I have recently discovered that planes might be of some use, even for a
guy with modest skills like me. I asked a couple of questions here and
reaped quite a crop of answers.

I also mentioned that I had unearthed a couple of more unusual planes in
my Dad's garage. One was a Stanley 248, which was apparently specialized
for weatherstripping work. Blood & Gore gave it quite a scathing writeup.

http://www.supertool.com/stanleybg/stan14.htm

I was knocking around in my own garage today and decided to tinker with
it, just for fun. Here's my "review". Please excuse any novice ignorance
and misuse of terms.

The tool was evidently built to plow grooves parallel to the edge of a
piece. Looking at my test piece and relying on memory, I'd say the
maximum distance from the edge of the work to the inside edge of the
groove is maybe 1-1/4". That distance is set with a fence that rides on
two rods that tighten down with thumbscrews. There are two other rods
that tighten with set screws that I take to be "stops" for saving a
repeatable "preset".

Although there isn't much play - the rods fit snugly in the holes in the
fence - I think it is possible to (mistakenly) set the fence such that
it is not perfectly parallel to the, well, what is the bottom of a plane
called anyway? But this plane doesn't have a flat bottom plate, because
it's "bottom" must fit into the groove it cuts.

The 248 has a very narrow bottom indeed, even slightly narrower than
the 1/8" cutter. Possibly due to my inexperience, I found I had to
concentrate on keeping the tool body plumb; it's easy to allow it to
tilt from side to side.

The one I have does indeed say "248", which reportedly came with two
cutters, but I found five, in sixteenths from 1/8" to 3/8". On some of
them, but not all, the cutting edge flares out (is broader than the body
of the cutter).

The cutter slides into a groove and is fastened with two screws, one on
either side. It seems that the only way to adjust the aggressiveness of
the cut is to loosen both screws and manually slide the cutter in or out
a little bit. At first I invariably moved it too much, but I quickly
learned to just tap it lightly.

I "invented" the term "aggressiveness" to distinguish the depth cut with
each pass from the final depth of the groove. That final depth is set
with an adjustable depth stop, a small metal plate that eventually rides
along the face of the work when the set depth is reached.

As some may remember, my sharpening experience consists of a brief bout
with a block plane a couple of weeks ago, plus a few tries in shop class
back in 1972. I made only the most rudimentary attempt with each cutter
today.

But it looks as though only one of them was ever used. You could tell
that someone had sharpened it at least once. The rest look brand new.
The 5/16" cutter was on the tool, so I tried that one first.

I took out a piece of 1x4 pine maybe a foot long. I set the fence for
about a 1" gap from the edge and started in. I had seen a video online
about a tongue-and-groove plane which showed that you should start near
the far end of the work and work your way closer to the near end as you
establish the groove. That seemed sensible to me for this plane also, so
that's what I did.

My "aggressiveness of cut" was too great at first, and the walls of my
first groove were not terribly clean. But it was surprisingly straight.
I say surprisingly, because I hadn't been sure I had managed to keep the
tool plumb and the fence against the work simultaneously.

I tinkered with the cutter depth until it felt better, flipped the wood
around and plowed another groove. This one was much better, and I was
impressed with how fairly easy it had been to cut the two parallel
grooves. The depth stop did its job; by eye, at least, those two grooves
look to be the same depth.

I moved on to the 3/16" next. That worked out nicely, partly due to the
11 or 12 minutes of experience I had built up with the tool. Next up,
the 1/8". I guessed that such a narrow groove would be easier; less
material to plow out.

That much was true, but it seemed to rub and bind and I did some damage
to the face of the wood on one side of the groove. By now I had 4
closely spaced grooves on one side of my board. I thought about what
might have caused the "binding" as I flipped the board over.

I'm not a terribly skilled woodworker, but I think I have a good head
for geometry, and I had wondered about the possibility of the fence
being slightly off parallel when I first tried to suss out how the tool
was supposed to work. I had not made any attempt to set it except by
"feel", and still have not. I imagine that this could be done with any
sort of spacer, or calipers.

I loosened the thumbscrews that lock the fence on its rods and tried to
adjust it so it "felt" straight. This seemed to make an improvement.
There was less binding and the grooves were nice and clean.

I finally put in the 3/8" cutter and made one more groove. There was an
inconvenient knot in the wood that only got worse as the groove got
deeper, but that gave me an idea. Several of the kind fellows here (plus
my own mounting experience) has taught me that you generally want to
plane "uphill". It occurred to me that you could easily turn the piece
around and reset the fence by putting the cutter in the existing groove
and tightening the fence against the opposite edge.

And indeed you could, if the piece was narrow enough. Mine wasn't. But
then I wondered if the cutter would follow the half-finished groove even
without the fence. I removed the fence and tried it. It worked pretty
decently, I thought, except that the knot was nearly as much of an
impediment in that direction. [As I'm writing this I remember that the
3/8" was one of the cutters that did not "flare" out, which might help
it follow the groove's walls better than the flared ones.]

And that (finishing the cut without the fence) has made me wonder if
this "curiosity" might eventually find some useful work in my shop. My
woodworking arsenal is pretty meager, but I do have a router. But I
wonder if I might need to, say, progressively tweak the depth of a 5/16"
groove someday to make something fit better. (that is already a level of
commitment and skill I have seldom attempted, but hey, you never know).
And I have some other ideas as well.

In brief (too late for that, I suppose), though I barely sharpened the
cutters and have scant experience with even basic planes, this tool
seemed to do its job, at least in the soft wood I tried it on. It was
fun to fool around with. I may yet find a use for it.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 02:01:08 -0400, Greg Guarino
wrote:

I have recently discovered that planes might be of some use, even for a
guy with modest skills like me. I asked a couple of questions here and
reaped quite a crop of answers.

I also mentioned that I had unearthed a couple of more unusual planes in
my Dad's garage. One was a Stanley 248, which was apparently specialized
for weatherstripping work. Blood & Gore gave it quite a scathing writeup.

http://www.supertool.com/stanleybg/stan14.htm

I was knocking around in my own garage today and decided to tinker with
it, just for fun. Here's my "review". Please excuse any novice ignorance
and misuse of terms.

Here ya go: http://goo.gl/nyvA6


That much was true, but it seemed to rub and bind and I did some damage
to the face of the wood on one side of the groove. By now I had 4
closely spaced grooves on one side of my board. I thought about what
might have caused the "binding" as I flipped the board over.

See "grain".


I loosened the thumbscrews that lock the fence on its rods and tried to
adjust it so it "felt" straight. This seemed to make an improvement.
There was less binding and the grooves were nice and clean.

Good. A coat of Johnson's paste wax on the metal and wood bits will
help relieve more of the drag, making it easier to use.


I finally put in the 3/8" cutter and made one more groove. There was an
inconvenient knot in the wood that only got worse as the groove got
deeper, but that gave me an idea. Several of the kind fellows here (plus
my own mounting experience) has taught me that you generally want to
plane "uphill". It occurred to me that you could easily turn the piece
around and reset the fence by putting the cutter in the existing groove
and tightening the fence against the opposite edge.

And indeed you could, if the piece was narrow enough. Mine wasn't. But
then I wondered if the cutter would follow the half-finished groove even
without the fence. I removed the fence and tried it. It worked pretty
decently, I thought, except that the knot was nearly as much of an
impediment in that direction. [As I'm writing this I remember that the
3/8" was one of the cutters that did not "flare" out, which might help
it follow the groove's walls better than the flared ones.]

A mallet and chisel can help with the squirrely knots and grain twists
that you sometimes find in wood.


And that (finishing the cut without the fence) has made me wonder if
this "curiosity" might eventually find some useful work in my shop. My
woodworking arsenal is pretty meager, but I do have a router. But I
wonder if I might need to, say, progressively tweak the depth of a 5/16"
groove someday to make something fit better. (that is already a level of
commitment and skill I have seldom attempted, but hey, you never know).
And I have some other ideas as well.

Good!


In brief (too late for that, I suppose), though I barely sharpened the
cutters and have scant experience with even basic planes, this tool
seemed to do its job, at least in the soft wood I tried it on. It was
fun to fool around with. I may yet find a use for it.

Wait'll you try it on hardwood. It's even easier to use.

Good review, Greg. You'll become a Galoot yet! I wonder if Spokie
has any more of the patches...


--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

When plowing a groove with a difficult knot, I might have used a
paring (or similar) chisel to work/cut the knot material away, so that
the plane doesn't encounter the knot material. Prior to each depth of
plowing, pare just the amount of knot away for the plane to not to
encounter the knot material. Otherwise, the cutter should be sharp
enough to cut the knot easily and/or don't plow so deep a cut at a
time.

