Building a jointer - opinion sought

Looks like a Monster (big-big) from here. Pretty !

s.mackay@worldnet.att.net

>

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

VTAndy4

>Derek,

I'd keep it at 30". Even at 28", the work of this plane would still truly be "jointing," not working on board faces, so to my mind, the weight won't be such a burden --- depends on how many passes you forsee taking on each edge. I'd like to make a jointer that long. Very nice work, and be sure to post the results -- I wanna see shavings!

-Andy

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

Jack Guzman from Maine

>I would think you'd want it as long as possible. Medium sized jointers are plentiful. Please post pictures of the finished product(with shavings of course).---Jack

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

Wiley Horne--So. Cal.

>Hi Derek,

When I see a jointer like that, I think edge jointing, so that's where these thoughts are coming from. First off, if you like to joint single boards (rather than match planing), then the 2" blade width is perfect, IMO. About a year ago, I acquired a 2"/26" jointer from C&W, that they had seen an example of at a show and liked. That plane has become my favorite wooden plane because its so handy and manueverable, and the narrow width is what makes it so.

On the length, I believe balance is the most important thing, on any plane really, but especially on a long plane, and most especially on a heavy plane. Because balance translates into manueverability--it responds easily in your hand and you can shift its position easily on the edge. What I suggest is to balance the plane on a narrow stick and find out where its center of mass is, compared to the tote position. Think about placing the balance point pretty near the tote position. With absolute length being a secondary consideration.

Really nice plane!

Wiley

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Since you've already cut the mortise, you've already made that decision. Or, there is a geometry that normally governs the relationship among mouth, toe, and heel; and this relationship is specific to the type of plane, Japanese vs Western for example, you want.

Further, to be crusty and a little uppity, I don't think this is the place for Krenov style planes; but since that's your choice, you can change the geometry by making new center slices to define a new mouth placement.

Pam

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

mikew

>Hi Derek,

I don't think the laminated construction is an issue in response to Pam's post. It's a proven and good solid construction even for long planes as evidenced by Steve Knight's jointers.

As a means of diminsional comparision, my vintage 28" jointer has the leading edge of the mouth 10" from the front of the plane. The centerline of the handle--it too is of a razee shape--is about 21". Though the bedding is a typical 45 degrees, which would push the handle back from a bedding of 60 degrees as in your plane.

Weight could be an issue. One nice thing about the woodies for jointing is their relatively light weight in comparision to a metal plane of similar length. The issue of length is moot, I think. The 2" extra inches can be trimmed off like someone mentioned if it proves to be unwieldy in the length/weight ratio.

Cannot wait to see the completed plane in action!

Take care, Mike

Pam -- can you clarify?

VTAndy4

>

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

steve knight

>finished weight of that plane will be around 8# maybe a bit more. with the high bedding angle the weight will be better then worse since I take it your using this plane on tropicals. the extra weight will make the plane cut cleaner.

Why no skew?

Jim Reed @ Tallahassee

>Nice looking plane, Derek. I vote for 30"--it will make you stronger over time. I always skew my jointer slightly in use. If I were making one from scratch, I would skew the blade. Seems to me that the cabinet pitch would love a 5 degree skew.

USS OHIO*

Paul in NJ

>I say keep it as long as possible. My Sandusky is 36 inches long. That is a #7 below it for comparison. With its 3" blade it does a nice job match jointing two boards at the same time.

Paul Dzioba

* USS OHIO was a 1901 Maine class battleship. My plane could be from the same era and was made in Sandusky Ohio.

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

Tom Stockton

>I'm interested in why this wouldn't be the place to discuss or post Krenov style planes. the title of the forum is handtools.

Actually if he is using a metal lever cap it probably shouldn't be considered krenov style because they usually use a wooden wedge to hold the iron and chipbreaker in place. it is some sort of hybrid which I think of as a good thing because he is trying new ideas and adapting old ones to his style and prerference.

Tom

Re: Pam -- can you clarify?

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Sure, for a Japanese plane the back top of the mouth is approximately 2/3 of the way back from the toe. For a European (e.g., ECE) wooden jointer, it's about half way between toe and heel. For a C&W (Western colonial?) the front top of the mouth is about 1/3 of the length back from the toe. So if Derek is making a Japanese plane, he's already defined the 2/3 from the toe and should only go about 1/2 longer (the 1/2 of the 2/3 yields 1/3).

Pam

Tiny #7

Jim Reed @ Tallahassee

>Looks downright puny by comparison.

