Using a 5 1/2 for roughing?

Suggestions for radius?

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Charlie

An eighth of an inch from the apex to the corners. Smooth continuous curve of course.

Re: Using a 5 1/2 for roughing?

Jack Dover

I'm also curious about how the weight of the plane feels in this configuration.

I'm messing with the #6 I've been writing about before, it's being used as the only bench plane for a month or two already. AFAIK it's the same with as *½ series, just slightly longer.

It's heavy. To the point that #4 feels like a toy. It also requires more force to push, so unless there's a good camber on the blade that makes a narrow shaving, it's going to be quite an exercise. I went back to a wooden jack for roughing, but truing and smoothing after a jack has been a breeze, it feels like it does a better job because it's wider.

I think a hybrid woodworker could get away with a single wide iron plane just fine, kinda like Alan Peters was using #7 as his primary plane. A good plane with a fine adjustment and no issues around the frog, with a well fit chipbreaker and a polished sole will true, joint and smooth pretty much anything, and the heavy work could be relegated to machines. A spare cambered iron would do the rough work too, but you probably will be tired.

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Warren in Lancaster, PA

I recommend 1/32 inch difference in length from the middle to the edges. If it is much larger than that, the cap iron is not going to work very well. And if you are also using the plane with a slight camber, you can't alter the cap iron for a larger camber.

You want to be able to plane hardwoods oak and walnut with the grain and have the cap iron be functional.

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Charlie

Not nearly aggressive enough if the wood is cooperating. Why futz around?

If it's not, then a scrubbing operation isn't called for in the first place. If the job features highly figured wood, hard to plane in the first place, then we're not really scrubbing our way to thickness but more or less aggressively smoothing our way there.

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Warren in Lancaster, PA

Most of the guys who suggest aggressive radii actually use electric planers, and don't do very much hand planing.

And as I mentioned earlier, a cap iron that isn't cambered doesn't work very well with a large camber. Maybe you missed that.

Custom can go cap ironless

Tony Wilkins

Haven’t tried it but these LV custom planes can be used without the cap iron. Wonder if this would be the time for it.

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Charlie

I'm talking about scrubbing with the cap iron back and completely out of play. There only because it's required to install the iron.

If you need the cap iron in play, on a 32nd of an inch of curvature to the iron, is that really scrubbing?

Maybe just an issue of semantics; not a rabbet hole I want to go down. If wood is tearing out like crazy, then obviously you have to torque everything back and move to something less aggressive.

Re: Custom can go cap ironless

Charlie

I don't know about that particular plane, but you can of course just move it back where it's completely out of play but only there for the "mass" (not to start another debate).

No

Warren in Lancaster, PA

Cap irons are important for rough planing.

Why push the ideal?

Bruce McCrory

There is a functional sweet spot a tool is designed to fit within and operate best. If not, it's a Stanley #45; or, maybe an axe. The jacks of all trades have been boiled down to a common set, usually free of added do-dads or specialty marketing.

Re: No

Charlie

Again, semantics. If a cap iron is close enough to exert effect, I wouldn't call that scrubbing.

You say potato, I say potaahhto.

Not worth an argument.

Maybe Derek will chime in…

Tony Wilkins

…since he probably knows the most about the variables on these planes.

Re: Maybe Derek will chime in…

Charlie

Tony, the Germans and Scandinavians have been making and using a capiron-less scrub plane for at least 250 years.

Your biggest problem will be you're having so much fun, you'll plane out below depth.

Go out to your shop and give it a whirl.

If you're using $15 a bd. foot highly figured wood, start with a light cut. If it's not working, go to a jack set up as Warren has suggested. Otherwise, boogie on...

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Jack Dover

Why would anyone bother with a chipbreaker on a large camber at all? If anything we want to pull it all the way back. With high removal rate tear out is to be expected and I don't think even a chipbreaker matching the camber would eliminate it.

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Charlie

Warren advises a much gentler curve, one in which the cap iron can be brought into play.

It's a perfectly legitimate strategy. As long as wood is being removed, one is getting there.

We're really not in the game to scrub 4/4 rough down to a half inch. If you need half inch material, you need to be resawing 5/4 stock that's hopefully a skosh full from the sawmill.

So, his point is well taken.

The shop standard is that one should be able to harvest 7/8" material from 4/4 rough. This doesn't require aggressive scrubbing. Sometimes a design, perhaps a strict reproduction, calls for 3/4" net. This is when you can let off some steam on the wood with a full-blown scrubber.

