Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Ron Mansour] #31889 01/27/14 11:59 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
I use an old Stanley and a Lie Nielson scrub. I am taking the harsh radius out of the L-N scrub, but slowly.

Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Ron Mansour] #31890 01/27/14 01:26 PM
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 718
Dave Shepard Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 718
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.


Member, Timber Framers Guild
Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Ron Mansour] #31891 01/27/14 02:35 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
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.

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


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!

Quote:
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?


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.)

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


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.

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


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."

Quote:
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.


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.


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


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

Good Luck!

j

Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Ron Mansour] #31892 01/27/14 09:05 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 77
R
Ron Mansour Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
R
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 77
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?

Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Ron Mansour] #31893 01/27/14 09:37 PM
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
D L Bahler Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 946
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


Was de eine ilüchtet isch für angeri villech nid so klar.
http://riegelbau.wordpress.com/
Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Ron Mansour] #31894 01/27/14 09:52 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Quote:
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?
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."

Quote:
ay, 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.


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

Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Jay White Cloud] #31895 01/27/14 10:56 PM
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
R
Roger Nair Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
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.

Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Ron Mansour] #31896 01/27/14 11:45 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
Jay White Cloud Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 582
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

Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Ron Mansour] #31897 01/28/14 01:09 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
T
TIMBEAL Offline
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,882
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.

Re: Hand planing timbers- Lie-Nielson or Veritas [Re: Jay White Cloud] #31898 01/28/14 01:40 AM
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
R
Roger Nair Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 463
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.

Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Jim Rogers, mdfinc 

Newest Members
HFT, Wrongthinker, kaymaxi, RLTJohn, fendrishi
5134 Registered Users
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3
(Release build 20190728)
PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.048s Queries: 15 (0.008s) Memory: 3.2318 MB (Peak: 3.3977 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 20:19:06 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS