Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas

Hello all.

I have a job coming up, 4000 bf in band-sawn (nice finish, not toothy at all) white oak that the client wants planed smooth. I am a small handtool shop, and am very interested in hand planing these timbers. I am looking for opinions and suggestions from those that have experience hand planing timbers.

1) LN vs LV? Any preference as they apply to planing timbers?

2) Ideally, I'd like to get by with one plane, Lie Nielson #4-1/2 or #5-1/2? Can I? Should I? I have a friend that uses two #4's in the process, each with a different shaped iron. Makes sense to me, but since I'm just removing the bandsaw marks off the timber, would one plane work?

3) How much to camber the irons so as not to leave tracks?

Any and all comments, opinions, and suggestions are very welcome.
Thanks.

I would get one plane and several irons. Brand doesn't matter, but I like L-N planes as they are an improved Bedrock design. When I hand plane timbers, I go across the grain at maybe a 30 degree angle. I don't plain parallel to the length. I use a moderate camber, and you will see undulations, but not tracks. I think it looks great that way.

Right on with Dave on this. I also find a spoke shave handy for around knots and where the grain is crazy. I don't work hard wood much so no comment in that department. Keeping them sharp with be the laborious part.

Going along with Dave,

Go across the grain at an angle, there is less risk of tearout in the grain.

I also think there should be some texture when hand-planing. If I want it smooth, there are more effective means.

The thing to watch out for with oak, remove a very thin shaving at a time and keep your blades SHARP. Oak can be tough, it might chatter or want to dig in with the grain, causing tearout.
But it will finish nice when you get it figured out. Hand planed oak can be one of the most attractive things

I forgot to add this to the first post. I talked to Jack Sobon once about hand planing, and he makes two passes. The first cleans up most of the band marks and any dirt, and the second is made with a freshly sharpened iron to leave a nice, smooth, although still undulating, finish.

In white pine, I think I could hand plane band sawn timbers in one pass at a rate of two square feet per minute. I haven't tried the two pass technique yet.

I am a big fan of the Veritas bench planes. Many unique features, one big selling point is the top of the rear tote connects directly to the frog, to me a real improvement in power transfer. About a hundred less than LN, a nice surplus for the blade budget. I would consider the 4 or 4 1/2.

No old Stanley lovers out there?

Thanks fellas, all very helpful and good points that I will keep in mind.

Do you guys think a 5-1/2 is too long?

I like the idea of one plane with two differently shaped irons, although if the process really dictates that two planes are needed I would get two.

Dave, how much is considered a "moderate" camber?

Should the finish iron just have the edges rounded a bit?

1/16" air gap on each side is a lot. I try for a nice arc across the whole edge.

I've always thought planed texture was handsome, and am quite fond of the rippled surface left by scrub planes.

Fast (for what it is) on band-mill sawn timber, and there is far less danger of tearout on Oak.

http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/cschwarz/z_art/scrubplanes/scrubPlanes1.asp

I use an old Stanley and a Lie Nielson scrub. I am taking the harsh radius out of the L-N scrub, but slowly.

My only L-N is my 60 1/2 block. My user plane is a 605 Bedrock. No, I don't think a 5 or 5 1/2 would be too big. You aren't really making the timber flat like in cabinet making, just taking the saw marks off.

My experience with scrub planes, which is a Stanley No. 40, is that they make huge furrows across the timber. Great for roughing in a scarf after chopping, but not a finish tool.

Hi Ron,

You are getting good advice all around. I hope what I add has some value to you. I started (as many of us did I am sure...being the "sharpen monkey" and "rough planner" for the "Elder Wrights," Now teaching it to others and watching them develop their skill sets has done much for me improving mine.



The quality of LN and any good vintage plane has a charm and affect that is wonderful. Japanese planes also are a much favored tool of mine, yet for recommendation to the "work horse" and what we use as a hand driven "power planner," there is little that will beat the versatility, technically adjustable, and interchangeability than a good arsenal of Veritas planes. They really allow those new to planning by hand, and "high volume" planning excel!



