Norris planes

[pmcgee]

Ok - this is just to kick this off - in parallel to AB's build of his Norris 50 and the discussion on the adjustment mechanism.

The aim is to discuss them in general, and how to improve the performance of an already fine instrument. For years my readings in magazines and online always put the Norris planes in the upper echelons if not very peak of the planes made up to ... let's say maybe 1990. I have wanted to know more and more about them, especially after several successful acquisitions of the low-hanging fruit in the infill world and finding (even) them very nice to use.

In late 2010 I finally bought a very well-used A5 and, as I wrote in ABs thread, did not immediately find streams of feather-like shavings flowing from my new best friend. I was a little disappointed at the time I'm sure, but also intrigued and had faith I guess in the reputation - and we have become better acquainted over time.

I should say that it was a post-WW2 plane ... and in January I received a near-'new' post-war A5 and a user-condition 14" panel plane, also post-ww2.

More to say, but first some links:

Peter McBride - who seems to have far too many very very nice planes - has a great page looking into the A5.
Norris A5 - post war model

Infill and Norris info:
The Best Things - Legend vs. Fact: The British Infill Plane

Photos of a Norris A5 and a Ray Iles A5
https://www.woodworkforums.com/f221/n...-plane-106049/

Thanks,
Paul McGee


PS ... not forgetting of course this one for sale ... https://www.woodworkforums.com/f221/norris-a5-148058/

[pmcgee]

In the hope that this is ok ...

Here is a 2004 post from the UK to WoodCentral.

The pictures don't come out properly there when I use Chrome, and not at all with Internet Explorer, so I thought I might be able to quote it all here, with credit.

It comes from: Another Norris A5 episode (*PICS*)

The guy is pretty down on the whole Norris thing but goes to some trouble revamping his, and the pics might be compared to Peter McBride's photos analysing the A5.

The original is only 1 post, and there are replies/etc that link off the original web page.

- - - -

Subject: Another Norris A5 episode (*PICS*)
Posted By: WoodburnBob
Date: 7/27/2004, 2:28 pm

>

Summary: I took the lever cap off a Norris A5 so I could do some work on the bed. I then confirmed the bearing points between the iron and the bed. I did this in the hope of having this A5 perform better...an endless process. I also found a hidden design feature I hadn't heard of before and am hoping someone will tell me about its history. Wait 'till you see this!
This little HTML production probably is not worth the bandwidth. But, for those who haven't ventured to remove a pin from an infill or fit blade and bed, it might be interesting. If nothing else it may give some of you second thoughts on the sensability of your yearnings for a Norris, the postwar A5 anyway. I think this particular A5 was always out of whack in many ways...in a word, this A5 is a lemon. I suspect it's been passed around for 50 odd years as an object of desire, indeed; but I doubt any romances were actually consummated.

Admittedly, it is probably possible to do the fixes described here without removing the lever cap, but what an arduous task that would be. And, you'd never really be able to confirm what you were doing, at least not easily. So that's why I removed the cap. The A5 I'm talking about is the same one I showed with the concave sole a few weeks back (see it here if you haven't).


To start I use a center punch to put a divot in the center of the pin before using a drill. This will keep the drill bit from wandering and making a mess. I only do this on one side.



Next a pilot hole goes in with a small bit, perhaps a 1/8"or so. Go down maybe 1/2" . I follow this up with a larger bit, staying away from the pin border. The purpose of this is to remove enough pin metal so that the circumference margin will collapse inward as I drive the pin with a punch and hammer.

If you skip the drilling, and simply start hammering away with the punch, you have to do the reverse of peening, in the process trying to push a huge amount of steel . If there is much of a countersink in the pin hole/side plate, this will be impossible.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...rris/bed05.jpg

At this point I've drilled my holes and given the pin about 3 moderate blows with the narrow pin punch you see here. The pin is now essentially free and is easy to push or tap all the way through and out. Total time: about 5 minutes, mostly changing drill bits, dropping them on the floor, picking them up, rubbing my back, sighing.

BTW, I did the drilling on a cheap tabletop drill press. The plane was hand held, the speed was the slowest. I've also done this with a hand held electric drill...but one must be more careful.



With the lever cap off there is access to everything. For those who haven't seen the fixing of the adjuster, here it is: two screws. If you left the lever cap intact, I don't know if there would be enough clearance to get the two screws out and pull the adjuster...if that's what you intent was. But who would want to go through that agony.

I would point out that the bed surface is rough. The varnish is orange-peeled as you see. More surprising to me is that the bed is left with saw marks. It was not planed or otherwise surfaced. Most of the other infills I've been into are smooth planed and flat.



