Question about infill planes

Yes

Joel

>

Care to elaborate?

Denis Chénard, Orléans, Ont.

>

Re: Question about infill planes

Ernie Miller

>I'm not a technical guy but it's the weight mass lack of vibration from the wood, quality of the steel in the blade beauty. Try one I dare ya! I'll even loan you mine if you promice to send it back. if you are afrade of taking the plunge because of the cost. once you infil you'll never use steel. Ha Haa Ha ha

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Ah, talking about infills often results out comments closer to religous than scientific.

The two highest performing smoothers I have ever tested (one of which I commissioned and purchased) are two infills made by SMT. There are only 3 (maybe now 4) of them in existence. Hand built with extreme attention to design and construction, they value at nearly $3000 each, and that's a bargain compared to the hours, effort and design that have gone into them. How does one seperate out the "fill" from all the other factors.

The next highest performing smoothing plane I have ever used is the new LV Bevel Up Smoothing plane used with a blade giving a 63 degree effective cutting angle. It's about as cast iron as you can get. The older version and the L-N version, set up for 63 degree effective cutting angles are almost the same. Any of the three cost way less than $300, so about 10 percent of the SMT.

The next highest performing set of planes, and though less versatle are all in the supersmoother category for me, is a pack of wooden body, wooden wedge planes, bedded at 60-63 degrees, the cheapest of which is the Mujingfang that can be had for under $50. So, for less than 2 percent of the cost of the SMT, you can obtain performance that will rival it (and yes, on some very difficult to plane woods, be superior to several infills from different quality manufacturers which had lower effective cutting angles).

My point, wood is an effective bedding material, whether or not used in an infill configuation, but it is not essential for outstanding performance. The highest levels of smoothing performance, on the most difficult woods, is going to derive from a multiplicity of factors, many of which you can control yourself on most plane types (effective cutting angle, attention to the trailing edge of the toe, careful adjustment of mouth and blade extension, etc.).

There is nothing about an infill design that will lead to a uniformly superior plane, though as a group, infills tend to be made to high standards and are aesthetically a delight to own. Just to be incendiary, I can take a $47 dollar plane and get a better surface on most difficult to plane woods than can be achieved by a whole list of far more expensive infills. You could too.

Re: Question about infill planes

Joel

>if your definition of "highest performing" smoother is as it is on the studies you have published - namely the best surface from a freshly sharpened plane I would agree with your assessment.

If your definition is the plane that can go longest without tearout I would disagree with you. Infill planes, good ones, are the most forgiving plane style I have ever used (once you learn how to adjust them).

Re: Question about infill planes

Todd Hughes

>It seems I remember a few years ago one of SMT planes,[first one made?] was sold I believe in a MJD [maybe a Browns auction?] tool auction do you know what it sold for? I was just curious and thought you might know and save me the trouble of looking it up.....Todd

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Until the one I commissioned and recently acquired, there were only two SMT infills made. They were meant to be part of a matched pair, deliberately a reference to dueling pistols. In reality, there were several minor differences between them, though none would have been appearant to a casual eye.

If I understood SMT correctly, and remember correctly, the one was put up for auction, but did not receive the minimum bid. It was ultimately sold, but I don't believe it was in that auction, though it was through Murland. I have been told the final purchase price, but quite honestly, I don't recall it. I may have it somewhere in old emails.

To respond to my commission (that took me some months of whining and wailing and prostrating myself before him to achieve an affirmative response), SMT has created the parts for a total of six more planes, though I'm one might end up being sacrificed if problems develop during completion. Only mine will have the screw adjustable mouth (that adds a great amount more in labor and complexity), but the others will eventually become available. SMT is unwilling to put a price on any of the remainder before completion, to allow him to better bring price in accord with the efforts he has to put into completing them. I suspect future planes will cost quie a bit more. While an SMT is not the ultimate in aesthetic detail as compared say to an Anderson or Holtey, it exceeds any other plane I am familiar with in terms of technical sophistication. Based on the latter, his will be remain a bargain compared to the Holtey.