You can use just one plane, and that was the traditional method for the "Barnwright," and many "Bridgewrights," as well. That would be your Scrub Plane and/or #4 with a heavy camber, taken across the grain at a 40 to 30 degree angle (though I have seen others.)



30 foot circumference is what I was taught, which always made me laugh at how I was suppose to achieve that... I tell students that you really need to see what your own body, the plane and the wood you are working tells you. It will very, but as Dave S. stated, make in a very clean arch.



No, it all depends on what you finish goal for the timer is. We start with a scrub to "rough in" the timber and may stop there, or it could go all the way to scrapers around knots, and jointing plane. With the Veritas you can use the same blades in several tools interchangeably and the new alloys-though hard to sharpen-take a razor edge that last a very long time. As stated, "keep them keenly sharp and your work will be much less the effort for it."



You can use one as stated or as many as 4 or 5 it all depends on the finish goal and what your client is seeking from you.




No...that is more an affect of some Japanese planes, yet many of them also have a subtle camber as well.

Good Luck!

j

You are all a GREAT help, and I am learning.

Tim, Will & Jay, you indicated you have a preference for, or begin the process with a scrub plane. Since I'm starting with very nicely-sawn material (bandmill), and need to remove very little, I'm thinking I could skip that one? Yes? No?

Jay, to address your point as to what my finish goal for the timbers are? That would be removing the bandmill marks while creating as smooth a surface as possible, leaving little to no plane markings. The project is going to be a 24' x 34' king-post addition to an existing house, so he wants the timbers kinda pretty.

So I'm thinking, for now at least, either a 4-1/2 or a 5-1/2 with one cambered iron and one finish iron. Then expand my collection as my understanding and hand planing skills develop more fully over time. Any votes for one over the other?

Ron,

I have done fine with just taking a single pass at a slight angle across the grain with clear band-milled timber.

If you don't want plane marks, my route has been to plane a single pass to remove the saw marks, then sand the timber with either a belt or orbital sander, whatever is on hand. Orbital takes a little longer, but gives a nicer finish. Belt sanders can dig in or leave a bit of a wobbly texture.
The sander doesn't have to do much, just knock of the ridges left by the hand plane. Alternately, you can even use a stiff scraper to knock off the ridges (or as was suggested above, a spokeshave)

I have an upcoming project where I will have to smooth a lot of circular milled hardwood timbers (oak, elm, ash, walnut, hickory, maple, tulip poplar) from a 100+ year old barn. So I've really been thinking about my approach to planing HARD timber lately

Yes, in a since you can skip the scrub in your case. A number #4 (or a facsimile there of) with a little more camber to the blade is essentially a scrub plane. You are doing this for aesthetics so I leave it to you and the client what look good to you? I have done 90 degrees to the grain and even "skip planned" which leave an "adzing affect" to the timber. This is where "art and design" meet "function, form and necessity."



Hmmmm, if that is the case, and you are going for the more "refined look," yet still want to maintain the finished appearance of a high quality vintage frame with tool marks and no need to sand them, then you may even consider a larger plane such as one of several Veritas low angle (bevel up) bench planes. The "Smoother" is 10" long, the "Jack" is 15" long, and the "Jointer" is 22" long. All can be used in your application as a "single source plane" with the longer ones giving a very smooth flat surface with slight tooling left behind depending on camber you want. Another nice aspect is the plane blades are all interchangeable between all three planes, and if you really want to go with one plane for now that can have dual purposes there "Jack Rabbit" plane with a modified blade (one of my students uses one as he did not have money for the "Jack and jointer" will also work as a large smoothing plane. The "Jack Rabbit" even has more mass than the "Jack" plane for getting good long solid strokes.

If you are just going with a local sourced restored antique plane either size will work, it is all about a well tuned plane body, good steel, and very excellent sharpening skills. We keep ours tuned to 0.5 microns and sometimes will hone even finer than that. Get use to gauging and thing of all your sanding and sharpening grits in microns, as this is the universal gauge among manufactures, even though each often publish there own gauge. We rough in with ~90 micron stones and move down into the 10 to 1 micron water stones, then "hone out" the micro bevels (often on both sides of the blade)with 0.5 to 0.1 micron compound or ultra fine japanese stones. 0.1 micron is about a 30,000 grit stone.

