Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Alice Frampton, UK

>Dan,

I spoke to DC about it at Tools2003 back in November, and had a good look at the finished article. It certainly looked the business, but I got the impression it was one heck of a struggle in the building. As others have mentioned, the instructions were lacking a bit, and IIRC DC said the machining of the kit he had was out by 1mm (could have been more, or maybe less, but more than he'd expected with CNC cut parts). Mind you, he did add to his troubles by adding in an adjuster. Now in the nicest possible way, David is a bit of a perfectionist, which possibly made the whole thing just a tad more traumatic than for the rest of us mere mortals... After I mentioned his struggles with it had put me off the idea rather a lot, he did say it was worth it for the result. Performance is due to be reported on in a later issue apparently. I could of had a go with it, but to my regret I didn't have the nerve :~( If you were going to make a Shepherd kit I think it'd be a useful series of articles to have on hand.

FYI; four articles in issues #78, #79, #82 & #83 of Furniture and Cabinetmaking magazine, GMC Publications. No affiliation, just a subscriber who'd be willing to accept cheques, cash or postal orders... ;~)

Cheers, Alf

All too aware who posts on this forum, and who lurks too, so please remember I'm relying on my unreliable memory. Therefore assume a posssible error of reporting somewhere between 10-100%... :~)

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

kees laan

>David calling a perfectionist is an understatement; see Furniture & Cabinetmaking june 2003 no.77: He is customizing a LN spokeshave!

When I read such an article many are afraid to buy a tools c.q.spokeshaves. That's why a forum is often having questions like: which is best.......Japanese/Western, LN/LV, Stanley/Record etc.

regards, Kees

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Rob Lee

>Hi -

If you view planemaking with a bit of trepidation - I'd suggest having a look at their thumb plane - for $69 USD, it's not much of a risk. I intend to get one!

Cheers -

Rob

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>Thanks Alf,

I keep batting around the idea about building a smoother and want it to perform better then my LV/LN planes and I want Brass sides to show off the dovetails.

It's kinda like reaching for theholy grail, you buy a bailey and then think your better off with a Bedrock, then you buy a LV/LN and say if I only had a Norris/SPier's/Shepherd and then it's I wonder how a Knight Toolwork's smoother would compare. IT NEVER ENDS!

My wife now says and how will an Infill be different from your Bedrock you've upgraded with a LN Chipbreaker?

Take Care,

Dan Clermont

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>That thumbplane is definitely worth a look and a confidence booster.

Take Care,

Dan Clermont

some good first choices

Roger Myers

>I was also a little nervous and built the 1 1/2" shoulder as a first kit and had excellent results...take your time and assume it's going to take longer than you plan...probably have 12 hours (at a very, very relaxed pace) into mine.

Other good choices are the chariot, or the miter plane...I've seen people tackle the smoother as a first plane and also succeed very well.

The dovetails seem intimidating but they are really not bad and the peining of them is easy. Most of mine time was spent on tweaking the mouth, and infill...the shell assembly wasn't bad at all.

No affiliation with them other than as drinking buddies...:)

Roger

Perfect opening

Roger Nixon

>Simply answer "I don't know, lets find out!"

I'm impressed!

Don Thompson - South of Miami

>Your wife knows about Bedrocks and Lie-Nielsen chipbreakers? Wow.

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>Alice, I would say you have given a fair but very gentle version of what Mr. Charlesworth actually wrote in those 4 articles.

For anyone planning to build a Shepherd smoother kit, those articles are a goldmine of valuable documentation on how a careful worker actually built that kit. It took him (by his testimony) at least 10 times the hours stated by the kit-sellers. What is valuable to prospective kit-makers is that he describes precisely where the problems are, and how he dealt with them. In at least one place--installation of the throat plate, which is critical--his conclusion was that the steps as given were out of sequence.

As Alice said, the articles are in Furniture & Cabinet Making, Issues 78, 79, 82, and 83, which are July, August, November, and December 2003, respectively. You can order back issues, and the simplest way to find out exactly how to do this is email Ms. Sue Bennett, who is in charge of subscriptions. Her email is,

sueb@thegmcgroup.com.

Wiley

Re: Perfect opening

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>Buy one for me and I build it ;)

Re: I'm impressed!

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>Yep,

Most of the things I build are for her and she wants things built without a piece of sandpaper touching it and the only way to do that is to use good planes and upgrade when you can

Currently I use a Bedrock 604 1/2 with a LN chipbreaker, Anton Berg Blade back bevelled 5 degrees for a york pitch. Seems to work with and against the grain but I don't think the surface is even close to what Rob Cosman makes with his LN 4.5 york pitched,

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Paul Barnard

>I've built a few smoothers, a chariot, shoulder, and a panel. I'm about to start a 24" jointer. Apart from a very early smoother I have had no issues with accuracy of the parts, they have all been exactly what you would expect from laser cutting and CNC. It could be that DC had a early set of metal and i recall Doug mentioning sending a kit to DC a long time ago. The comment on instructions tends to back that up as the early instructions were a little confusing, they have been enhanced significantly.

It really is easy to do and a lot of fun. Absolutly start with one of the new small planes as they are very well priced but don't be afraid to jump right in with a smoother. The panels and jointers take a bit more care so that may be a bit of a challenging first plane.

Despite the large number of kits I've built there is no affiliation apart from a very satisfied customer.

Steps out of order

Paul Barnard

>That would have been one of the origional iterations of the instructions, way back when they started out. Could be clased as a collectors item by now :-). Shepherd have come along way with their product presentation since then.