The real story (long)

Dan Donaldson

>Long ago in the days before history began, there was a genius inventor by the name of OG. Many of you that frequent the trivia board have heard of him. Back in his time, he invented many of the things that we take for granted today, such as vehicles, tablesaws, and many of the other tools that we use avery day. Well, after he invented all of the power tools (and a way to make steel, which was required for them), he found that there were still some operations that needed a hand touch to get just right. He took some of the steel that he had invented and made up some chisels for fine tuning. The only problem with them was that it was difficult to hold them at just the right angle, and consistant depth. He thought about it for awhile, then camy up with the idea for making a holder for it out of some of the metal from shich he made his steel. (cast iron). This worked pretty well except that the blade of his tool (which he called a plane because it skimmed over the work like a boat {Which he had also invented, but that is another story} had a temdency to chatter and mess up the finish. You have to understand that in those days prehistory, they mainly had ferns and no real trees, and the material for them was barely suitable for building anything. Og thought about this, and dcided that maybe he could do two things at once. What he needed was a way to get a material that was nice looking, strong, and had good damping properties. After some thought, he decided that a modified fern might work. The only thing was, that at the time, he had not invented forestry yet, so he had no way to modify the ferns. After a lot of thought on the matter, Og finally hit on the idea that magic might work. Of course, magic did not exist yet, so he invented it. Og then used this new magic to modify the ferns so that they became much bigger and harder with large trunks that he could cut up to use. He named the new material "wood" and made several different varieties with differing properties. Some were soft, with little character for general use, and others were very dense with beautiful markings that he called "grain". He used some of the dense wood that he had invented to line the metal bodies that he was using to hold his blades, and thus came the infill plane. The material "wood" is enchanted because OG used his magic to create it, but unfortunately, even though wood survives to this day, magic did not. Og found that the wood he used in the planes had all of the characteristics he wanted, damping vibration and providing excellent support for the blades. These planes have become the standard of excellence to this day.

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>You bring up an interesting point.

It would be great if it were feasible to graph performance over distance, with performance being quality of surface finish and distance being how many linear feet of planing. If I though I could do it, I'd love to, but I lack the laboratory resources that would allow sufficient precision. I suspect LV or better yet a mechanical engineering department could.

Wouldn't it be just wonderful if you could then stack the curves, so to speak, and make direct comparisons.

Frankly, I still don't believe it would come down to plane style. I think the primary factors would be initial refinement of the edge (the more refined the greater the retention), the metallurgical qualities of the blade, the functional cutting angle (i.e, effective cutting angle plus skew), and the abrasive qualities of the wood sample.

Where I think our agreement may come is that in general, I find infill planes to offer excellent peformance at the moderate effective cutting angles, ie., 45-50, which is why I so often specify effective cutting angles in my statements. The SMT smoothers in my possesion are bedded at 47 and 49 degrees (though I also have a back beveled blade for them as well), compared to the others which require higher effective cutting angles to rival the SMT performance. What I can say is that the SMT stands above other infills, which have included two S&S, a brace of Shepherd, and one Ray Iles, several of which have had higher bedding angles. The improvement in surface finish with higher effective cutting angles is not as pronounced in the group of infills I have compared, relative to the improvement obtained by say bevel up cast iron planes. I'll discuss this more in the write up of the second study that I've returned to work on writing up.

I'm going to be gone for the remainder of today and most of tomorrow, so I'll be a bit slow in any follow-up

LOL! But seriously...

Denis Chénard, Orléans, Ont.

>Is the damping porperty of wood the "culprit" here?

NAE, but if vibration is the issue that a wood infill helps reduce, then any material with damping properties would do the same job as wood, no?. I don't know, maybe brass or copper... Would make for a heavier plane, though...