Good luck and let us know what you end up doing and how the project proceeds.

j

Ron, you have a mountain of work in tenacious white oak, therefore I would not use long bed joiner planes because the amount of work will be greatly increased in leveling the surfaces, it would be much less work to use short planes that will ride with the contour. I would however second Jay about looking into bevel up planes. The bevel on the planes blades can be varied to handle difficult grain (increase of bevel varies the pitch of the blade which in a conventional bench plane means a replaced frog) which might come in handy with the oak.

Hi Roger, the longer plane body makes for a "flatter stroke," and is not that much more work overall since you are only going across the grain at an angle and have less contour issues than if going with the with the grain. I would also point out that with a very sharp plane (and good to excellent band sawn timbers) there is little effort with the long stroke planes than one would imagine. At this point I have probably over 50 hand planned frames (at least?) and facilitate well over 100 with students and the like. I have even had very small and slight female students prefer the longer stroke planes for "clean up work" such as Ron is attempting, as you are taking very little off and the mass of the plane works to your advantage. With this system you are left with a traditional finish and no need to sand.

I will agree this is a personal choice, with much subjectivity, so Ron will be the ultimate decider.

Roger have you ever done a entire frame in oak that is hand planned using a jack of jointer size? What do you think might have been so fatiguing? It could be approach modalities and technique. I would say size (I'm 6'3" and 200 pounds) but I have see, as said, small folk gravitate toward long stroke planes as the plane does most of the work and your arms less. What do you think now, after this description, I would be curious of your experiences and concepts.

Warm Regards,

j

I would have to try a longer, heavier plane to give an opinion. As I said I work soft woods for the most part. I do like my Stanley Jack plane. I like how light it is, not sure I would like a longer heavier plane.

One point to consider with band sawn timber, it may have a slight wave to it, it will show mostly where the grain changes and the saw goes from ripping to cross cutting, to some degree. Even the best tuned saws will have some. To get to the low spot you will have to remove the high spots to get to the low spots. If you plane as Jay suggest, 90 degrees across you may deal with this that way. Any angle less you will encounter the slight wave.

Most of my surface planing is going all crazy, different direction depending on how the grain lays. Big old 3" pine knots I use my spoke shave and shave into the knot in an attempt to avoid tear out. The scrub will rip chunks out if it is pushed the wrong way. I would be cautious using the scrub. From my understanding it is the old world thickness planer. It has its place and I would not want to work for long with out it.

From my point of view, I do not see advantage in using wider, longer and heavier planes designed as try planes for roughing and stock prep. The plane for heavy removal is light and narrow, a scrub plane 1 1/2 inch blade maybe 3 pounds in iron and lighter yet with a wooden ECE or Ulmia scrub. Compare with blades 2 3/8 to 2 5/8 at 8 to 10 pounds and bodies 22 in. to 25 in. for #7 or #8. Stroke length is side entry to exit or in otherwords the same but the mechanics of the stroke is different due to tote to knob distance. So I will state a more compact stroke with a lighter tool wins the day. I think planing is like any other repetitive task, whether it's swinging a hammer, pedaling a bike (I love the right gear) or pushing a plane, the effort is wearing. The tool is best balanced to the task.

A flat stroke is delivered with proper bench height.

As to, "small folk gravitate toward long stroke planes as the plane does most of the work and your arms less", the plane does no work in any way at all.

My carpentry experience is very diverse, full time, year round over 45 years. I have not had clients that would pay for a white oak hand planed frame but I believe I have a balanced perspective on tool usage backed by experience.

With the limited experience I have of treating sawn or even S4S stock to give a planed look I agree with Roger. Smaller, lighter, quicker strokes. In my case I wasn't trying to develop a perfectly flat and precise surface over the entire length of the timber - but one that was 'smooth' with makers marks evident. In no way similar to jointing a piece for furniture.