I suppose the 'being plumb', relative to the stock, issue may have
played a part, too, as well as the alignment of the blade, it was set
within the plane, that may have caused some of your difficulty.

Sometimes you have to improvise, the tool or method, to get the best
results, and experience teaches you the different scenarios requiring
improvisation. You can't always expect the tool, alone, to do all the
work. You seem to be doing that, including by asking your questions
to resolve your issues.

Sonny

On 9/11/2011 8:51 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
A coat of Johnson's paste wax on the metal and wood bits will
help relieve more of the drag, making it easier to use.

Thanks. I'll have to try that; I've got a can in the garage. Do you do
that with common planes as well?

On Sep 11, 2:01*am, Greg Guarino wrote:

I have recently discovered that planes might be of some use, even for a
guy with modest skills like me. I asked a couple of questions here and
reaped quite a crop of answers.

I also mentioned that I had unearthed a couple of more unusual planes in
my Dad's garage. One was a Stanley 248, which was apparently specialized
for weatherstripping work. Blood & Gore gave it quite a scathing writeup.

http://www.supertool.com/stanleybg/stan14.htm

I was knocking around in my own garage today and decided to tinker with
it, just for fun. Here's my "review". Please excuse any novice ignorance
and misuse of terms.

The tool was evidently built to plow grooves parallel to the edge of a
piece. Looking at my test piece and relying on memory, I'd say the
maximum distance from the edge of the work to the inside edge of the
groove is maybe 1-1/4". That distance is set with a fence that rides on
two rods that tighten down with thumbscrews. There are two other rods
that tighten with set screws that I take to be "stops" for saving a
repeatable "preset".

Although there isn't much play - the rods fit snugly in the holes in the
fence - I think it is possible to (mistakenly) set the fence such that
it is not perfectly parallel to the, well, what is the bottom of a plane
called anyway? But this plane doesn't have a flat bottom plate, because
it's "bottom" must fit into the groove it cuts.

The 248 has a very narrow bottom indeed, even slightly *narrower than
the 1/8" cutter. Possibly due to my inexperience, I found I had to
concentrate on keeping the tool body plumb; it's easy to allow it to
tilt from side to side.

The one I have does indeed say "248", which reportedly came with two
cutters, but I found five, in sixteenths from 1/8" to 3/8". On some of
them, but not all, the cutting edge flares out (is broader than the body
of the cutter).

The cutter slides into a groove and is fastened with two screws, one on
either side. It seems that the only way to adjust the aggressiveness of
the cut is to loosen both screws and manually slide the cutter in or out
a little bit. At first I invariably moved it too much, but I quickly
learned to just tap it lightly.

I "invented" the term "aggressiveness" to distinguish the depth cut with
each pass from the final depth of the groove. That final depth is set
with an adjustable depth stop, a small metal plate that eventually rides
along the face of the work when the set depth is reached.

As some may remember, my sharpening experience consists of a brief bout
with a block plane a couple of weeks ago, plus a few tries in shop class
back in 1972. I made only the most rudimentary attempt with each cutter
today.

But it looks as though only one of them was ever used. You could tell
that someone had sharpened it at least once. The rest look brand new.
The 5/16" cutter was on the tool, so I tried that one first.

I took out a piece of 1x4 pine maybe a foot long. I set the fence for
about a 1" gap from the edge and started in. I had seen a video online
about a tongue-and-groove plane which showed that you should start near
the far end of the work and work your way closer to the near end as you
establish the groove. That seemed sensible to me for this plane also, so
that's what I did.

My "aggressiveness of cut" was too great at first, and the walls of my
first groove were not terribly clean. But it was surprisingly straight.
I say surprisingly, because I hadn't been sure I had managed to keep the
tool plumb and the fence against the work simultaneously.

I tinkered with the cutter depth until it felt better, flipped the wood
around and plowed another groove. This one was much better, and I was
impressed with how fairly easy it had been to cut the two parallel
grooves. The depth stop did its job; by eye, at least, those two grooves
look to be the same depth.

I moved on to the 3/16" next. That worked out nicely, partly due to the
11 or 12 minutes of experience I had built up with the tool. Next up,
the 1/8". I guessed that such a narrow groove would be easier; less
material to plow out.