As for choice of wood species, is the rule "the denser the better"? If so, all other things being equal, a lignum vitae infill would perform better that say, ebony...

DC

Just trying to understand

Re: Question about infill planes

Joel

>"Frankly, I still don't believe it would come down to plane style. I think the primary factors would be initial refinement of the edge (the more refined the greater the retention), the metallurgical qualities of the blade, the functional cutting angle (i.e, effective cutting angle plus skew), and the abrasive qualities of the wood sample. "

If this was correct the SMT plane should not work as well as it does at the angle it works at. It's an exception that should make you look askance at your conclusion.

I would agree that the factors you mention are important when it comes to judging a freshly sharpened blade on the appreaance of the wood. What you are doing in my view is comparing a moderate angle smooth plane with excellent fit and finish to a bunch of planes which have been turned into (essentially) scrapers. and with a scraper the thicker the iron, the better the metalurgy etc the better it will work at high angles without first destroying the blade.

However at the higher angles the blade won't last as long, the plane will be harder to push, and while the tests may answer your basic criteria. but long after the high angle planes need resharpening the moderate angle smoother will continue to perform well for many many strokes. I belive this is because the infill design promotes this behavior and a very well made infill pushes the basic design adantage to the max.

This is why I consider the longer term performance of a tool more interesting than how it can cut if it's really sharp. but I would certainly agree that a quantitive test would be really difficult to arrange. I am not a scientist and as an engineer I can isolate specfic design features that make a plane work but I don't know how relate an entire design and performance portfolio to a simple set of numbers. However I can tell you that within my group of tools, setup all as well as I am able or interested in doing, when I am doing serious work I find myself finding my infills the most forgiving and easiest to use. This of course happens only after I went up the learning curve and learned how to use them and set them properly.

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Ah, this is what I get for a last look before heading out the door. For you, Joel, I shall allow myself to be late.

Interspersing with Joel's reply:

Starting with his quote from me,

"Frankly, I still don't believe it would come down to plane style. I think the primary factors would be initial refinement of the edge (the more refined the greater the retention), the metallurgical qualities of the blade, the functional cutting angle (i.e, effective cutting angle plus skew), and the abrasive qualities of the wood sample. "

If this was correct the SMT plane should not work as well as it does at the angle it works at. It's an exception that should make you look askance at your conclusion.

Now me:

The SMT planes are much more than a test bed for a plane style or an angle. It represents meticulous attention to design detail and execution. They are the only only one's with scraped soles for example, and particulary with the second one, has the most sophisticated adjustments of mouth and blade extension available. That the SMT works as well as it did is a testimony to the synergy of many elements of good design, simply executed better than almost any other plane made. Interestingly, SMT's thoughts for his next plane design are for a plane machined from a solid billet. No wood bedding at all.

Joel again:

I would agree that the factors you mention are important when it comes to judging a freshly sharpened blade on the appreaance of the wood.

Now Me:

Actually, the factors I just discussed where with reference to your views of the significance of how long a plane would perform at a given level. The all become of much less consequence for brief planing with a freshley honed blade.

Back to Joel:

What you are doing in my view is comparing a moderate angle smooth plane with excellent fit and finish to a bunch of planes which have been turned into (essentially) scrapers. and with a scraper the thicker the iron, the better the metalurgy etc the better it will work at high angles without first destroying the blade.

However at the higher angles the blade won't last as long, the plane will be harder to push, and while the tests may answer your basic criteria. but long after the high angle planes need resharpening the moderate angle smoother will continue to perform well for many many strokes.

Me again:

When I have gone to great lengths to obtain a beautiful piece of wood, spent hours transforming it into an attactive object, and am not at the stage of final surface preparation, I frankly don't care if I have to sharpen the blade two times or twelve times to ensure that I obtain the most blemish free surface with the greatest of clarity of feature. The time spent smoothing, whether with one or a dozen sharpenings is trivial compared to the overall time spent creating a piece of furnititure, and yet the results will have some of the greatest importance on its final value and beauty.