Won’t try it for now

Tony Wilkins

I’ll keep the gentle radius on the blade I have now and knock the corners off the other blade for when I want to use it as a short jointer. I liked the fence that the low angle jointer had and just got one for this plane.

I have an LV 5 1/4 that is sitting idle (bought it for oldest but he left it when he went off). Despite taking heat for it on the other forum, I still plan to put an 8” radius on it and use it to knock off the rough sawn-ness. It’s got to be better than using the LN roughing blade I had laying around in my bronze #4*, which is what I’m doing now.

* was surprised when I looked that the bronze #4 is still lighter than even an old Stanley #5. Bought the LN roughing before I bought my grinder which I’m just now setting up.

PS. I’d love to use a wooden Jack but I’ve had terrible luck trying to get vintage planes. I’m 0 for 2 on metal jacks and did well on my wooden jointer but just don’t see wooden jacks/fore that I’m willing to take a chance on.

Re: Using a 5 1/2 for roughing?

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

“Roughing” means to me the removal of high spots on a board to achieve a roughly coplanar surface. Traditionally, if the amount of waste is large, this has been the role of the scrub plane. The typical scrub plane has a 1 3/4” wide blade with a 3” radius. It is probably closer to a decade since I required more than the occasional use of a scrub plane as a jack plane has been all that is needed.

The general recommendation for a jack plane is an 8” radius on a 2” wide blade. Currently, my jack has a 12” radius. This is because most of my boards are jointed and thicknessed by machines, but occasionally I still need to work them with a hand plane. Since there is less thickness to remove - less need for the jack to substitute for a scrub plane - I would rather take a wider and shallower cut. Set the radius according to your needs.

With regard to using a #5 1/2, irrespective of it being a Veritas Custom, LN or Stanley (which I had), there was a time (about 20 years ago) when I experimented with one as a scrub-type plane. It certainly ploughed well through hard wood, but it was too heavy to use for long. I do not recommend its use. I have two jacks, one is a woodie I made (my go-to), and the other a Stanley #605 (which I keep for it versatile ability to also act as a small jointer with a straight blade). The woodie has a single iron. No chipbreaker. This is a rough plane, not intended for anything but.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Warren in Lancaster, PA

This thread is the first time I have ever heard the term "scrubbing" when it did not mean washing.

The scrub plane was introduced by Stanley around 1890. Stanley coined the term. It was described as a carpenter's tool. At that time machine planing had been common for half a century and the the double iron jack plane had been used for over 120 years.

I have seen people plane cross grain on U-Tube with a scrub plane and a jack plane. They all looked like they did not have much experience. Cross grain planing is a waste of time in all but the most extreme circumstances. Planing a whole board cross grain to flatten it results in a great loss of time and material because so much planing has to be done just to clean up the torn surface made by cross planing.

The same is true of a jack plane without a double iron. Yes you can use a single iron on wood that has perfect grain. But the idea is to get to a place where the trying plane can easily do its job as well. In most cases the double iron is more important for these tools than for the smoothing plane in doing efficient work.

Re: Using a 5 1/2 for roughing?

roger lance

I have to say.....I love my LV scrub plane.....it is simply great to use.....and fun to use.....and it does the job......it is a tool favorite of mine which might be a little odd.....but, it is a sweet little tool.

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Jack Dover

I have seen people plane cross grain on U-Tube with a scrub plane and a jack plane. They all looked like they did not have much experience

Not sure who can speak for the people you have seen on YT. Definitely not me, no idea what were they doing — YT is a bizarre place. But I hope you're not drawing a general conclusion from what a random bunch of people with cameras were doing.

The same is true of a jack plane without a double iron. Yes you can use a single iron on wood that has perfect grain.

It seems you're assuming a particular scenario or maybe a particular way of using a jack plane. It might or might not match a scenario the OP were assuming.

Would you agree that a chipbreaker limits the amount of camber and hence the stock removal rate (unless there's a special heavily cambered chipbreaker, but given it's rare we can assume nobody really does it)? Whether camber that exceeds 1/32" is excessive or not is a different matter.

Re: Suggestions for radius?

Warren in Lancaster, PA

Would you agree that a chipbreaker limits the amount of camber and hence the stock removal rate (unless there's a special heavily cambered chipbreaker, but given it's rare we can assume nobody really does it)

No, I would not agree.

I have used cambered cap irons since 1976. Peter Nicholson mentioned this in 1812.