Here I've simply dropped a 123 block flat onto the bed. It rocks pretty bad and dives into the front right corner with pressure. Hopefully you can see the relatively huge gap between the block and the bed on your left compared to no gap on your far right. Corresponding to this, before I started this operation I was able to shove a piece of stiff paper well up under the blade on the left side...even after the lever cap was cinched down tight!



Here's the 123 block resting on the bed.



Self-explanatory.



Let me explain this image. I've done no metal work on the bed up to and including this image. This was blued with the 123 block. I've already used a thin wide chisel inserted up through the mouth to remove the ledge of wood towering proud to the metal section of the bed. This was what caused the worst of the "unflatness" and diving. Before removing the ledge, the 123 block, or blade, was only barely touching the far left side of the metal bed.

As most of you know, the metal bed consists of the sole piece, and on top of that another piece of steel (the bevel of which here is finished with coarse and ragged end mill marks) attached to the sole piece by peened rivets. The bevels actually form an angle of something like 178 degrees, not 180 degrees. I presume this was a problem of sloppy fit and not purposeful design. If someone pipes up and says that's the way it's supposed to be, and that I've totally ruined an expensive artifact...I won't be all that surprised.



By this point I've done a fair amount of bluing, filing and fitting. Now I've switched over to spotting the sole with the Norris blade that came with the plane. I think the bearing marks between the blade and the metal bed are about the best I can expect from my efforts. Remember that the bevel of the iron ends a small distance up the bed so the bluing will never reach all the way to the mouth edge.



This is a bit closer view. Notice the disk-like structure on the inner side wall near the mouth. There's one on the other side. With the iron and lever cap in place these are concealed.

I suppose it's possible this is some sort of vestigial Victorian embellishment meant to frame and display a small cameo of your beloved on one side, and, say, your mother on the other.



In fact these are two protruding, domed, button-like swellings that narrow the width of the bed and restrict lateral movement of the blade. They are actually responsible for a snug side to side fit in this plane. Being dome-shaped, they presumably serve as fulcrums on either side of the blade and work in concert with the lateral component of the Norris adjuster...at least theoretically.

This may explain why I was previously having such a hell of a time getting anything done with the lateral adjuster.



At first I thought these were somehow forged or stamped into the side wall before assembly of the metal body. But I also wonder if they aren't actually rivets with very large heads set into a slightly counterbored hole.

Surely, someone must know the real historical facts on this hidden feature of A5 anatomy.



As a preliminary step to finishing up this stage in my neverending struggle, I reassembled the plane using the old lever cap pin, just tapping it in. I'm not convinced I won't be opening this up again before I'm finished, so I'll put off peening a new pin in until I'm sure I won't be back.

These are the first shavings. While thin, I'm not sure I'm completely satisfied with the results. There is still something wrong with the feel of it all.


- - - - - - - -

As I said ... not wanting to tread on toes ... so if it has to be deleted, it's all in this post.

Thanks,
Paul McGee

[pmcgee]

Except for the last picture, which the system wouldn't allow into the last posting.

[Anorak Bob]

Thanks for posting WoodburnBob's A5 dissection Paul.

The final two photos showing the mouth and specifically the angle of the bed in front of the mouth, are of interest to me. When I cut the frog of my pretend plane, I used an end mill resulting in the front of mouth angle being 90 degrees to the 47 1/2 degree frog angle.

The sole in front of the mouth is 8mm thick, an decision aimed at increasing the weight of the plane. I have filed and opened up the machine cut mouth to accommodate my 6mm thick R and J Gardiner blade. This filing has resulted in a steepening of the front of mouth angle. It is now 65 degrees from the frog.

The A5 photos show an angle that could be 120 degrees. I could open the throat on my plane with an end mill but....when I look at the photos I have of 50's, the rear angled face of the bun looks like it matches that of the front of mouth angle. Not 120.

Any thoughts on choked throats?

BT

[IanW]

....but....when I look at the photos I have of 50's, the rear angled face of the bun looks like it matches that of the front of mouth angle. Not 120.

Any thoughts on choked throats?

BT

Bob -in the pics above, the back of the bun seems to be at a much steeper angle than the front of the mouth, and meets the sole a mm or so in front of the top of the mouth, leaving a small step. It is so on my A5, too.

I can't see that the angle of the front of the moth is critical. The angle of the blade means the space increases rapidly, even if the front of the mouth is near vertical, so you should not experience clogging from that source.

It takes a bit of fiddling to get a fine mouth working. I've found. The mouth of my recently-completed (-A)5 lookalike is still a bit too fine, & tends to clog on some woods, but I need to work on the sole a bit more, so I have left it 'til that has been worked over to my satisfaction.