My comments are always related to achievement of the optimal surface finish on wood. I personally don't care if that comes with a scraper, or chisel, or plane or sandpaper. It's just that I've found that the smoothing plane has consistently given me the most blemish free surface and a surface of the greatest clarity of feature.

As for angles in the specific, I've looked at infills having anything from 45 to 60 degrees of bedding, and I've also looked at infills from 45 to 65 degrees of effective cutting angle utilizing back bevels. They just don't improve as much with higher effective cutting angles as other styles of planes.

Back to Joel:

I belive this is because the infill design promotes this behavior and a very well made infill pushes the basic design adantage to the max.

So why, Joel? If it were due to the wood itself, then a wedged wood plane that damped the blade on both sides, and all the way down to the sole (unlike an infill) would show the highest performance and be least susceptible to effective cutting angle. Instead, wood planes show marked improvement with increased effective cutting angle. Folks, there is no mystery in infills. It's a good design, but not necessarily the ultimate design. It has tradeoffs just like every other plane design.

Back to Joel:

This is why I consider the longer term performance of a tool more interesting than how it can cut if it's really sharp.

Me again:

Yep, this is where we always differ. I want the best possible surface finish, and will make my choices and recommendations accordingly. I'm willing to put forth the care and effort, as well as dollars, to obain that.

Joel again"

but I would certainly agree that a quantitive test would be really difficult to arrange. I am not a scientist and as an engineer I can isolate specfic design features that make a plane work but I don't know how relate an entire design and performance portfolio to a simple set of numbers. However I can tell you that within my group of tools, setup all as well as I am able or interested in doing, when I am doing serious work I find myself finding my infills the most forgiving and easiest to use.

Me again:

Fair enough. For the tools you have and use, your infills best satisfy your needs and sensitivities. There's always a multitude of factors that go into the choice of a plane. That you prefer using an infill, however, doesn't demonstrate that an infill has any characterisitics that make it perform in a superior fashion to other designs.

Joel:

This of course happens only after I went up the learning curve and learned how to use them and set them properly.

Me:

Ah, I can't say I am fond of the implications here. Just smacks too much in my perception that the true believers have skills than the infidels lack. Interestingly, wouldn't the most friendly plane be the one that didn't require super skills in order to obtain super performance? You can get great performance almost out of the box with a $47 dollar plane. Some expensive planes require a fair amount of tuning (and frankly, I found the Ray Iles I had for over a year to require more than its share), and some require very little. That will be an issue for some and not for others.

I will continue to state, based on directly comparing dozens of planes from nearly a dozen different manufactures and of all styles but the Japanese, that there are too many different factors that are pertinent to give an unequivocal performance edge to just one feature or one plane style. Anything magical about an infill comes from the mind of the user and not from the plane itself.

Re: Question about infill planes

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I don't recall anyone raving about the performance of their infill plane. Perhaps I missed it. In my opinion the beauty of the infill plane is in the craftsmanship that it takes to produce one.

Re: Question about infill planes

Joel

>Lyn,

You find no magic in an infill (with one excpetion). I find lots of magic. You say that "Anything magical about an infill comes from the mind of the user and not from the plane itself." and with that you dismiss any experience anyone has.

We are finding magic in different places. Just because your interpretation of a great plane is one that is perfectly sharp and can create a perfect surface, that doesn't mean that's the only way to judge magic. My magic - what I am looking for is different. you want a great surface regardless of hassle I want an easy to use tool, that is forgiving and can plane anything I have ever tried to plane and doesn't require sharpening ever few strokes.

This is like a soccer mom saying the best car is a big SUV because it's bigger and can carry more kids. A fair criteria for her - and lots of other people like her but a pretty useless criteria for a commuter who is interested in good mileage and a comfortable ride.

I too can take a $47 plane and get great results. It's not hard if you know how to sharpen. but the second that plane gets a little dull that performance vanishes.

Re: Question about infill planes

kenc

>Lyn said:

The SMT planes are much more than a test bed for a plane style or an angle. It represents meticulous attention to design detail and execution. They are the only only one's with scraped soles for example, and particulary with the second one, has the most sophisticated adjustments of mouth and blade extension available. That the SMT works as well as it did is a testimony to the synergy of many elements of good design, simply executed better than almost any other plane made. Interestingly, SMT's thoughts for his next plane design are for a plane machined from a solid billet. No wood bedding at all.

A couple of coments:

Although a scraped sole is a craftsman like way of flattening a plane sole, the end result of a scraped sole, lapped sole or surface ground sole is a sole flat to a particular degree. Although it's "nice", how does scraping improve the performance of the plane?

Similarly, having a fully adjustable sole ahead of the mouth is very nice, but assuming the mouth is closed up - as it ought to be for the finest of cuts - then how is it any better than a non adjustable smoother with an exceptioonally tight mouth? Several of my Norris smoothers are exceptionally tight, others could be shimmed to similar tightness if need be.

Can't say that I buy your reasons for the superiority of your SMT smoother over other infills.

I am sure it is a wonderful plane though.

Re: LOL! But seriously...

James Watriss

>"then any material with damping properties would do the same job as wood, no?. I don't know, maybe brass or copper...

hee hee... or bronze...

Would make for a heavier plane, though...

Well, yeah. It does. ;)

Re: LOL! But seriously...

Dan Donaldson

>I don't have a clue. it was just something to use for the story.

Re: Question about infill planes *LINK*

Ben Knebel

>Try the link below Moses. Posted right in this forum.I could point you to others but then I'd be shot for being too biased.

Best regards

Ben


http://www.woodcentral.com/shots/shot547.shtml

Re: Question about infill planes

Steve knight

>Infills have a coolness factor other planes don’t have. I don’t think anyone can debate against that. After making something like 65 infills and the world’s first Japanese ironed infill my thoughts are these. For the same bedding angles infills will out perform other planes atleast in the 50 degree and lower bedding. They tend to go against the grain better then other planes.

After I finally had to sell my user Japanese infill so I could afford a jointer I had to make a plane to replace it. I had never really cared for my 60 degree planes as they took so much effort to use it took most of the joy out of planning.

So I got the bright idea to add weight to the plane. I made my plane out of these weird lignum vitae (not the normal stuff) and I added lead shot to the middle of it. This made the plane around 5.5# with a Japanese iron.

Well when I tried this plane it was far easier to push or pull then my standard 60 and it cuts the tropicals that had been a challenge to my infill far cleaner. Such as the purpleheart I use ipe cocobolo and such. As a 60 it did not leave as much shine but the surface was smoother. Smoother then a 60 without the weight.

So I cam to the conclusion that the higher the angle the more weight mattered. And in the worst woods it made a far bigger difference. Also I found the mouth opening to be less then critical.

So I found that an infill is a great tool but there are alternatives. Also if you’re not working difficult woods I doubt an infill would make a huge difference.

All I have mostly planes were white oak and tropicals when I was planning my planes. I could usually push the plane iron till it was getting difficult to cut. If I remember right I could push an infill longer then a wooden plane. But I think that was the mass that caused that to work. I did not have any heavy smoothers at the time to compare though.

Re: Question about infill planes-OT

Adam Cherubini

>What is it that make people rave so much about them? Does the wood infill have something "magic" that makes them work so much better than other types of planes?

I don't know what the big deal is about. I stole one from some moron at a woodworking show a few months back. Had a leaf on the front which caught my eye. But the first time I used it at the job site, my buddies laughed at me and called me a sissy. I later murdered them.

Anyway, like most people, I mainly like infills because they are expensive and all those rich guys can't be wrong. That's why I stole that mercedes, but that's another story.