And like the bike and gears - moving the work to smaller gears and quicker revolutions of the pedals makes for efficient mountain pass climbing.

As stated, Ron will have to figure a lot of this out for himself and the client. This all reminds me of when pull saws started catching on and metal chisel hammers. Neither where well understood or liked in the beginning, except to those of use that had learned on them. Same is true for many planning modalities. I don't see any advice here that is out of the normal spectrum of "ways and means," just different body dynamics and experiential back grounds to there use.

Does the orient plane across or along the timber?

For sure Jay! I'd be getting some short lengths of timber prepped with some finish options and I would be trying to gauge how long ($) each options
took.

Exactly Mike!, that is the way we did it just about two years ago on a solid white oak (massive) arbor for a private estate outdoor grill and fireplace. We went through sever permutation before we landed on one that would give the traditional finish that we could do for the price of the project and one that the client also liked. It was bandmilled just like Ron's project and we did across the grain @ 50° scrub and then almost with the grain with jack and/or jointer which offered a nice but unusual affect of almost looking like a "gouge" or "chona" finish.

Hi Tim,

Great question!

You would think that China, Korea, and Japan would have very similar styles (and in many ways they do) but I would say much more is different than the same. Most of China and Korea plane like we do by pushing (not a hard fast rule as some do both), while Japan pulles many of there tools including gouges and chisels at times.

They do go across the grain to "rough in" and then with the grain to flatten and smooth. I still have not seen outside of Japan and Asia, and "wood culture" that even comes close to the art and finesse of planing that you find in Asia (particularly Japan.) They even have clubs and competitions that focus on nothing but planes and planning, with shavings you measure in microns are several meters long.

There are many subtle difference there in the timber crafts as well that I still use. One basic but unusual one is "killing wood," which is a form of "chamfering." So instead of using a small block plane, you take you metal chisel hammer (the rounded end not the flat) and smash the fibers of the tenons and its edges (especially if you are not getting an easy fit during raising. On a timber frame or furniture, you can take a "too" tight tenon to mortise (hozo-ana) and "kill the wood" then the tenon slides in easily, but within a short time the fibers expand (often larger than they had been) and the joint does not come apart easily (sometimes not at all which is very similar to a "hell joint.")

Regards,

j

Jay,

You know where I'm going with this. Ha!

In The Berner Oberland, and much of Bern in general, planing is extremely refined and important.
Planing is, in fact, the first step of timber layout when laying out a frame or log wall. The timbers are planed to incredibly precise dimensions and angles so that the scribing process is simple, and so that joints can be expected to fit wonderfully withou the need to cut housings.

In the Oberland, they have made an art of planing. Literally. They have wide planes with blades maybe as wide as 6" (gasp) and take off long, smooth shavings. Then they make things out of these: Cheese forms, baskets, buckets, and some artistic items. It is very difficult to make the shavings needed, especially for the cheese forms which need long, wide shavings -5 or 6 inches wide and maybe 4 feet long of a constant thickness. These have to be consistent so they can be bent into a constant circle.

My favorite is the 'Fügeboum' which is a giant jointing plane. This is about 6 feet long and cuts a rabbet. The point is to make a very flat surface along the length of the timber.
two corners are planed to precise dimensions, then the ridge between smoothed off.

Jay, smashing the fibers like that...... I may just try that some time! Never heard that one before.

Wonderful information D.L. and little off topic, but I would support your description of the Swiss as having some wonderful planning traditions, well before Japans (not as old as the Middle Eastern ones but much more refined.) I still will contend, as do most wood historians, that the "plane craft" of Japan is unmatched anywhere in the world had has been for the last 500 years for the plane as we understand it has come to be, yet the spear planes, called yari ganna, has been there for a very long time. Outside of Japan, I would agree that the Swiss probably have the most diverse. They still do not have the size and diversity range you find in Japan over the last 300 years, with many in size (largest are 400 mm or ~ 16" in width) and finish quality and length of ribbon (0.3 micron thickness over 20 feet long or longer) is not uncommon even today. I would also not that they have taken these byproducts of shavings and made much use from them in all different realms of folk traditions from wrapping papery to wood cloth and screens.

