#4 plane to a scrub plane?

Re: #4 plane to a scrub plane?

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>Sure... Open the mouth, grind a good camber on the blade, and you're in business.

DC

A bit too wide for me...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>Scrubs can be hard to push sometimes. A No. 3 or a 5-1/4 would be a good canadate IMHO.

Re: A bit too wide for me...

Bill Leffingwell

>I've used a 04 for years,it was indeed hard to push at first.I improved its performance(it was a flea mrket find)with a little tuning and a coat of wax on the sole.If I used it alot I'd get a better plane and really tune it up.Even so it would still be work.

Re: A bit too wide for me...

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>Wouldn't putting a steeper camber on the #4 result in the same effect?

DC

Not very well

jim reed @ tallahassee

>This question comes up from time to time because it seems reasonable. There are lots of #4s laying around which need to be put to work. I discourage it because of the following reasons: #4 is too wide, too heavy, and the blade is all wrong. It is easier to describe a #40 and how it works. The #40 has a cast frog, a thick blade, and a robust lever cap. Stanley blades are 1/8" thick, but I soup mine up with a blade that is 3/16" or 50% thicker. It helps. I also radius the blade and set it to take a 3/8" wide shaving. Even that small shaving is hard to push through rough timber. Sometimes scrubbing requires that you get up momentum before you strike the wood. This puts stress on the blade and holder. Your #4 or #3 is just not built to take this kind of punishment. The blade will bend and you will stress the frog lever cap screw. In addition, scrubbing is hard work. Scrub planes are lightweight. The entire #40 probably weighs less than a #4 frog. Weight helps the smoother; weight kills the scrubber. I hope I did not dampen your enthusiasm, but this conversion is something that you will not be happy with. Five minutes of working with a real scrub plane will show you why you do not want to waste your time in this fashion. Good luck with your woodworking.

Re: #4 plane to a scrub plane?

GolfSteve in Calgary

>Hi Stephen,

I did this to an old (pre 1910) Stanley that had hairline cracks in both sides near the mouth, so was no longer good as a smoother. I filed open the mouth, put a camber on the blade, and voila, I had an ersatz scrub plane. (How about that... English, French, and German all in one sentence...English is a great language; down with the language purity police).

However, I found the plane unsatisfactory as a scrub plane for two reasons:

1. The handle was too small. I found the handle and the area between the blade and the handle too small to fit my average sized hand. Scrubbing is fairly vigorous work and a good grip is necessary. This modified #4 was just plain :-) uncomfortable to use in this service.

2. A narrow plane really does help when you are scrubbing. I put a generous camber on the blade and the plane worked OK, but a real scrub plane does work better.

Regards,

Steven

Question

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>I've got a #40, so haven't been tempted to convert a bench plane, but I've got a question: if you camber a blade enough to get into scrub territory, don't you have to set the cap iron back quite a bit (at least level with the corners of the camber) - is there still room to retract the iron into the plane with a heavy camber on the iron?

Re: no

paul womack

>blade too wide, not enough room around the handle.

A #5 would be better, if you insist on starting with a Bailey.

A #5 1/4 would be ideal, but perhaps a little too precious to convert, unless you have a very cheap or damaged specimen.

BugBear

Yes it can, however ...

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Hi Stephen

Firstly, just about ANY plane can be used as a scrub, the #4 included, but there are always pros and cons.

I have made a few convertions in my time: a horned woodie, a #3 and a #5 1/2. And recently I became custodian of Mike Wenzloff's #5 1/4. All of these work well within their envelope.

Here are a few (Stanley #5 1/2, #5 1/4, Veritas, Stanley #40):

The downside to a Stanley plane is, as Jim has stated, the thin blade. The action of hogging is much more physical than general planing, be it jointing or smoothing. Ramming a blade through hard woods must bend the blade to some extent. I often wish that I could measure the effect on a frog. As a result, I think that a #3 or #4 conversion is best suited to use on softer woods. They work on hardwoods too, but therte especially you really can feel the difference.

For hardwoods I like using a #5 1/2. It has great heft and this translates into increased momentum, which is very handy. The recent addition of the #5 1/4 is very interesting. With Mike's blessing I plan to add a thick blade (probably a tapered one from a woodie so that I can still use the blade extention adjuster) and a larger tote (it is too small for my hand and smaller even than the common Stanley planes).

An interesting fact is that a #5 1/4 is the same size as the Veritas scrub plane, my favourite user. When you look at this one you see all that is good in a scrub plane: thick ductile iron casting, very thick blade, solid blade-holding mechanism, and large tote.

The Veritas is hefty and makes a Stanley #40 look puny by comparison (the #40 is one I like for soft woods), but alongside the #5 1/2 it is made ordinary. For the hardwoods of Oz one really needs a large and weighty plane.

Don't fret about the width of the blade in a #4. Once you add a 3" radius there is no significant difference among blades. The width of a plane is another matter. Here one wants a narrower plane as the aim is to hog as deeply as possible (that the wood permits), which increases resistance. Hence a #5 1/4 is preferred to a #5 1/2. The #40 is just 1 1/4" wide.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: #4 plane to a scrub plane?

Ernie Miller

>You heard it No one really likes the idea. I would build one if I were you. get a blade and make your self one it is quick and painless. Jim has a blad on e-Bay for $20 but you can make one your self cheaper than that and it isn't hard to do. You could pretty much knock one out al la Krenov saturday morning why you drink your morning coffee

Re: Question

GolfSteve in Calgary

>Yes, I took a quick look at that old plane, and the chipbreaker is set a good 1/4" from the apex of the camber. However I am still able to fully retract the blade.

Re: Question

Ernie Miller

>How much of the blade is cutting the center 1/3" with that much sole touching arounfd the blade can it really be used as a scrub? it seems like there would allways be to much sole on the ground to get what really needs taken off the board. It seems like the whole setup would be awkword to use.

Exactly!

jim reed @ tallahassee

>Normal scrubbing is at 45 degrees to the grain. Even if you expose a tiny bit of the blade in a #4, the width of the sole will prevent you from getting into the spots you need to get into. Wide sole increases your scrubbing effort by probably as much as 50%. Add to that the extra weight of the #4 and now your scrubber has arms like Popeye!