Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Trying plane opinons wanted
Stephen in Ottawa
>I am looking for opinions from people who own a Clark & Williams trying plane. I am thinking of getting one for face jointing boards and will be used after the scrub and jack. I work mainly domestic hardwoods, hard maple and cherry mostly so would like a plane that would perform well for my intended use.
Thanks,
- Stephen
Question
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>I don't have a C&W try plane, but do have an HNT Gordon try, which seems to work fine after the C&W jack. My question is why do you use a scrub before the C&W jack, the blade on which is shaped almost like a scrub?
Pam
Magnificent!!
Wiley Horne--Glendora CA
>Hi Stephen,
I bought a 22" Clark & Williams trying plane about two years ago, and it has exceeded all my expectations, in terms of performance and maintenance (hardly any). And it has a wonderful feel to it in action--I just get in a zone when I use these C&W long planes..
I use the plane mainly on sugar maple (hard maple), soft curly maple, curly birch, and white oak. Use it set fine, after scrub and jack and (usually) fore plane or panel plane. I'm talking face jointing now, but it is an edge jointer par excellence!
I like this plane so much, that earlier this year, or was it last, I bought a 30" C&W jointer. And that plane is also incredible! It's the performance, but there's so much pleasure in them, too. You will want to sharpen these to a truly keen edge, and the blade steel is excellent.
The plane arrives perfectly tuned, but before shipping, Bill Clark will call you and ask you what size mouth opening you want, and will talk that over with you. C&W is a small firm with great integrity.
Wiley
Longer is better
Adam Cherubini, NJ
>Hi Stephen,
Sorry I have no direct experience with C&W planes. You don't know how sorry I am!
But as far as the performance of a try plane goes, the longer the plane the straighter the work. I've not done any studies, but my knee jerk reaction is that 22" is the shortest try plane I'd ever consider. If you are going to get a custom made plane, ask for a 26" or preferably a 28" try plane. As for jointers, get a 36" long jointer. You can get away with a shorter jointer only if you work narrow stock. If you work wide stock, you really need a l-o-n-g plane.
One more thing: I'd also recommend an offset handle/tote.
Adam
Other Ops. *LINK*
Chad Boehlke
>I have a web site on woodworking planes.
http://www.woodworkingplanes.com
Re: Question
Stephen in Ottawa
>Pam,
I don't have a C&W jack, but an old Stanley jack with a cambered iron. I do have an ECE scrub plane which I find easier and more comfortable to use to take heavy cuts than my jack which is why I opt to use it if I have to remove a lot of wood. I need the try plane to flatten the scalloped board before I can smooth plane it. Until now I've been using my LN 5 1/2 which has pretty good heft but is not nearly large enough for large boards.
- Stephen
- Stephen
Offset handle
Wiley Horne--Glendora CA
>The C&W's are made with offset handle, and if you're left handed, let Bill know that. If you go for the longer plane, as Adam recommends, ask for the 'jointer handle', which is a bit larger than the trying plane handle.
Wiley
Re: Longer is better *LINK*
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>22"? Why this number, Adam? Terry Gordon makes an 18" try plane that works very nicely. My guess is this is because he see the try plane as closer to a foreplane (#6) than to a jointer. His has optional handles; but this is clearly a very different style from western.
And I'm not clear on why a shorter plane is OK for more narrow boards. Are there some more stringent geometry rules in play here.
Re: Longer is better
Adam Cherubini, NJ
>Hello Pam!
22' is the length C&W offers, no? I recommend 28" if you can find it. I'm basing this opinion purely on my subjective experience using planes of these lengths. Its a simple geometry problem. Both planes have irons that project roughly the same amount. The longer the body, the straighter the resulting work.
When working edge joints in narrow stock, you can pull up a decent gap (spring joint). But when the boards are wide like my dining table (17" 6/4 walnut) the joint must be straighter. Stock this wide isn't going to pull up easily.
