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?
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.
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
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
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...
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.
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,
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.