That much was true, but it seemed to rub and bind and I did some damage
to the face of the wood on one side of the groove. By now I had 4
closely spaced grooves on one side of my board. I thought about what
might have caused the "binding" as I flipped the board over.

I'm not a terribly skilled woodworker, but I think I have a good head
for geometry, and I had wondered about the possibility of the fence
being slightly off parallel when I first tried to suss out how the tool
was supposed to work. I had not made any attempt to set it except by
"feel", and still have not. I imagine that this could be done with any
sort of spacer, or calipers.

I loosened the thumbscrews that lock the fence on its rods and tried to
adjust it so it "felt" straight. This seemed to make an improvement.
There was less binding and the grooves were nice and clean.

I finally put in the 3/8" cutter and made one more groove. There was an
inconvenient knot in the wood that only got worse as the groove got
deeper, but that gave me an idea. Several of the kind fellows here (plus
my own mounting experience) has taught me that you generally want to
plane "uphill". It occurred to me that you could easily turn the piece
around and reset the fence by putting the cutter in the existing groove
and tightening the fence against the opposite edge.

And indeed you could, if the piece was narrow enough. Mine wasn't. But
then I wondered if the cutter would follow the half-finished groove even
without the fence. I removed the fence and tried it. It worked pretty
decently, I thought, except that the knot was nearly as much of an
impediment in that direction. [As I'm writing this I remember that the
3/8" was one of the cutters that did not "flare" out, which might help
it follow the groove's walls better than the flared ones.]

And that (finishing the cut without the fence) has made me wonder if
this "curiosity" might eventually find some useful work in my shop. My
woodworking arsenal is pretty meager, but I do have a router. But I
wonder if I might need to, say, progressively tweak the depth of a 5/16"
groove someday to make something fit better. (that is already a level of
commitment and skill I have seldom attempted, but hey, you never know).
And I have some other ideas as well.

In brief (too late for that, I suppose), though I barely sharpened the
cutters and have scant experience with even basic planes, this tool
seemed to do its job, at least in the soft wood I tried it on. It was
fun to fool around with. I may yet find a use for it.

Nice write up. If you call them Stanley will send free reprints of
some of their old tool literature. They sent me the instructions for
the 55. They might do the same thing for your 248.

BTW, you're doomed. The first plane is free - after that you pay.
Bwahahaha!

R

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:44:08 -0400, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 9/11/2011 8:51 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
A coat of Johnson's paste wax on the metal and wood bits will
help relieve more of the drag, making it easier to use.

Thanks. I'll have to try that; I've got a can in the garage. Do you do
that with common planes as well?

Yes, irons and bodies (soles/cheeks.)

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On 9/11/2011 12:08 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:44:08 -0400, Greg
wrote:

On 9/11/2011 8:51 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
A coat of Johnson's paste wax on the metal and wood bits will
help relieve more of the drag, making it easier to use.

Thanks. I'll have to try that; I've got a can in the garage. Do you do
that with common planes as well?

Yes, irons and bodies (soles/cheeks.)


I did a little more fiddling with it today.

I had gone over to my parents' house to replace a light fixture. It was
the typical "15 minute job that took 3 hours" due to the age of the
house and the questionable skills of the last electrical handyman to
work on it. Tiny ancient box, frayed wires with no slack and (the icing
on the cake) flatly incorrect wiring that caused the hot and neutral to
be reversed in a nearby outlet. But I digress...

I found two more cutters for the 248 while I was there. One was 5/32,
which seemed to nicely match the thickness of some small pieces of
plywood I had saved from some IKEA storage boxes. I took out a piece of
scrap Oak 1 x 2 and gave myself the task of cutting a groove in the edge
that would accept the thin ply. Maybe I'll turn it into a small picture
frame, just for practice.

Someone mentioned that hardwood could actually be easier to work. I'm
not sure that's the right word, but it did seem to "machine" more
precisely, once I finally got the depth of cut set. That, I found,
needed to be set much more precisely for the tougher wood. Either I'd
cut nothing at all or it would immediately jam. The lack of an actual
adjusting control makes this kind of a chore, at least for a beginner
like me.

I find myself imagining a less hit-and-miss method. The next time I try
it, I think I'll set the sole flat on a hard surface and put the cutter
in so it just touches the surface also. Presumably this would be the
limit of the "no-cut" depth. Then I'll give it the slightest "tap"
deeper before tightening it up.

Anyway, after only 20 or so adjustments grin , it felt pretty good and
was quite easy to get a neat groove. I could almost imagine this being
efficient for making a very narrow groove like this. I made the groove
maybe 1/4" deep, and it did tend to bind as it got deeper, but less this
time. I had set the fence using one of the other cutters as a convenient
spacer in order to get it parallel to the sole.

I remembered the paste wax tip about then. I wiped maybe a little more
than necessary on any surfaces that would contact the wood, and then
wiped the excess off. It did make a noticeable improvement in the
smoothness of the operation. Thanks. Is there any chance that the wax
residue would prevent a stain from taking if this were a real project?
Would I need to remove it from the wood?

The groove sort of impressed me in the end, but the scrap wood looked as
if it had gotten weathered at some point in the past. The surfaces were
rough to the touch. I don't (yet) have a proper plane to smooth such a
surface down, but I decided to try it anyway.

I took out the Stanley #15 block plane that I recently acquired and gave
a few passes to the narrow edge that I had put the groove in. It cleaned
up the roughness noticeably. I went on to the other narrow edge, and
then to one of the wider sides. That was a tad trickier, as the side was
about as wide as the plane. Still, in just a minute or two I had a much
nicer looking piece. Maybe quicker than sanding too, at least when the
wood starts out this rough.

I guess now I'll have to take another look around for the missing piece
(lever cap) to my Dad's #3.

Hi

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:06:46 -0400, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 9/11/2011 12:08 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:44:08 -0400, Greg
wrote:

On 9/11/2011 8:51 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
A coat of Johnson's paste wax on the metal and wood bits will
help relieve more of the drag, making it easier to use.

Thanks. I'll have to try that; I've got a can in the garage. Do you do
that with common planes as well?

Yes, irons and bodies (soles/cheeks.)


I did a little more fiddling with it today.

I had gone over to my parents' house to replace a light fixture. It was
the typical "15 minute job that took 3 hours" due to the age of the
house and the questionable skills of the last electrical handyman to
work on it. Tiny ancient box, frayed wires with no slack and (the icing
on the cake) flatly incorrect wiring that caused the hot and neutral to
be reversed in a nearby outlet. But I digress...

Oy vay! Probably a homeowner "fix" there.


I found two more cutters for the 248 while I was there. One was 5/32,
which seemed to nicely match the thickness of some small pieces of
plywood I had saved from some IKEA storage boxes. I took out a piece of
scrap Oak 1 x 2 and gave myself the task of cutting a groove in the edge
that would accept the thin ply. Maybe I'll turn it into a small picture
frame, just for practice.

There ya go!


Someone mentioned that hardwood could actually be easier to work. I'm

Me. Softwood tears out too easily. I much prefer to use Normite tools
on it.


not sure that's the right word, but it did seem to "machine" more
precisely, once I finally got the depth of cut set. That, I found,
needed to be set much more precisely for the tougher wood. Either I'd
cut nothing at all or it would immediately jam. The lack of an actual
adjusting control makes this kind of a chore, at least for a beginner
like me.

For your next tool purchase, consider a plane adjusting hammer. I
bought a little 6oz Warrington for that purpose years ago. Later, I
found a Lee Valley brass plane hammer for $17 (now $29.50!) I've also
used an 8oz bronze mallet ($15 way back when.) Experiment to find out
which works best for you.

http://www.grizzly.com/outlet/Jewele...s-Hammer/H5921 (kinda
light)

http://www.grizzly.com/products/4-oz...n-Hammer/H0563 (iron)
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/pag...52&cat=1,53193 "

http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/pag...40&cat=1,41182
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/pag...=1,41504,43688


I find myself imagining a less hit-and-miss method. The next time I try
it, I think I'll set the sole flat on a hard surface and put the cutter
in so it just touches the surface also. Presumably this would be the
limit of the "no-cut" depth. Then I'll give it the slightest "tap"
deeper before tightening it up.

You haven't bought your copy of Garrett Hack's _The Handplane Book_
yet, have you?


Anyway, after only 20 or so adjustments grin , it felt pretty good and
was quite easy to get a neat groove. I could almost imagine this being
efficient for making a very narrow groove like this. I made the groove
maybe 1/4" deep, and it did tend to bind as it got deeper, but less this
time. I had set the fence using one of the other cutters as a convenient
spacer in order to get it parallel to the sole.

It gets better once you've practiced it a few dozen more times,
especially if you use the proper tool.


I remembered the paste wax tip about then. I wiped maybe a little more
than necessary on any surfaces that would contact the wood, and then
wiped the excess off. It did make a noticeable improvement in the
smoothness of the operation. Thanks. Is there any chance that the wax
residue would prevent a stain from taking if this were a real project?
Would I need to remove it from the wood?

I've never had a problem with that, but I avoid stain like the plague.
Additionally, I use lacquer thinner to wipe down every inch of every
piece of every project before putting on my clearcoat. I also have
been known to rub a coat on before working with the wood. That keeps
the glue off the inner parts and oils/contaminants off the outer
parts. If I do that, I usually use mineral spirits to clean it before
a topcoat (or several more hand rubbed coats) goes on.


The groove sort of impressed me in the end, but the scrap wood looked as
if it had gotten weathered at some point in the past. The surfaces were
rough to the touch. I don't (yet) have a proper plane to smooth such a
surface down, but I decided to try it anyway.

Got a cabinetmaker's scraper yet? They're cheap and highly addictive.
Throw away your sandpaper.


I took out the Stanley #15 block plane that I recently acquired and gave
a few passes to the narrow edge that I had put the groove in. It cleaned
up the roughness noticeably. I went on to the other narrow edge, and
then to one of the wider sides. That was a tad trickier, as the side was
about as wide as the plane. Still, in just a minute or two I had a much
nicer looking piece. Maybe quicker than sanding too, at least when the
wood starts out this rough.

Yes, it is. Ditto with a scraper.


I guess now I'll have to take another look around for the missing piece
(lever cap) to my Dad's #3.

The old Satanleys are wonderful to work with. I think they have as
much or more magic as a brand new, very expensive, Lie Nielsen or
Bridge City or Veritas plane.

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On Sep 12, 12:06*am, Greg Guarino wrote:

I find myself imagining a less hit-and-miss method. The next time I try
it, I think I'll set the sole flat on a hard surface and put the cutter
in so it just touches the surface also. Presumably this would be the
limit of the "no-cut" depth. Then I'll give it the slightest "tap"
deeper before tightening it up.

You could also shim up one end of the plane with a thin piece of
cardboard, like a matchbook cover, let the cutter touch the bench and
then tighten it. Different shims, different settings.

R

On 9/12/2011 8:18 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:06:46 -0400, Greg
wrote:

On 9/11/2011 12:08 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:44:08 -0400, Greg
wrote:

On 9/11/2011 8:51 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
A coat of Johnson's paste wax on the metal and wood bits will
help relieve more of the drag, making it easier to use.

Thanks. I'll have to try that; I've got a can in the garage. Do you do
that with common planes as well?

Yes, irons and bodies (soles/cheeks.)


I did a little more fiddling with it today.

I had gone over to my parents' house to replace a light fixture. It was
the typical "15 minute job that took 3 hours" due to the age of the
house and the questionable skills of the last electrical handyman to
work on it. Tiny ancient box, frayed wires with no slack and (the icing
on the cake) flatly incorrect wiring that caused the hot and neutral to
be reversed in a nearby outlet. But I digress...

Oy vay! Probably a homeowner "fix" there.

Not in the last 50 years, anyway. My Dad was a lawyer (still, actually)
and a "pretty decent hobby carpenter", as he describes it. Electricity
is a mystery to him. The wire nuts I found were of a relatively new
style, so it was probably someone they hired at some point.

I found two more cutters for the 248 while I was there. One was 5/32,
which seemed to nicely match the thickness of some small pieces of
plywood I had saved from some IKEA storage boxes. I took out a piece of
scrap Oak 1 x 2 and gave myself the task of cutting a groove in the edge
that would accept the thin ply. Maybe I'll turn it into a small picture
frame, just for practice.

There ya go!


Someone mentioned that hardwood could actually be easier to work. I'm

Me. Softwood tears out too easily. I much prefer to use Normite tools
on it.

I felt sheepish looking that up. Normite means "electric"? As in, "I'm
gonna feed this rough log into my Elizabethan Chair machine, but you
viewers can do the same thing with hand tools at home"?

not sure that's the right word, but it did seem to "machine" more
precisely, once I finally got the depth of cut set. That, I found,
needed to be set much more precisely for the tougher wood. Either I'd
cut nothing at all or it would immediately jam. The lack of an actual
adjusting control makes this kind of a chore, at least for a beginner
like me.