To some extent, this can be overcome by technique. My advice is really directed at someone choosing a new plane. With wooden planes, there's little disadvantage in getting a long one. They aren't as heavy as metal planes so its not like planing with a cinderblock.
Does that make sense?
Adam
Offset handle?
Paul in NJ
>Adam,
I'm not sure what you mean by an offset handle and why it would be useful. Would you care to elaborate? By the way both my wooden try plane and jointer are noticeably heavier than my Stanley #7.
Paul Dzioba
Re: Offset handle?
Dan Donaldson
>I have a Clark and Williams Trying plane, and the handle is offset to the left about 1/2 inch or so. This makes it a bit easier to stand beside it and guide it down the board. I use it mainly as a jointer because most of the stuff I make is small and the plane is longer than the boards that I am planing.
Clarify 22" and some other stuff
Wiley Horne--Glendora CA
>Hi Adam,
No argument--just wanted to clarify my earlier statement. C&W make planes to order. I ordered a 22" trying plane, and then a 30" jointer. Someone else could order a 26" trying plane and a 36" jointer. Or whatever. If you call up C&W to discuss a trying plane or jointer, part of the conversation will be 'what length do you want?'
The trying plane and jointer both have the same cross section--3-1/4" wide and 3" high. They each have the same 2-1/2" wide blade, tapered in the thickness. My two planes each have an offset handle, but the longer plane has more offset. If you're left-handed, they should know that. The main difference (other than length) is that the trying plane tote is smaller than the jointer tote. I really like the jointer tote, and if someone has a larger hand, that's the one to get. The blades of jointer and trying plane both arrive non-cambered unless you specify different--they do make a 'fore plane' with a cambered blade.
Wiley
Re: Longer is better
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>As Wiley says, C&W offers most any length, the primary factor being the length of the blanks they have and what the customer wants.
Are we talking about edge jointing or face flattening? How does this longer is better approach work in making a sprung edge joint? Seems to me that often a somewhat shorter plane would be better, more manageable.
Nothing you say doesn't make sense [sic], but needs refinement now and then. :)
Re: Longer is better
paul womack
>The longer the body, the straighter the resulting work.
This statement, while true as far as it goes, takes a very one dimensional view (no pun intended) of the task of planing.
Smaller planes require less energy from the user: lower weight to lift and lower mass to accelerate decelerate. Further, very long planes (into which catagory I'd certainly place anything over 24") have additional handling problem due to sheer length alone. I'd rather handle a drumstick than a broomstick, certainly in the small workshop I have.
The whole purpose of the the scrub-jack-try-jointer sequence is to allow each tool to perform a particular aspect of stock preparation efficiently and well. Otherwise we'd prepare rough stock to size and surface finish using only a jointer plane (with apologies to Kirby :-)
Bearing all this in mind, I'd beg to differ on your (as usual, unqualified) "longer is better", and recommend (from my personal experience) a "usual" 22" long, 2 1/2" bladed wooden try plane.
These planes are common for a reason.
BugBear
Long plane clarification
Adam Cherubini, NJ
>Pam,
The role of the try plane is both surface work and edge straightening/squaring. For both of these operations, a longer plane makes achieving a flat surface easier.
I often find myself straightening a 6' or 8' board. If it is the edge of a table, I generally don't care how straight it is. If my jack plane left a smooth surface (it doesn't always) I'd be content with the straighteness I get from its 16" length.
But when I am making moldings for example, a nice profile demands a straight edge (since the edge is used by the plane's integral fence). Another example is when I make bead boards (something I've been doing more than I would like to :( . In this case, the edge needs to be straight, since I'm joining the boards with a T&G.
For these edge operations, I've found the longer planes to be advantageous.
You asked about spring joints:
As you know, I use the "sprung" technique for both edge jointing (when I'm gluing boards together) as well as edge straightening. If you were working narrow, wet stock, Home Depot pine for example, you may indeed want a shorter plane to create a great deal of spring. In this case, you simply skew your long plane to reduce its effective length.
