Heavy vs light handplanes

Re: Heavy vs light handplanes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I find this a very interesting issue, and it was one of the surprises I found in the first planing study (and has been confirmed in the second). Mass simply doesn't correlate with suface finish--some of the lightest woodies (like you HNT Gordon) do great, but then so do some of the high mass planes.

My sense of things, though, is that mass is most welcome when the blade is wider (like those 2-3/8 inch blades found on the "halves and a lot of infills), when the cut is deeper (i.e, when the plane is used more for dimensioning or trimming, than final smoothing), and when the wood varies in density due to figure, etc. Mostly, as resistance goes up, or rapidly varies, mass becomes more desireable (at least for me). This is not to say that the high effective cutting angles of planes like the Mujingfang smoother and the HNT Gordon don't contribute to resistance, but then their narrower blades and their usually minimal blade extension helps ameliorate that.

I must admit, my two premier planes, the SMT Loopy and the LV LA Jack have a lot of mass and I like it. But I also like using the ECE Primus smoother, the Mujingfang, the HNT Gordon smoother and a Knight Coffin smoother.

Shepherd helped me by making up a drilled out infill so that I could compare the same exact infill at different weights according to how much lead I added to the basic plane. I'll save those findings for later, just to be a tease.

It will be interesting to examine the subjective as well as performance differences between the LV LA smoother and the new heavier, wider model. Again, though, I don't think it will be a comparision of only mass, as the new version will have a wider blade. Now wouldn't it be interesting if one of the reasons the SMT performs so well and is such a pleasure to use is that it has both high mass and a narrow blade. Ah, but will I not having any surprises left when I finally release the write up of the second study. :-)

Hey! I saw that ...

Clay C in Miami

>After hearing for many moons about the work on Lyn's second study, and then a few more moons sprinkled with mentions of will-I-ever-write-up and then will-I-ever-finish this second study, suddenly today I see Lyn say "when I finally release the write up of the second study." Lyn writes too carefully for this to be error.

So, now the testing is done, the writing is done, and what we are awaiting is merely its 'release'? What stands between us and this promised land, this release? Do we have to behave better for some fixed-but-secret period, to prove we are worthy?

I for one am (reasonably) willing to wait, but I don't have to wait in silence!

Clay - Who is running off to the second day of the local guild's finishing seminar with Jeff Jewitt. (Day 1 was very worthwhile.) Amazing how easy it is to get some of the A-list WW teachers to visit us here in South Florida ... in February. In August, the phone doesn't ring so much.

We neglected to mention to Jeff that the South Beach condo where we've housed him is directly above a topless beach full of models, for fear that he'd contract some sudden, debilitating ailment, tragically preventing him from completing the seminar ...

Models of what?

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>

Re: Heavy vs light handplanes

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Hi Derek,

I have a Stanley #604+1/2 type 4 (curcascious round top) that I modified to fit a LN blade and improved chipbreaker. Can't say that I prefer it to my Stanley Bailey #4 type 9 with original blade and chipbreaker or my LN bronze #4.

I recently picked up a LN 604+1/2 with a york pitch frog (50deg). I haven't tuned or test driven it yet, but it will be interesting to see how I like it compared to my Knight york pitch coffin smoother which I like very much.

In terms of weight, I totally agree with the lighter plane approach, but like you, I do this for fun and use different planes planely because I enjoy using different planes. On the way soon is a Knight 60 deg coffin smoother with three pounds of extra weight added. This should be interesting to try out and could theoretically be tried out along side an identical Knight 60 deg smoother without the added weight to see which is preferrable and for what reasons.

In terms of the technical aspect of performance, this is probably best left to others. It would be interesting to see which planes perform best when the test piece is then subject to a difficult finish that would magnify any flaws left by the finish plane. Another curiosity might be a comparison of finish left by a smoother vs. a piece of glass used as a scraper, a technique which I would love to hear more about if any have experience with this.

Later

Jonathan

:-)

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>

Not of decorum ...

Clay C in Miami

>

Re: Heavy vs light handplanes

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>I also get alot of use out of my LV LA smoother it get's used for alot of job's a block plane would also get used for. Personally my #608 and LV LA jack get the most work edge jointing The roughing goes to two #605's and LV LA jack get's most of the smoothing work and the LN 41/2 barely get's out of the sock anymore. I don't think that weight has as much to do with my choice as solid feeling (virtually indescribable) does.

Heavy....

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>I prefer heaver ones myself. I have a problem with lighter planes skipping across the wood almost bouncing off of the board at times. My go to smoother is a LN 4.5 for smaller boards its a 603.

I hardly ever use a 4 or equliv. My LA needs are filled by a LN62.

Re: Heavy vs light handplanes

Warren Mickley

>When you are planing all day long you appreciate a light tool. If a light plane doesn't work well, something is wrong with it. In the eighteenth century planes had thin blades and nobody considered adding weight.