For your next tool purchase, consider a plane adjusting hammer. I
bought a little 6oz Warrington for that purpose years ago. Later, I
found a Lee Valley brass plane hammer for $17 (now $29.50!) I've also
used an 8oz bronze mallet ($15 way back when.) Experiment to find out
which works best for you.

Can I assume you mean you can hit the cutter even after it's tightened?
In any case, the cutter is in a clumsy place for a hammer. I tapped the
back of it with the blade of a screwdriver.

http://www.grizzly.com/outlet/Jewele...s-Hammer/H5921 (kinda
light)

http://www.grizzly.com/products/4-oz...n-Hammer/H0563 (iron)
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/pag...52&cat=1,53193 "

http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/pag...40&cat=1,41182
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/pag...=1,41504,43688


I find myself imagining a less hit-and-miss method. The next time I try
it, I think I'll set the sole flat on a hard surface and put the cutter
in so it just touches the surface also. Presumably this would be the
limit of the "no-cut" depth. Then I'll give it the slightest "tap"
deeper before tightening it up.

You haven't bought your copy of Garrett Hack's _The Handplane Book_
yet, have you?

That is among the long and growing list of things I haven't gotten
around to yet, yes.


Anyway, after only 20 or so adjustmentsgrin , it felt pretty good and
was quite easy to get a neat groove. I could almost imagine this being
efficient for making a very narrow groove like this. I made the groove
maybe 1/4" deep, and it did tend to bind as it got deeper, but less this
time. I had set the fence using one of the other cutters as a convenient
spacer in order to get it parallel to the sole.

It gets better once you've practiced it a few dozen more times,
especially if you use the proper tool.


I can't claim much skill yet, but I am heartened to see improvement
already in something I had always assumed was the exclusive province of
serious craftsmen.

Is there any chance that the wax
residue would prevent a stain from taking if this were a real project?
Would I need to remove it from the wood?

I've never had a problem with that, but I avoid stain like the plague.
Additionally, I use lacquer thinner to wipe down every inch of every
piece of every project before putting on my clearcoat. I also have
been known to rub a coat on before working with the wood. That keeps
the glue off the inner parts and oils/contaminants off the outer
parts. If I do that, I usually use mineral spirits to clean it before
a topcoat (or several more hand rubbed coats) goes on.


I'm going to be deliberately sloppy with the wax the next time and try
staining my test project.


The groove sort of impressed me in the end, but the scrap wood looked as
if it had gotten weathered at some point in the past. The surfaces were
rough to the touch. I don't (yet) have a proper plane to smooth such a
surface down, but I decided to try it anyway.

Got a cabinetmaker's scraper yet? They're cheap and highly addictive.
Throw away your sandpaper.

I really do have a hankerin' to try that out. I'll put it on my list.

I took out the Stanley #15 block plane that I recently acquired and gave
a few passes to the narrow edge that I had put the groove in. It cleaned
up the roughness noticeably. I went on to the other narrow edge, and
then to one of the wider sides. That was a tad trickier, as the side was
about as wide as the plane. Still, in just a minute or two I had a much
nicer looking piece. Maybe quicker than sanding too, at least when the
wood starts out this rough.

Yes, it is. Ditto with a scraper.


I guess now I'll have to take another look around for the missing piece
(lever cap) to my Dad's #3.

The old Satanleys are wonderful to work with. I think they have as
much or more magic as a brand new, very expensive, Lie Nielsen or
Bridge City or Veritas plane.

Satanleys?

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:41:34 -0400, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 9/12/2011 8:18 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:06:46 -0400, Greg
wrote:

On 9/11/2011 12:08 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 09:44:08 -0400, Greg
wrote:

On 9/11/2011 8:51 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
A coat of Johnson's paste wax on the metal and wood bits will
help relieve more of the drag, making it easier to use.

Thanks. I'll have to try that; I've got a can in the garage. Do you do
that with common planes as well?

Yes, irons and bodies (soles/cheeks.)


I did a little more fiddling with it today.

I had gone over to my parents' house to replace a light fixture. It was
the typical "15 minute job that took 3 hours" due to the age of the
house and the questionable skills of the last electrical handyman to
work on it. Tiny ancient box, frayed wires with no slack and (the icing
on the cake) flatly incorrect wiring that caused the hot and neutral to
be reversed in a nearby outlet. But I digress...