Hey Tim,

Be warned Brother, if you get a really good 700 gram Japanese barrel chisel hammer, you may never go back, and you will love the "killing wood" method...its addictive and effective.

Jay,

I don't doubt the Japanese tradition is more extensive and richer. I just thought I'd let you know a little about some of the planing practices I know.

These hings we can take back at least to the 1300's

As for pulling a plane/gouge.

We have an interesting little tool, kind of like the English Scorp. It's essentially a gouge with the blade turned around. It has a looped blade on the end of a short handle. You use it for the same purpose many would use a gouge for, only it's pulled and not pushed. We just call it a scorp now, I'm sure it used to be called another name (because it's old, and didn't come from England)

Great info, would love to know more as you learn it. I think globally, that most of the better know plan designs and its many permutations could track their ancestry back to your region of Europe to Damascus and in between. Without a doubt the oldest in the advance forms and eloquence are most likely from the Swiss region of the Alps and perhaps into parts of the western Carpathians.

Jay, would you please continue this conversation over on my thread on the general board.

Don't want to distract too far away from the poster's question. Want him to still have his questions addressed!

Well, you all certainly have given me lots to think about. Lots of factual info and your opinions that I value. I also picked up Garrett Hack's Hand Plane book for further insight. Good stuff in there.
But Jay is right, I will learn the most as I experiment with this process, which I am anxious to begin. You threw me curve Jay, bringing up those bevel-up bad boys from LV! Hadn't given those much consideration, but now I must investigate those! But as it looks now, I'm leaning towards either the standard 4-1/2 or 5-1/2. With two strong votes for Veritas. I sincerely thank everyone that has taken time out of their busy day to share their experience and wisdom.

Garret is great, our kids are in school together, and if I yield really loud outside he could hear me...(and would tell me to stop yelling and use the phone ) That is a great book to read of his. Let us all know how things go for you and if you have any other questions or ideas you would like to bounce of of a bunch of "timber nutts."

Regards,

j

Just re-reading some of the responses.

Tim, I see your point on wavy bandsawn material. I've owned and operated 3 different bandmills in years past, and I've seen how a dull blade will dive in the cut and creates the wave. So just leave the dip there and hit it with a spokeshave? Sounds good to me!

Roger and Jay: In your exchanges on short vs longer planes, you both made valid points that make alot of sense to me. Basically, all other issues have been cleared up for me, except that one. I guess as Jay said, it's a subjective issue, with no right or wrong in either choice.

Absolutely...your body, the tool, the wood, and the needs of the project will subject the greatest lead and guidance to your bearing in which is the best choice for you...

Good Luck

Ron, I wasn't suggesting scrub planes as a step in a process in planing a timber flat & smooth, as I see only two steps in that process, the first involving a cord. (All timber here is purchased locally and rough sawn, and planed with a 12" power plane with out much attention paid to dimension or squaredness - That's but two passes on each face following a bandmill - And even planing up & out on Rough or textured frames for ease of snapping, drawing, and scoring lines)

But suggesting scrub plane ripples as a finish unto itself, sort of an easily achieved subdued hewing some find appealing.

I hear ya Will, and I thank you for contributing as always. Hope you are doing well.
At some point in time, hopefully a client will want a finish such as you described with the scrub, and I can give that a shot.

I've been thinking about those low angle, bevel-up bench planes that Jay suggested as an option. I'm familiar with only my low angle block plane as it's used for end grain applications.

Can anyone offer more insight into the pro's or cons as to how these compare to a standard bench plane (#4-1/2) when attempting to smooth white oak timbers?

The folks at Lee Valley are really great Ron, order the smoothing plane that takes the same blades that the jack and jointer take, and compare for yourself. The will take it back if you are not 100% satisfied with the out come.

