of a tight mouth and a not quite as close cap iron as I believe most people use to be the best set up for the woods I use.

If you want to see the effect of mouth aperture on planing, then take your adjustable mouth block plane, set if for a very light cut (don't change the cutter depth at this point) then start with a wide-ish mouth and progressively close the mouth and watch the shaving change, and more importantly the surface quality change.

Don't throw the mouth aperture baby out with the bathwater.  You might be surprised.

Here is how tearout is approached and loosely in this order:

1. sharpen up;
2. change planing direction;
3. move the cap iron closer;
4. close the mouth of the plane;
5. OR ANY ONE OR A COMBINATION OF THE ABOVE THAT WORKS.

Never discard arrows out of your own quiver.

[Bencuri]

Ben, reading your description I identify two possible factors to explore:

Firstly, a chipbreaker with a 60-degree leading edge is fine. In fact, you can take it higher - 70-, even 80 degrees. The problem you experience with clogging is more likely to be that the mouth is too tight to pass shavings. Open it up (pull the frog back). Don't be concerned - a closed chipbreaker does not need a tight mouth.

Secondly, the "tearout" you describe is possibly caused by the blade. It may well have a chip or wire edge that is scratching the surface of the wood. Resharpen the blade. Check the sole of the plane, especially around the mouth, for burrs. Alternately, the plane is leaving tracks, which is caused by the edges of the blade digging in. If so, give the blade a slight camber and round the corners.

Regards from Perth

Derek

The problem when using a chipbreaker with a 60 degree plane is that depending on the shape of the chipbreaker, you may need to tilt the wall in front of the blade backwards to have space for the shavings to pass. It means that every time you flatten the sole, the mouth opening will increase faster. So this is a little disadvantage of those designs. Yet based on my experiences the chipbreaker might be useful.

About the tearout: I did pay attention to the things you mention, to remove the sharp corner of the blade, polish the edge to remove wire burrs, etc. That may not be the reason for any tearout.

[Bencuri]

I've found that a combination of a tight mouth and a not quite as close cap iron as I believe most people use to be the best set up for the woods I use.

If you want to see the effect of mouth aperture on planing, then take your adjustable mouth block plane, set if for a very light cut (don't change the cutter depth at this point) then start with a wide-ish mouth and progressively close the mouth and watch the shaving change, and more importantly the surface quality change.

Don't throw the mouth aperture baby out with the bathwater.  You might be surprised.

Here is how tearout is approached and loosely in this order:

1. sharpen up;
2. change planing direction;
3. move the cap iron closer;
4. close the mouth of the plane.
5. OR ANY ONE OR A COMBINATION OF THE ABOVE THAT WORKS.

Never discard arrows out of your own quiver.

I do agree with those things, namely: the mouth opening and the chip breaker gap both have a significant effect on the resulting surface. This is very obvious when planing difficult wood like kiln dried black locust. If the blade is sharp, the chipbreaker gap is small, but the mouth opening is average, massive tearout can happen. While when it is the cipbreaker that is too far back, even in case of a tight mouth tearout will happen again.

However even if you combine everything to get the most advantage, I experienced there is a limit for surface cleanliness at 45 degree blade angle on difficult wood, like black locust. I polish the blade, it is cutting hair like a razor, mouth is tight, chip breaker gap is small, yet there is a hair of tearout. Minimal, but it is there. That is the point when the 60 degree blade angle makes a difference.  The surface becomes smooth, without any irregularity. 

The only trick that helps in case of a regular 45 degree blade angle is the planing direction. Indeed, that can make it possible to avoid using a 60 degree plane. But in that case there is an aspect that is a disadvantage for me. It is easy to overshoot, you just push the plane a little more than you should, and you shave into the opposite grain and the tearout is there. So not as convenient as the 60 degree plane where you don't need to worry about planing direction. 

But all this is very dependant on wood type. I guess most of you never worked with black locust, I never seen it covered in Youtube videos either, it is a different world though. It would be interesting to see all those planes presented in Youtube videos how they perform on wood like black locust. There is a very big difference planing pine or maple and wood like black locust. Or osage, that might even be worse. Have not tested the latter one yet, but I have some logs from that.