Ray

Re: Question about infill planes-OT

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>Yup, your clown suit was a perfect disguise. The four different flannel plaids were a real innovation. No one would have noticed you at that show, and it had lots of big pockets to hide planes, SCMSs and nail guns, too.

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Going another round.

Joel wrote:

"You find no magic in an infill (with one excpetion). I find lots of magic. You say that "Anything magical about an infill comes from the mind of the user and not from the plane itself." and with that you dismiss any experience anyone has."

Me:

What I dismiss is superstition and opinion masquerading as fact. I denounce it when it comes from those who have a financial interest in perpetuating it.

Joel wrote:

We are finding magic in different places. Just because your interpretation of a great plane is one that is perfectly sharp and can create a perfect surface, that doesn't mean that's the only way to judge magic. My magic - what I am looking for is different. you want a great surface regardless of hassle I want an easy to use tool, that is forgiving and can plane anything I have ever tried to plane and doesn't require sharpening ever few strokes.

Me:

The point is that if you want to compare performance of planes, on any of a number of factors, it can be done in a fashion that is objectively descriptive, and allows for replication of method. Magic may be entertaining, but is lacking in probabitive value.

You choose to set up an exagerated image of the high effective cutting angle plane with respect to it being a hassle and requiring sharpening every few strokes. Theoretically, with all other factors exactly equal, the higher effective cutting angle blade will show greater blade erosion than one of lower angle. To what extent this is even discernable in practical use will depend on several other factors that I've already presented, such as the metalurgical properties of the blade. In actual use, I obtain a longer period of effective sharpness out of the very hard chrome blade in $47 dollar Mujingfang (I refer you to Brent Beach's studies for just how hard this blade is), than I did out of the Ray Iles I had for over a year. That's 63 degree woodie compared to 47.5 degree infill. I obtain a longer period of effective sharpness out of a HNT Gordon HS Steel blade, compared to a Shephard A2 blade. That's 60 degree woodie, compared to 45 degree infill. In most cases, blade composition and processing treaments, and particularly included angle, will have far more effect on edge retention than effective cutting angle. It is simply false to state that the typical modern blade used in a high effective cutting angle configuration requires "sharpening every few strokes." Any wood that would require such treatment, and I can think of some purpleheart and ironwood that was that bad, simply ripped apart most blades regardless of their effective cutting angles (included angle being the biggest factor here). Indeed, Bevel Up plane designs allow for increases in included angle that are not possible in the usual Bevel Down infill, and so actually allow for greater edge retention in the hardest woods.

As for "hassle," that is something that covers a lot of territory and I find effective cutting angle to be inconsequential compared to such other factors as how easy it is to remove and sharpen a blade, how good are the means of adjustement, and how well the plane fits the hand. Hassle for me is dealing with a mediocre adjustment mechanism (Ray Iles), compared to an exquisite adjustment mechanism (SMT), a hard to remove blade (Primus or LN#164) compared to easily removed blades (LV Bevel Up smoothers, most wedge woodies like the Knight and HNT Gordon and Mujingfang), easily and precise mouth adjustment (SMT and LV BU and Primus Smoothers) compared to absent mouth adjustment that at best will only allow shimming of the balde (Shepherd and Ray Iles infill, most fixed mouth woodies). Having to fool around with resetting the cap iron used with most infills and cast iron BD smoothers is far more hassle during resharpenings than dealing with the blade alone that is used in BU smoothers and many woodies like the Mujingfang and Knight and Gordon.

There is another piece to all this as well. With BU planes, like the LV and L-N BU smoothers (and even with most BD planes if one uses back bevels), with a couple of extra blades, one is able to easily select and interchange the effective cutting angle according to the requirements of the wood before one. One can use only the effective cutting angle required for the task at hand. For many woods, indeed, the majority of woods the typical woodworker is going to encounter, any of the premium planes, regardless of style or practical effective cutting angle (i.e., 45-65) are going to do a great job. Thus one can save the higher effective cutting angle blades for when they are needed. Of course this works best when one has a mouth that may be easily adjusted, something that is quite rare on an infill, and uncommon on a woodie.

