What plane is this?
Welcome! / Forums / General Woodworking Discussions / Tools and Tool Maintenance/Restoration / What plane is this?
- This topic has 14 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 9 months ago by markh.
-
AuthorPosts
-
I was looking at the tool list for Paul’s workbench project and saw I needed a plough plane. I remembered a friend of my aunt’s left me some tools just before he passed away so I took another look and saw the following plane (see attachment).
Is this the plough plane mentioned in the workbench tool list?
Here’s a link to the tools list (you need to scroll down a little more than halfway):
https://paulsellers.com/paul-sellers-workbench-plans/
Thanks all.
- This topic was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Mark68.
- This topic was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Mark68.
- This topic was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Mark68.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.25 June 2018 at 2:00 am #548748More than just a plough plane. That combination plane will do beading and T&G also with the cutters you have.
Good plane. About the last Plough plane that Stanley made in the UK (Don’t know if this version was available in the US). Both Stanley and Record did a ‘re-design’ in the 60’s / 70’s involving new shapes and plastic handles; some even had Aluminium bodies…
These became obsolete with time and along with other Ploughs were discontinued. Even so a lot were bought for, or by, impending woodworkers and many were never used, so become available years later still in their boxes.
The 13:050 was the top-of-the-range of these newly designed Ploughs from Stanley UK and featured a cast steel body, though they kept the traditional pattern and style of the side fence design in contrast with the new body shape.
I had one of these (minus the box – DON’T throw the box out. Half the monetary value is in the condition of the original packaging if you decide to sell it on).
Mine still had the grind-marks and lacquer coating on the blades indicating that it was unused. Even so, and partly the reason why many were never pursued to a working career, is the fact that these planes, straight from the box, with a sharpened blade, will work…. But improve with some basic fettling.Good luck.
25 June 2018 at 10:40 am #548753I have this plane, it came boxed with a full set of seemingly unused cutters. It works fine, but like any plough plane, it takes some getting used to, and can be tricky to use when going against the grain or through knots.
If I recall correctly, the 13-050 had a steel body (as already mentioned), whereas the 13-030 has one from aluminium. I do have a 13-030 and it’s fine to use. I think the aluminium may even be nicer to own, since it won’t rust. I don’t see any downsides to that really.
– David
25 June 2018 at 11:48 am #548759The down side to the aluminum model, if there is one, is that “light weight” isn’t always a good thing for a plane. The inertia of a heavier plane is sometimes helpful for tasks like use on a shooting board. I suspect a plough may be about the same. There’s just a lot of brute force involved with the use of those planes. Not exactly a delicate task – at least not when I do it with my #45.
With apologies to the Original Poster, we are wandering off topic about Aluminium as a medium for plane bodies.
Weight can sometimes be a consideration, but the other is premature wear due to the metal’s softness..
For instance…..Some many years ago, I had a client who wished to repair a traditionally built green-house. The woodwork of the original was the real McCoy – it was constructed of Teak. When the customer recovered from the shock of the cost of Teak he decided to go with Iroko, which is a much cheaper Teak look-alike with some of the appearance of Teak but none of the qualities, in my opinion.
In short Iroko is a pain in the Sphincter to work, principally because it contains included streaks of hard, brittle Silicate that wrecks cutting edges.
With this in mind I accepted the job with the cost of cheap hand planes thrown in. At the end of the job the (Aluminium) plane was wrecked by the abrasive salts in the wood. I had a set of doors in finest Iroko, but the plane’s sole was worn down by 2 mm on one side. This is why Aluminium is not used for quality tools. Machining this Iroko results in irritant dust – hence the hand tools. I won’t touch Iroko with a barge pole nowadays. Those who have worked this stuff will know what I mean.
So……. Back to the original topic – Stanley 13:050. A good plane but not the same quality of Stanley (and Record’s) 45 (045) series, but great for basic grooves. If you have one that is unused, they work much better after some basic fettling and the provision of a wooden fence.
[quote quote=548761]…premature wear due to the metal’s softness.[/quote]
That’s a valid concern, thanks for pointing this out. I’m not sure you will easily wear out a plough plane with woods low in silica content, but if you do lots of groves, it will eventually be an issue. For the occasional frame, I think it is a great plane.
– David
26 June 2018 at 3:12 am #548800I think the 13-050 is cast iron anyway so not an issue. Cast iron wears too. Just flatten the sole of a well used bench plane and you’ll see a grove down the center. The 050 is a bit like the type 20 bench planes. Stanley had definitely reduced their qualiy over the older stuff, but the 050 is still a good and pretty well built machine. No more often than we use one, i doubt you could ever wear one out, even the aluminum models. I doubt anyone here knows what alloy Stanley used. Some aluminum casting alloys can be harder than plain grey cast iron.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by harry wheeler.
26 June 2018 at 3:59 am #548802Aluminum or cast body is largely irrelevant for wear.
The only part of a plough plane body that wears is the skate, which is maybe an inch deep, and any wooden fence. The fence can be dressed many times.
It would take a lot of ploughing to significantly wear a skate enough that it mattered.
Better plough planes had steel or brass skates. Mine are almost 100 years old, have outlived 2 owners ( I’m number 3) and will make it at least another 300 years at the current rate. Whoever owns them then will have to figure out how to remount the knickers.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 10 months ago by Larry Geib.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.