Oy vay! Probably a homeowner "fix" there.

Not in the last 50 years, anyway. My Dad was a lawyer (still, actually)
and a "pretty decent hobby carpenter", as he describes it. Electricity
is a mystery to him. The wire nuts I found were of a relatively new
style, so it was probably someone they hired at some point.

Someone who -said- they had electrical knowledge, obviously.


Me. Softwood tears out too easily. I much prefer to use Normite tools
on it.

I felt sheepish looking that up. Normite means "electric"? As in, "I'm
gonna feed this rough log into my Elizabethan Chair machine, but you
viewers can do the same thing with hand tools at home"?

Precisely. Norm must have $150k worth of tools in that shop.


not sure that's the right word, but it did seem to "machine" more
precisely, once I finally got the depth of cut set. That, I found,
needed to be set much more precisely for the tougher wood. Either I'd
cut nothing at all or it would immediately jam. The lack of an actual
adjusting control makes this kind of a chore, at least for a beginner
like me.

For your next tool purchase, consider a plane adjusting hammer. I
bought a little 6oz Warrington for that purpose years ago. Later, I
found a Lee Valley brass plane hammer for $17 (now $29.50!) I've also
used an 8oz bronze mallet ($15 way back when.) Experiment to find out
which works best for you.

Can I assume you mean you can hit the cutter even after it's tightened?
In any case, the cutter is in a clumsy place for a hammer. I tapped the
back of it with the blade of a screwdriver.

That or the body. See if you can find the Kingshott handplane videos
in your local library system. They're truly wonderful treasure troves
of crafstman knowledge.


You haven't bought your copy of Garrett Hack's _The Handplane Book_
yet, have you?

That is among the long and growing list of things I haven't gotten
around to yet, yes.

Are you on your second 2-column, double-sided page of list yet?


Anyway, after only 20 or so adjustmentsgrin , it felt pretty good and
was quite easy to get a neat groove. I could almost imagine this being
efficient for making a very narrow groove like this. I made the groove
maybe 1/4" deep, and it did tend to bind as it got deeper, but less this
time. I had set the fence using one of the other cutters as a convenient
spacer in order to get it parallel to the sole.

It gets better once you've practiced it a few dozen more times,
especially if you use the proper tool.


I can't claim much skill yet, but I am heartened to see improvement
already in something I had always assumed was the exclusive province of
serious craftsmen.

Woodworking skills are seldom picked up overnight. Think of them as
lifelong goals.


Is there any chance that the wax
residue would prevent a stain from taking if this were a real project?
Would I need to remove it from the wood?

I've never had a problem with that, but I avoid stain like the plague.
Additionally, I use lacquer thinner to wipe down every inch of every
piece of every project before putting on my clearcoat. I also have
been known to rub a coat on before working with the wood. That keeps
the glue off the inner parts and oils/contaminants off the outer
parts. If I do that, I usually use mineral spirits to clean it before
a topcoat (or several more hand rubbed coats) goes on.


I'm going to be deliberately sloppy with the wax the next time and try
staining my test project.

"Good. The sooner you stop using stain, the better." he thought.


The groove sort of impressed me in the end, but the scrap wood looked as
if it had gotten weathered at some point in the past. The surfaces were
rough to the touch. I don't (yet) have a proper plane to smooth such a
surface down, but I decided to try it anyway.

Got a cabinetmaker's scraper yet? They're cheap and highly addictive.
Throw away your sandpaper.

I really do have a hankerin' to try that out. I'll put it on my list.

Top o' the list, sir. They're absolutely amazing.


The old Satanleys are wonderful to work with. I think they have as
much or more magic as a brand new, very expensive, Lie Nielsen or
Bridge City or Veritas plane.

Satanleys?

Devilishly fun tools. (OK, Stanley. You're no fun.)

--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

On 9/12/2011 8:31 AM, RicodJour wrote:
On Sep 12, 12:06 am, Greg wrote:

I find myself imagining a less hit-and-miss method. The next time I try
it, I think I'll set the sole flat on a hard surface and put the cutter
in so it just touches the surface also. Presumably this would be the
limit of the "no-cut" depth. Then I'll give it the slightest "tap"
deeper before tightening it up.

You could also shim up one end of the plane with a thin piece of
cardboard, like a matchbook cover, let the cutter touch the bench and
then tighten it. Different shims, different settings.

R
Excellent idea. I'll try it.