The real positives are, blade interchangeability, diversity of multiple grain type application, having several blades that have different bevels for different grain types. The blades also come in and out of the plane with little fussing to get them "tuned in." A standard bench plane just does not have this versatility, IMO. Perhaps someone can find a "con" to share...I don't have any, and I own both types of planes.

Upon reflection, for a roughing plane I would opt for a Veritas #4 bench plane, the main advantage is effective power and aggressive removal. For a smoother I would opt for a bevel up, main con is as blade pitch increases, effort increases and main advantage is as blade pitch increases, tear out lessens. So I tend towards a two plane solution.

So it would be good to hear on how you go about in this balancing act.

Ron, I concur with Roger N. on this completely. I have been thinking about your question (one plane) this discussion, especially between Roger and I, (and several off line...I know what Garret would say, and ...) You really do need two planes. Even though I can, and we do switch out blades all the time, and it is easy, we do have several simple #4 of new LN and acient vintage history within our reach (and we use them when doing what you are about to attempt.)

You can do this with one...but...

two or three more makes a world of difference when hand planing, and as DL has alluded to in this discussion, the advanced and apex traditional wood cultures like the Swiss and Japanese never have less that 6 when doing just hand planing of something.

Good lukc and I second Roger N, "it would be good to hear on how you go about in the balancing act..."

Regards,

j

Who wants just one plane, goodness that would be dull!

I was thinking the same thing all day yesterday, and had made up my mind that I would get 2 planes, a standard #4 and a bevel-up.

And then I see that your opinions just reinforced what I had been thinking, so I'm pretty solid with my choices. I'm really looking forward to get cracking on this.

Again, thanks so very much for all your help. everyone.

DL, crazy photo!

Is that someone's shop or an antique store?

Ron,

I could go on all day on what's going on in this photo, so many interesting little things...

This was the tool collection of a single carpenter, now it's in a museum. He has a few more than most, because he was a top notch carpenter...

Most of the short-bed planes are profile planes, with different profiles for different uses and looks. Then there are grooving planes, rabbet planes, and the smoothing planes.

Check out those giant 2-way planes on the back wall...

But back to your topic,

I definitely concur with the opinion that you should have a few different planes. Your choices sound reasonable, I say go for it!

Ron,

I may be able a little late, but I'd go with a #4. The 4.5 is pretty heavy. Although that may be nice in the oak. Sounds like a cool project. Here's a shot of the Sobon-esque cross planing:



That's not my work by the way. I like it, but it's certainly a lot different (and less work) than a regular planed finish.

That's the finish I was working to describe Ron.

Got my Veritas 4-1/2 and the bevel-up smoother the other day.

I like that finish too Will. This particular job will require smooth timbers with as little tooling marks as possible.

Which brings me to my last question. I promise.

The 4-1/2 will be used first in the process with a very slight camber on the iron, followed by the bevel-up smoother to finish.

Should the iron on the bevel-up smoother have any camber, corners just rounded, or be left square?

I would think a slight camber is going to be the ticket. Square corners would work if you were just joining edges on boards, but in this case it will leave a ridged somewhere. Rounded corners I don't do, but suspect they would leave some sort of mark as well.

A wider blade along with a shallow camber should do a reasonable job. The wider the blade the more you will be able to hide the camber. When sharpening just work the sides a little more.

The curvature on the cutting edge of a bevel up blade needs to be more than on a bevel down plane. There's some weird geometry in there. Some people even back bevel their bevel up planes, because there's more wear on the back (flat) side of the blade. Google should turn all sorts of details on the matter. Trial and error will work too.

Yes I did Google the topic of blade profile on LA-BU smoothers and there is a LOT of info on the matter, maybe too much. All seem to agree that iron profile needs to have much more camber than a standard BD bench plane.

My Veritas LA-BU smoother came with a 38 degree iron, with no camber.

One site says it is VERY important and much easier to start with the 25 degree blade and grind in the camber with higher angles on it, as it is very difficult to grind the needed camber on the 38 degree blade. So, should I send my 38 back and get a couple of 25's?

I would really like to know what any of you do, who are really familiar with LA-BU planes, regarding the camber on them.
Thanks.