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I haven't seen Charlesworth's article, but have enjoyed reading the two books which are compilations of his earier articles. He is obviously a very thougthful woodworker and commentator on tools. I have deliberately selected that word commentator, as I personally find his approach to tool reports to be more that than as objective evaluator. I don't state this pejoratively. I think David also brings an interesting British viewpoint to this tool commentary, both his directly and from his exposure to other British plane makers such as Holtey and Ray Isles (not to mention Tony Murland as plane purveyor).

From what I gather, I suspect that David's articles are best considered a description of his experience building a plane based on the Shepherd kit, rather than building a Shepherd plane from a their kit. I suspect this distinction is warranted, and goes a long way towards explaining why his experience differers from what the Shepherd folks have presented, both in time and techniques of construction. David may provide a fine description of his process and plane, but I wouldn't go to far in assuming it describes how to make the current product from Shepherd.

Now I have a fair amount of experience with the Shepherd planes, both having constructed one, and have used a whole brace of them of different bedding angles. Now I hate metal working, and limit my experience doing so as greatl as I can. I also am a bit of a perfectionist. Nonetheless, my experience making a Shepherd plane was fairly positive. Yes, it did take me longer than their estimates, indeed quite a bit longer, but my time was far short of the 100 hours I beleive has been mentioned by Charlesworth. Of course I made the kit as Shepherd intended, and David did not. No complaint here, but again, customization always adds greatly to the time of the task.

Now I know that some folks can complete the plane in approximately the same time as Shepherds projection; it certainly is more likely one can do so having a belt sander. However, I think the whole hours issue for most is beside the point. I suspect few will purchase this plane kit to be able to make a plane on Saturday so they can smooth a tabletop on Sunday. Rather, I think folks will tend to make these kits for on of two reasons, either to reduce the costs so an heirloom infill is affordable, or because they like the idea of being able to construct their own plane. Personally, I suspect the latter reason is the predominant one for most kit purchasers, or at least becomes so somewhere in the process of making the kit. If one comes to like the ability to have crafted an infill plane with one's very own hands, then the hours really don't matter that much. Indeed, I think Doug has given some very good advice in the past and encouraged his kit builders to languish over the task, fully enjoying the process of bringing this beauty to life.

Of course most of us are only going to be able to tranform these kits into beautiful and highly functional planes with some hand holding from the kit makers. Again, I hate metal working and don't have a well developed set of metal working skills. My experience was that the parts came properly dimensioned and the instructions booklet was complete. I had no difficulty making mine from the instructions included, and I understand the instructions have been considerably refined since I received mine. I don't know what era of instruction booklet Charlesworth had, so I don't know if we are perceiving the instructions differently, or if I just got better instructions. Since I made mine, there have been several web tutorials that now serve as additional resources for construction.

In the end, my kit built plane has performed identically to the factory built Shepherd of the same angle (and I would add, also has performed identically to the S&S infill of the same angle). Mine's a little prettier though, which for me is some compensation for those added hours.

So again, I think David is describing his experiences with making a plane based on a Shepherd kit. I am sure he has faithfully reported his experiencesin a way that is both entertaining and informative. I would caution, however, that each individual kit builder is apt to have their own unique experience making this plane, and would be best to approach such a purchase appreciating that reality.

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Alice Frampton, UK

>Lyn,

I believe I'm right in saying that DC got his kit via Tony Murland, and he did wonder if somehow they ended up with "seconds" kits. IIRC he was going to as TM about that, but I don't know if he found a Tuit :~)

As to building "a plane based on a Shepherd kit" rather than a Shepherd plane from thir kit, well I would have thought that was one of the big reasons for making a plane from a kit in the first place. For me at least, I can see no point in making a plane if it's going to end up exactly like a dozen others. Building one from a kit makes customisation an obvious opportunity I would have thought. But then the basic shell and whathaveyou is still the same, and that's what I'd want to use a kit for; getting the basics right. Otherwise you might just as well build from scratch, no?

Cheers, Alf

in an utterly unrelated area....

John Truxell-Svenson (jvs)

>"As to building "a plane based on a Shepherd kit" rather than a Shepherd plane from thir kit, well I would have thought that was one of the big reasons for making a plane from a kit in the first place..... Otherwise you might just as well build from scratch, no?"



...there is a saying that goes "if you want what we have, do what we do." If I approach a project that I have never tackled before with the idea that I'm looking for the basic results that are promised, but try to find a new way to get there so that the end product is "customized," the outcome is my own responsibility.

This is more of a response to your post, Alf, and not a direct comment on DC's series. I only read one of the middle installments (picked up a copy of F&CM for another article) where it seemed like he was back on track but hadn't yet completed the kit, so this may not be the problem at all. That said, when it comes to customization in general I'll stick to the mantra of "if you don't know exactly what you are doing, try the directions first."

Best,




/jvs

A different writer/builder-a different view *LINK*

Ben Knebel

>When this thread first started I was not going to respond but I thought it might be appropriate to post this link to Chris Schwarz's article about his experience building the same smoother---without further commentary.

Regards

Ben


http://www.popularwoodworking.com/features/fea.asp?id=1224

Re: Charleworth's and his Shepherd Infill

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Hi Alice,

I have no problem with either approach, I just think it is important to recognize the distinction. The experience (and hours of effort) that David describes provides an example of one approach, the directions and estimated hours Shepherd provides represent another approach. In my opinion it is good to be informed by reports of each approach, but one should be cautious in drawing any conclusions about the one from the other.

That's my take too Paul

Dave Anderson Chester,NH

>I built a Shepherd smoother as my first kit and had no problems whatsoever. It did take longer than the original 8 hours quoted, but I did a small bit of customizing too and I moved ever so slowly and carefully when filing the mouth opening and the bedding platform for the blade. A shoulder or one of the other planes is more suitable for a first timer, but again, I didn't have any problems with my smoother. This jsut isn't rocket science, but rather 19th century technology in the form of what was built in a craft type shop.