Joel wrote:

This is like a soccer mom saying the best car is a big SUV because it's bigger and can carry more kids. A fair criteria for her - and lots of other people like her but a pretty useless criteria for a commuter who is interested in good mileage and a comfortable ride.

Lyn:

Perhaps we could stick to planes.

Joel wrote:

I too can take a $47 plane and get great results. It's not hard if you know how to sharpen. but the second that plane gets a little dull that performance vanishes.

Lyn:

Yep, you can take a particular $47 dollar plane and get great results on some of the most difficult to plane woods. Most anyone who reads this forum can do the same. Indeed, one of the nice things about the Mujingfang is that for approximately the price of an extra blade, one can keep a plane fully set up to deal with those difficult woods and tearout prone areas. It takes a little more than good sharpening skills, as do all planes, but good sharpening skills are importants, as they are for achieving optimal perfomance from any flat bladed tool. I think for many, it will be reassuring to know the can achieve an excellent surface on many of the most difficult of woods for the modest cost of a $47 plane or blade, and not have to spend many hundreds to achieve the same, and sometimes less, results. Lots of reasons to lust after and even obtain some visually beautiful and historically rich infill, we all know I've done it. But best to be able to look at that decision based on an honest examination of one's needs as well as desires.

To what extent a plane will perform as the edge erodes will depend more greatly on the failure characteristics of the wood than the plane style. For smoothing, I find it a foolish economy (though I know you feel differently) to try to get maximum edge life before sharpening. I always recall the story of the Japenese craftsman who was sharpening his plane after every stroke. When asked why, he said he always wanted to each stroke to be the finest he could achieve. Yah, overkill, but when making the final passes on a surface we wish to reveal in all its natural splendor, development of such an attitude can not only assist in yeilding great results, but can also reduce the time to accomplish the task. Is it really a savings in time to be using a less than optimal edge, then generate tearout that will not only require a new sharpening, but many additional strokes to bring the surface below the level of tearout? The choice is clear for me when it comes to those final smoothing passes, though I lean in the direction of your sensibilities when it comes to simple dimensioning and flattening.

Folks, there is no perfect plane design (and if one were to pick one based strictly on engineering criteria, the LA BU would come out on top, but that's another discussion). One finds this out when comparing a wide range of high quality planes to each other. Even the SMT falls short on one wood that several other planes have no problem with (a sample of curly oak, and I have no idea why). The ability to achieve an excellent surface finish over a wide range of woods can be found in many different plane styles and at many different price ranges. By all means get the plane(s) that makes you happy, but make it a decision based on your satisfaction and not on hype and unsubstantiated claims.

Re: Question about infill planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Some good points for discussion:

Ken commented:

Although a scraped sole is a craftsman like way of flattening a plane sole, the end result of a scraped sole, lapped sole or surface ground sole is a sole flat to a particular degree. Although it's "nice", how does scraping improve the performance of the plane?

Lyn now:

It doesn't. The whole point is the one you make, that the sole is flat. Actually it is particularly and most importantly important at the trailing edge of the toe (i.e, immediately before the mouth) and along the sole that forms the side walls of the mouth. The actually method to achieve this is irrelevant, as you point out. This will ensure maximal control of blade extension and support on the wood fibers before the mouth.

It is the means by which a scraped sole is usually prepared that gives significance to the method. The combination of "spotting" using a reference plate, and the ability to localize both the areas which are not flat and ones targeting of material removal often results in superior flatness, but is not essential to achieve it.

Ken further suggests:

Similarly, having a fully adjustable sole ahead of the mouth is very nice, but assuming the mouth is closed up - as it ought to be for the finest of cuts - then how is it any better than a non adjustable smoother with an exceptioonally tight mouth? Several of my Norris smoothers are exceptionally tight, others could be shimmed to similar tightness if need be.