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>OK, here's my crust, I think Krenov style planes, as defined by making them with three longitudinal slices, are fine for students and the occasional one-off temporary uses; but for truly excellent, long lasting performance it's required that the mortise be chopped. I don't see that Derek is trying anything new, exactly. After all, ECE jointers use cap irons (but they have chopped mortises). OTOH, I'm not trying to dissuade someone from trying new stuff, but to point out that there's a reason or reasons C&W, for example, chop their mortises.

Pam

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

mikew

>In no way do I wish to imply C&W's planes are somehow less than the great planes they are...I love my smoother.

I suspect C&W makes their planes thatta way because of building traditional 18th century planes.

As long as the bonding agent doesn't fail on a laminated plane, I don't understand the issue of implying laminated planes are somehow inferior, only useful for "students" and one-off planes.

Take care, Mike

Re: Pam -- can you clarify?

VTAndy4

>OK, I thought you were saying that this isn't the place to post a pic or question about a Krenov-style plane.

wow, paul!

VTAndy4

>Do you have to maintain the sole on that? If so, how? I'd love to use a jointer like that.

-Andy

Re: wow, paul!

Paul in NJ

>That plane was bought late last spring. The stock had a twist and the blade was stuck. The blade was carefully removed and the plane left to acclimate in the shop for a few months. The bottom was leveled with my 28" joiner, winding sticks, and a straight edge. A patch was added to close the mouth. It has been stable since then. We will see how it does when summer rolls around.

Paul Dzioba

OK, are your saw handles laminated?

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>

Or...

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Do you seriously think that C&W would take the extra time and do the extra work to make a plane body from a single piece if they thought there was no advantage? How about all the Japanese planemakers? Or spend the time and wood necessary to choose a piece with the rays in just the right direction?

Pam

Apologies for jumping in...

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>But C&W strive to sell exact antique reproductions, which were not laminated. That's an intrinsic part of their business.

This doesn't mean that a laminated plane is necessarily inferior, but for a user not concerned about historical accuracy it is much easier to build one that way, that's all.

I fail to see the point about laminating a saw handle, there's no gain in construction efficiency that I can think of...

DC

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

Tom Stockton

>Pam

I think what bothered me most was the "crusty and uppity attitude" that krenov style plane didn't belong here.

One of the things I have always liked about woodworkers is that they tend to be inclusive and helpful to all levels of skill. When I was starting out I had numerous furnituremakers take an hour or two out of their day to spend time with me and discuss furnituremaking as a proffesion.

The real skill and quality of a plane lies more in the user than anything and the level of work I have seen done with a Krenov style planes more than holds its own against pieces built with any other planes. I think that calling them only good for students and one off temporary uses as fairly insulting and unnecessary . Whats most important here is the tool something you enjoy using and does it work well for you . The most expensive plane in the world iisn't going to do you any good if it doesn't fit your hand and your working style.

I'm curious why you think a chopped opening is better than a laminated one and what is the reasoning behind this, because I've never heard of this controversy before.

Tom

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

Ed Snow

>Having been there, I know the planes that Krenov made, and are still taught to be made are very durable. Mine, which were made there, are still intact and still used to do, arguably, very fine work. As well they have all traveled from very humid coastal California to Iowa and on to the driest of shops in New York. Since, I have made many more in the same manner including bastardized japanese planes and they too work well.

Being an experienced user and maker I can see no real advantage to one method of plane making over an other. Perhaps, prior to modern adhesives things may have been different but definitely not since.

Finally, to assume that a specific type of tool used relegates the user to amateur or student or privileges them to something else is awfully presumptive and ignores much of the work that has been seen on this very forum.

Re: Building a jointer - opinion sought

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>And I thought I'd explained that I didn't say Krenov planes didn't belong here, as in WC, but here as in Derek's long jointer. Please see my exchange with VTAndy above.

Granted that a lot, perhaps even most, of the determining factors in making good shavings is due to the woodworker, a large part of that effort involves adjusting the plane properly. But also a large part of the effort is due to the plane itself, the irons and body (please note, I'm talking wooden planes here).

As to issues specific to the laminations, there's always the potential problem of moisture not migrating through glue; but most of my problems with laminated planes derive from the experience of using several of them. To a one they were harder to push/pull and almost impossible to adjust for a proper shaving. Compared to my C&W, ECE, and Japanese, all with solid bodies, they come off as second or third rate. Now as to precisely why that is, I don't know, I'm not a trained engineer.

Can great furniture be made with laminated planes? Obviously, as Krenov proved, no one is debating that. But maybe his work would have been even better if he'd used solid body planes. He may have had, I haven't a clue; but I know I'd love to see the finish of some of that beautiful wood he used after planing with what I consider better planes.

Pam