scraper plane advice

Re: scraper plane advice

John Clifford in Chicago


>Hi Les, I was undecided between the two myself then I read a review in PopWoodworking by Chris Schwarz. Scraper planes are notoriously finicky to set up just right, but Chris pointed out one thing that made the LV quite user friendly for those new to scraper planes. That one thing is the thumb screw that allows you to camber the blade. That made up my mind for me so I went with the LV, and I'm mostly a LN guy. I have no regrets, it works great and is fairly easy to set up. This is one of the few instances that I think that LV's tool is better than the LN equivalent, although LN's is still better looking :)

Do I hear a bugle call?

woodburnbob


>Les, thanks for inviting comments.

Your "comparative features" list-in-progress is interesting to me. I bet you already know there have been a few recent threads on the topic of card scraper vs scraper plane...as well as a burr vs no burr discussion...and even a how-do-scrapers-actually-cut discussion. All erudite commentary by the way. But I have to admit I haven't seen a camber-feature vs no-camber feature thread, nor a big-sole vs not-so-big sole thread.

The camber feature criterion prompts me to realize no one has yet shown how to add this profound and essential feature to an LN (or any other scraper plane) by simply drilling a hole, theading it with a tap and adding the requisite thumb screw. One would need to trade out a thick blade for a thin one that will bend, but that can't be too difficult. If I'm quick, could I try to patent the retro-fit-camber-feature idea or would I risk infringement if I even tried such a thing?

Anyway, you may also know that LV vs LN discussions sometimes seem to degenerate into a sort of Athenians vs Spartans style Peloponnesian War call-to-arms issue, which often promises some degree of amusement...for awhile anyway.

I've got an LN112 and a Stanley112. I don't think I actually need either, but alas I had the money at the time. No more, of course. Money, that is. The Stanley is infinitly more elegant and balanced in the hand. Alas, I'm afraid the venerable old Stanley are too comparatively inexpensive to ever compete with the LNs and LVs. And, the old Stanleys have a slightly different curve radius to the sides and can't quite take the thickest modern blades. Obsolete, for sure.

Anyway, Les, your post prompted me to look at the LV. What exactly is the purpose of the funny looking unpainted metal skirt with the screw head in it? I looked at all the illustrations I could find and still can't figure it out. Is that just a "design feature"? Sort of like fins on a 1957 Dodge Fury?

The other thing that interested me was the LV Scraper plane literature. I'm curious who wrote it. That is, what person or persons. I only ask because several things in the pdf remain, as far as I know, debateable and unproven assertions. There. That should add a little volume to the bugle call.

Veritas Scraping Plane Instruction Guide (PDF)

Re: scraper plane advice

Dave Thompson


>I'm going to side step the brand debate... and go more along the lines of plane style.

I have a #112, #212, #12, #12.5, #80, #85, and card scraper. The #112 style which your question was asking is probably my least favorite, and was also my first. It take a bit of fiddling to get it performing right. The wide blade requires a good bit of constant pressure to engage so as to prevent skipping. #12 is similar, just different handle orientation.

Most of the time, I use just a scraper card or a a no-frills cheapo #80. It's very easy to adjust. The blade angle is fixed. Just set the depth (to stock level), and flex the blade. It doesn't require a bur to scrape well. I also like the narrower blade of the #85. It doesn't require as much pressure, and is very easy to hold. fwiw.

enjoy,

Dave

One more to toss into the ring.

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)


>Les

I cannot comment on either the LN or LV versions since I have not used them. I do have a Stanley #112 with LN "Stanley Replacement" blade. This works very well, and I use it without a burr. I find that it takes finer shavings this way.

However, the other scraper plane that should be considered - since it works so well - is the HNT Gordon smoother with reversed blade. Probably the cheapest option as well, not to mention it adds another smoothing plane to the arsenal.

The Gordon planes use 30 degree beveled blades and a 60 degree bed. When the blade is reversed, the resulting cutting angle is 90 degrees. An HSS blade is another option with this plane, and it will hold an edge for a long time.

Setting the plane is the same as setting up most woodies. Here is is quick and easy. Note that in this format that this is a serious scraping plane.

Here is an illustration of the bedding of the blade modelled by the HNT Gordon shoulder plane (the cut out makes it easier to see what is happening):

Bob raises the issue of a curved and tensioned scraping blade. My preference is to use a flat blade, unless the goal is to remove a small section of tearout, which is facilitated by the camber from the curved blade. Tage Frid made a strong recommendation to use card scrapers by pulling them towards oneself rather than pushing away. This was to reduce the curvature of the blade, which he saw a cutting shallow grooves in the surface. There is a place for both methods. The HNT Gordon "scraper plane" is going to provide a very flat cut.

Just one more to consider.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: scraper plane advice

Jim in Burlington On


>I have a 112 and the LV scraping plane. There's a steep learning curve with both. A sheet of glass and a few sheet of paper and a magic marker to help get a consistant setup helps alot. Someone else told me by time you get the blade set and a few practice strokes your burr is pretty much worn out when using a 112 style. Well there's a big curve to getting the blade bowed just right and tilted to the degree then making small adjustments to keep cutting. I'd say you could scrape at least twice as long with the LV then the 112. IMO buying a extra blade with you LV scraping plane keeps you motoring for quite a while. Both planes are almost my last option to use for most job's.

Yes

Wiley Horne


>" Both planes are almost my last option to use for most jobs."

_____

I bought an LN85 a few years ago, and it is a very fine performer. I always used it with a hook, and it would throw up billows of shavings.