Lyn now:

I think this is one of the most frequently missunderstood aspects of plane adjustment. A tighter mouth will often improve the finish on most woods, but it does not always yeild the best finish. There are several reasons for this, relative to cell size, orientation of the fibers, elasticity and flexibility of the wood wood, and integrity of the cellular structures and intercellular bonds, among others. Let me give just one example. We all know the thigher the mouth, the less blade extension that can be employed or the shaving will "choke" in the tight mouth. For very hard, dense, small and rigidly celled woods, taking very thin shavings by means of minimal blade extension works fine. We also know that most woods will deflect (downward as well as forward) under pressure of the blade, no matter how sharp the blade edge, or even with very low effective cutting angles. If the blade extension is at the margins of wood deflection, the blade will cycle between cutting and skipping, causing a chatter of sorts. This can be a real problem with some planes with fixed, very tight mouths, on some, usually softer woods. If one opens up the mouth slightly, and increases the blade extension slightly (as can be done with an adjustable mouth plane), then a thicker, but more uniform shaving can be raised, and a similarly more uniform surface achieved. Being able to thoughtfully adjust the mouth for increased as well as decrease size can increase the versatility of your plane, even just for smoothing.

Ken ends:

Can't say that I buy your reasons for the superiority of your SMT smoother over other infills.

I am sure it is a wonderful plane though.

Lyn now:

Yes, it is a wonderful plane, but quite frankly, the margins of its superiority over the over planes I have used has eroded. The LV and L-N BU planes and the Knight, Gordon and Mujingfang high effective cutting angle planes are so close in overall performance on the worst of woods, and all the other high quality planes perform so well on the majority of woods, that the superiority of the SMT is more technical than practical. I have it primarily because I like what it represents as one man's exploration into and execution of a cost no object attempt to achieve the ultimate smoother. There are other approaches, and as I mentioned, SMT's next design is likely to be a LA BU plane machined from a solid billet.

I'm truly not saying the SMT is superior to all other planes, infill or otherwise, just those planes I've used (which does include quite a collection of premium planes including several infills). It is interesting to me that Karl Holtey, when he decided to develop his own design rather than refine historical designs, chose to make a 50 degree effective cutting angle BU plane. I've never had the opportunity to test one (and probably never will), but I suspect it would perform superbly (though I bet the SMT adjusters remain techically superior). I also don't know about the performance of some of the recent Bridge City Toolworks designs.

I don't really know why the SMT performs so well. I have speculated about possibilities I can discern (flatness, adjustment capability and refinement, blade thickness [it's not the thickest of blades and I think that is good for a bevel down plane] wood damping,high mass, low center of gravity, etc. etc.), but then one looks at planes that take another approach and they perform well. In the end, I'm sure that a variety of factors interact to achieve optimal performance, and all of these interact with the techique and experience of the user. What I can report, is how the planes achieve certain criteria, measured in a single blind fashion, in the hands of multiple users. And that is what will be coming when I report on the second study in a few months.

Re: Question about infill planes

kenc

>Lyn,

An interesting response.

Like you, I love quality planes. I have a couple of Hutchinson mitre planes, both box and improved. I have around 15 Norris planes, most pre war. I love them for what they represent a much as for what they can do. I have seen pictures of teh SMT and it is incredible (say, don't you live down the street in Sunnyvale?..........)

Your point on "value" planes is well taken. For some time now my ultimate jack/panel plane has been a Norris A54, 17 inches long, much heavier than a Stanley with a 5/64" blade. I thought it the ultimate even though the reputation of the A50/A51 series has been somewhat maligned on this forum - and YES in my opinion a superior plane to the much touted A1. Anyway, I recently purchased the L.V low angle Jack with optional 62 degree pitch blade - this plane outperforms my A54, in fact out performs any of my $1000+ Norris planes. Not only that, I can swap the blade for the 37 degree pitch and plane endgrain................... for $179!

Ken