15 inch planer review in Popular Woodworking

Popular Woodworking (Feb 2005) seemed to push the planers that had moving tables rather than the moving heads. Rationale was that the blades were easier to change for the most part. I don't change blades often, but it would seem to me that the fixed table (and therefore fixed height rollerstands, if used) would be a more convenient design. Also, they gave Powermatic the editor's choice, but the words in the article did not back that up (and it was the most expensive). I kind of liked the Delta, but it was quite a bit more expensive than the Yorkcraft and the Woodtek.
Any experiences from you-all?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it
Motor's sort of in the way on the moving-head types. I swing it forward a bit on my Invicta, but I have never felt that occasional annoyance while changing blades outweighed the convenience of fixed table height.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I always take magazine reviews with a grain of salt.....a magazine is only a vehicle to sell advertising....would not want to make an advertiser angry!! we had the Jet 15"in our shop and ran 1000's of board feet of hardwoods through the machine and had no problems....served us very well...finially sold the Jet and replaced it with a Delta 15"....it served us as well...the stationary bed on the Delta is an advantage, we built a large outfeed table for the Delta.....changing knives were about equal on both machines....I would recomend either machines with the Delta having a slight advantage...I have always been pleased with Delta....they have always taken care of me and my customers even when the warranty had expired Delta always enpowered me to take good care of my customers .good luck Mike from American Sycamore
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well maybe not always. Seems Wood Magazine really ticked off Franklin Glue when they tested the TBIII and came up with poor results.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

How so? I've been using it for exterior work on the barn for a year now and find it great for the purpose...I'd not replace Type I for furniture/interior work, however, but that's a misapplication anyway.
For a waterproof glue at only a 2X (roughly) price premium over Type I, it's a real winner as far as I'm concerned. Plus, it doesn't foam like the one-part urethanes (Gorilla Glue, et al.) do...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well If you read the Waterproof testing specifications you will find that water proof is only mentioned in the title of the test and or specification. In the description of the test and or specification "Water Resistant" is the closest you will get to water proof. Kinda misleading. Anyway Franklin sent me a case of TBIII glue for me to evaluate after mentioning that it did miserably in the Wood magazine test. I like the glue and have used all but 3 or 4 bottles. I prefer the brown color when it dries and it seems to be a bit thicker than TBII, which I prefer. With all this said I bought a gallon of TBII today and passed on the TBIII. If the TBIII had not been 60% more expensive than the TBII I would have bought the TBIII.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Is/was that the only beef? I've read the spec and understand that...if I were to look for something that would stand immersion or dishwasher use I wouldn't use it, but for what it is rated for I like it a lot better than alternatives. I will grant that for my application, Type II would work as well in almost all cases, but I went for the somewhat higher moisture tolerance for a little added resistance at much less cost than the urethanes, not to mention the <much> easier use/cleanup, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, the magazine test showed that TBIII was actually less water proof than TBII. TBII did better in water related tests than TBIII.
Then there was the long and drawn out discussion on the rec about how "Water Proof" Should mean Water Proof in the reasonable persons definition and not by the Water Proof standards test that mearely means Water Resistant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote: ...

Interesting, and that would be counter-intuitive as it passes (apparently) the more stringent standard test where Type II doesn't. But, of course, as noted, if they immersed it that's another test altogether...I'm assuming they didn't replicate the Standard test?
You know the issue by chance, I'd kinda' like to see what they actually did?
But, it does demonstrate the Baxter Black credo--"The large print giveth, the small print taketh away!" :) As w/ any standard, it pays (assuming one is concerned about it) to actually know what is being tested, and how.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wood Magazine Sept 2004 Issue 157 page 80.

Precicely
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Thanks...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Were the testing methods used in Wood magazine flawed? Or was there something wrong with the product?
--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not being an expert in this field, I cannot say. But if the testing "method" was flawed it seems that TBII would have done worse than TBIII also. By glue testing standards definition though TBIII is Water Resistant and not Water Proof. Franklyn chooses to use Water Proof on its label as a description of the name of the standards test. That said, I do believe TBIII to be an excellent product.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But if the testing

Let me say that differently. I believe that whether the test method was flawed or not that the TBIII should have out performed the TBII which it did not in the water tests.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I like it during the winter because it has a lower temp workability rating. Rarely does my shop get above 50 degrees during the winter. I also like TB3 because of the longer open time. I don't care what the magazine sez, I like TB3. I'll go back to TB2 in the spring. SH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ahemmm...
Getting back on subject, I went to look as several of these. I notice that the moving motor versions are harder to crank. The ones that have the motor below and the table moves are easier to crank (up). That would seem to be worth mentioning before the changing of the knives. The motor and head assembly apparently are quite heavy in comparison to the table.
snipped-for-privacy@ccrtc.com wrote:

we
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Loosen the locks before you try to crank, and there's no problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.