However, I haven't used that plane in three years, other than to refinish a little patch of floor last year. Haven't seen any wood that I could not manage with smooth planes or panel plane. And the surface is better with the lower angle planes.

On the other hand, I use card scrapers more and more--in all different thicknesses--for detailing small areas, smoothing inlaid surfaces when I don't want to be planing the inlay any more, cleaning up banding, final sizing of stringing, denibbing shellac, etc. Zillion scraping applications. But not with a scraper plane.

Something to mull over: If you going to be using this scraper plane in place of a smooth plane, why won't the smooth plane do the job?

Wiley

Gordon scraper

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Derek, if one wants to use any of the HNT Gordon planes as both a scraper and smoother, I strongly recommend getting an extra blade for the purpose. Using a blade reversed works great, but it does dull the blade significantly.

Pam

Re: One more to toss into the ring.

woodburnbob


>Derek, I think the idea of bevel-up scraping planes from traditionally bevel-down smoothers and bench planes is exactly on the mark.

Some years back I spent time fiddling with various bevel angles and Bailey planes. In a way, the Bailey depth adjustment partially makes up for the lack of the pivoting blade holder in a 112 to sent depth. But, you're still stuck with deciding what fixed bevel angle is best.

[For those who aren't exactly following this: Baileys are a bevel down plane. The flat leads and the bevel follows. Cutting angle is purely a function of the bed angle in traditional bevel down planes. The grinding angle is actually just forming the relief angle for these bevel down arrangements: with a 45 degree bed and 30 grinding angle, there's a 15 degree relief angle. If you flip the blade over on the bed you have bevel up and a cutting angle of bed angle plus grinding angle, e.g. 45+30=75 degress. The new relief angle is what? Yes, the bed angle...45 degrees on the Bailey. A new cutting angle of 75 degrees is intermediate between a typical plane cutting angle and a scraping angle. It typically digs in and renders the plane motionless. If you increase the 30 degree grinding angle to 45 degrees, you have a bevel up cutting angle of 90 degrees...the beginning of scraping.]

Basically, I took a bunch of similar plane blades, as sharp as I could get them. I tested them (flat leading, bevel trailing) as if they were narrow card scrapers. I found the best performance as a function of angle was something like 100 degrees cutting angle (10 degrees leaning forward from perpendicular)using a kid's protractor.

I have a Tormek, so it was a simple matter to put in a 100-45=55 degree grinding angle on a few. Back in a Bailey plane bevel up arrangement, these worked quite well to emulate a dedicated scraper plane like the #112

Absolutely agree!

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)


>While I have a Stanley #112 and #80, plus could use the HNT Gordon as described above, I have almost only used card scrapers for the past few years. As the quality of my smoothers improved, so the necessity for a scraping plane declined. I do use a multitude of card scrapers, mostly in hard-to-get-to areas and for smoothing shapes that cannot be managed with a plane.

Wiley is correct to point this out rather than just, as I did, answer your question in a literal sense.

Regards from Perth

Derek

No thumb-screw needed to flex #112 - *LINK*

David Barnett - SW Florida


>Depending on your choice of #112 scraper blades, you can bow the #112 by shimming (several ways to do this). This is surprisingly quick and I've seen one guy work with just a couple shims cut from an old feeler gauge to really finesse panels big enough to land small taildraggers. That said, I've never needed to do this with a #112 and cannot see why one would, but to each his own.

Monroe Robinson shows one method in the 1997 March-April FWW.


Bowing a #112 - M. Robinson

Re: Gordon scraper

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)


>Indeed Pam. Which is why I am pleased I rarely need a scraping plane, since I would want to use the Gordon rather than another, and the blade would then have to be rehoned for smoothing. That is why I mentioned the HSS blade since that is so much harder (I use tool steel in my smoothers as I lack the motivation or patience to be wailing away for so long on the waterstones :>) )

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: One more to toss into the ring.

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)


>Interesting Bob.

While it is nice to have specialist planes for all the various possible tasks (this feeds my obsessional side!), I get an even bigger kick out of modifying existing tools, or applying some lateral thinking with them (e.g. my Upsidedown Veritas Honing Guide for cambers), to achieve a solution. Much more fun! Bevel down plane to bevel up scraper fits this bill (pun intended).

Regards from Perth

Derek

The 112

David Charlesworth


>Woodburn Bob, enjoyed your comments!

I think Ron Hock makes excellent blades to fit the Stanley 112, thicker than the originals and much better workers, in my opinion, so absolutely no need to scrap these splendid tools, which now seem to command high prices.

I believe I persuaded Thomas to revise the no hook advice. Sharpening, burnishing and setup need to be fairly precise on this tool, which is essentially a much better version of the Stanley 80.

We camber the blade before burnishing the very small hook, in the same way we camber a plane blade, therefore no need to flex the blade, though I love your suggestion. As blade wears, it can be tilted fractionally to make up for wear.

Scraper planes really come into their own when cleaning up large areas of complex veneered surface, though they can be used on almost all timbers. The larger the sole, the easier to maintain flatness of large surfaces. I am extremely sceptical of the possibility of maintaining precise flatness with card scrapers, as there is a tendency to concentrate on the problem areas.

best wishes,

David Charlesworth

Re: The 112

woodburnbob


>David, I sure hope you enjoyed the "bugle call" message (which probably should have been phrased a "tribal horns" message to keep metaphors from mixing), and not the "toss...ring" message.

I so lathered the former with what I thought was hilarious creamy sarcasm that no one apparently understood what I was saying. My tongue was so far back in my cheek that I fear the audience only heard me making unintelligible sounds.

I guess I should feel lucky to one has slapped me around over a literal interpretation. Bob