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.