One more related point:
I feel strongly that a jointer plane needs a wider iron than a try plane. I recommend something closer to 3". The reason (Bugbear will be happy I'm giving an objective reason for this one*) is when you wish to match plane 6/4 rough stock. That joint could easily be 2-1/2" wide. This operation is not so very peculiar in my shop.
Anyway I hope that clarifies things a little.
Adam Cherubini
*Bugbear has written to say my remarks are "unqualified". I think he means that I'm not providing any objective criteria to suggest a 28" try plane is quantitatively better than a 22" plane.
He's correct. I'm cannot provide quantitative data to support my opinions. Take them or leave them, this isn't authoritative information.
Moreover, I lack the 20 years of 8 hours/day experience that could lend credibility to my strongly-worded, authoratitative-sounding statements.
I hope my posts are never interpretted as authoritative. These are complicated topics and require several voices to uncover. Okay?
Adam
Authoritative and Unqualified statements
Paul In NJ
>I get a lot out of Adam's unqualified and authoritative statements. Even if I do not always agree with his methods of work, they are often a catalyst to get my mind thinking. We have seen many topics where Adam has stimulated a lot of discussion. I appreciate and learn something from everyone's point of view and experiences and I enjoy the perspective Adam brings to Wood Central. You really need to meet Adam to appreciate his enthusiasm and passion of this craft.
Bug Bear don't take this as a slam, I appreciate what you bring to WC too!
Paul Dzioba
P.S. Adam, I still would like to hear your take on offset handles. Dan offered his explanation to my question but it seems that would un-balance the plane.
Re: Authoritative and Unqualified statements
Dan Donaldson
>I haven't used the plane to flatten boards, so I cannot say anything about whether it would unbalance it, but for doing edge work, I have not noticed any effect in that regard. It may have something to do with the way that I hold it (which may or may not be correct, as I just do what feels right to me;-) I am right handed, so I hold the tote in my right hand and then wrap my left around the plane. My finger tips run along the board under the plane, and my thumb is on top pointing in the direction I am planing. This seems to help me to guide it, and this position seems to help me to keep the plane level which helps me to get a square edge. Subjectively, I don't notice any tendency for the offset to want to skew the plane or anything, maybe due also to the weight, width and length.
Re: Offset totes again
Paul In NJ
>Thanks Dan for your explanation. I have never seen an offset tote or have not been observant enough to notice one. I was thinking Adam perhaps meant offsetting towards the back for balance. I just couldn't think of a good reason to offset to the side.
Paul Dzioba
Re: Long plane clarification
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>Thanks, Adam, this does indeed clarify.
For long boards I tend to use a bench long shooting board setup involving my planing beam and bench top; so the length of the plane is less important since I seldom free hand this job anymore. Although a longer plane certainly wouldn't make things more difficult.
I also try to match plane edges, unless the combined stock is thicker than the available blades are wide; but this is a somewhat limiting approach. Perhaps it doesn't matter if the try plane is just as wide as the jointer? What's really important seems to be the 3" wide jointer blade?
Pam
Re: Longer is better
Stephen in Ottawa
>From what I remember reading, try planes were traditionally about 22", closer to the length of the Stanley #7. Probably the increased length enables one to get a flatter surface, as Adam suggests, however I cannot claim much knowledge on the subject. Not many manufacturers of metal planes refer to try planes and I was trying to figure out the best length of plane to get as a try plane and I seem to be leaning towards about 22".
- Stephen
Adam, wrong Qualify.
Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida
>BugBear's usage is:
Qualify - To modify, limit, or restrict, as by giving exceptions.
He did not say that you have no qualifications to pontificate on woodworking. He did not say that you do not supply supporting data for your conjectures.
Don - who enjoys Adam's viewpoint.
Miami weather: Sunny, 75�F., 78% RH