Cheers,

[pmcgee]

I forgot to link Peter McBride's 17.5" panel plane page:
Norris panel plane - post war model

You can see the mouth there, and for my 14.5" panel below. I should have put it on a white background for the photo, and the flouro light makes it all kinda murky green.

I also put up photos of the A5s and the panel plane.

It is this panel that I want to discuss. Thank god for Peter's pages, cos I might have been *really* hesitant to undo parts of my plane without that guidance.

It weighs 2.7kg without the iron+cap (they are 620g) ... and it felt lighter than it oughta when I picked it up the first time. On unscrewing the front bun I was shocked at how light it was ... 190g when I measured it. I haven't removed the rear infill to weigh it, but I'm sure it's the same material ... so most of the weight is coming from the metal ... maybe 80% of the ready-to-rock plane.

That isn't the impression I get from the (much shorter) A5s.

I wrote in a different thread about an infill plane I have that had been reconditioned here in Oz. The infill is all walnut and fits the plane perfectly ... but the edges are quite sharp and it doesn't use like the 100 year old planes that have undergone the 'handrail effect'.

Ian and I think others said that they would modify the infill for comfort, but I wouldn't like to alter that plane. It's too perfect (visually). This one however is the perfect candidate. Not to modify, but to replace. In particular because the infill - at least the bun and probably both - come out so easily. So they can be preserved without damage, and restored to the plane as required.

Maybe I can aim for something sleek and traditional like Konrad Sauer ...

[paul.cleary]

Hi Paul,
I don't often look in the handtool section but was interested to read about your problems with your Norris A5 and all the hard work you did to get it working better.
My Noriss A5 one is not particularly good at giving me paper-thin shavings and the blade seems to get blunt quite fast. I had another A5 (which I sold) and it too wasn't all that good to use for planing.
It's heresy to say this, but I prefer my old Record 4&1/2 which is very heavy, has a very flat sole, can produce tissue-paper thin shavings and leaves a wonderful finish on the wood. For myself I find the Record's balance as a plane is better than the Norris.
Regards
Paul

[pmcgee]

Hi Paul - I was copying an old UK post ...

"Here is a 2004 post from the UK to WoodCentral ...
- - - -
Subject: Another Norris A5 episode (*PICS*)
Posted By: WoodburnBob
Date: 7/27/2004, 2:28 pm"

Actually I wouldn't give mine up for anything ... but it took me some time to get comfortable with my first one. I think I may have said that it was a bit hollow along it's length and it took me a bit to realise and then fix that. Also the whole lever cap thing took quite a bit of getting used to ... I do a goodly amount of micro adjustment now just by changing the tightness of the bolt. And I still wouldn't say that I feel confident about how much tension I can have on the lever cap and still adjust the depth without fearing for the threads.

My digital scales are out of battery but the bathroom one puts the A5 at just over 2 kg, and my Falcon 4-1/2 at just over, just over 2kg. But the surface areas of the bases are quite different so maybe that might come into it also.

I like my A5s, and I think IanW liked his also ... but he just makes new ones left right and centre, so pooh to him

Cheers,
Paul

[IanW]

...... but he just makes new ones left right and centre, so pooh to him

Well, Paul, you gotta like something you made yourself, even if it isn't half as good as the original.

Personal preferences are a big factor with any tool, for sure. I like the look & heft of my A5, but I don't like the adjustor mechanism, and find it a right PITA to set for very fine cuts. It's easier to set my adjustor-less copy, depending on how early in the day it is & how my store of patience is faring...

It's also horses for courses. I recently finished a bed in which I combined Aust. red cedar, Fijian mahogany, and Brazilian Mahogany. The Fijian mahogany was the sort of crazy stuff that any sane person would have fed to the fire! I had to resort to much scraping, & even then, I mostly used card scrapers, because the grain changes were so severe & localised that even my Veritas scraper plane left areas that needed extra attention. None of my planes could get me very far, though the higher-angled ones did the best job, as you would expect. The cedar panels had equally crazy grain, but responded much better to my Clifton #4, with its bog-standard, general-purpose blade angle. It left a surface ready for finishing after a lick or two of fine paper, whereas the high-angled planes I tried left a furry effect that took much more sanding to get to a polishable surface. This is no surprise, of course as softer woods don't respond to scraping or high attack angles, in general.

So I reckon the planes anyone prefers are heavily influenced by a combination of presonal preferences for the look & feel of the tool, tempered by the woods they mostly work with, just as for saws and their tooth pitches & profiles.

Cheers,

[pmcgee]

Oh deary deary lordy lordy lordy ...

http://www.thebestthings.com/oldtool...m111024_tn.jpg

and still quoted at $685