Jointer planes-size, chip breaker or not?

[Mike Holbrook]

I have been running a thread on "shooting" edges with a shooting plane. I got several responses suggesting that a jointer plane might be the correct tool for "jointing edges". This raises a question in my head regarding which jointer.

Certainly these pages have been buzzing for some time now regarding the specific ways chip breakers can prevent tear out. The other emerging news seems to be that with a chip breaker one may be able to use a blade at a lesser angle, providing an even smoother surface. I imagine these "truths" hold true for jointing edges as well as working surfaces. Certainly many of us have LA/BU planes without chip breakers and wooden planes with thick BD blades, which may be fine for softer hard woods and reasonable grain.

The other factor I wonder about is the physical dimensions and blade angles of planes used for jointing. In the other thread I ran some people even copped to using block planes for shooting small pieces. Certainly the little planes get used frequently to relieve edges...So my question becomes how long and wide does a jointer need to be? To answer my own question I suspect the answer relates to specific work. Typically shorter planes for shorter boards. It is fairly easy to figure out that a 26" jointer might not be necessary to joint a 1 foot board. To over simplify, the plane body, via it's length, is suppose to ride over valleys removing humps until the board becomes level, but how wide apart might those humps be?

I know some posters here do not feel the need to own a #6 or #5 1/2. Some of those who like the #6 or #5 1/2 do not care for the "other" 1/2 size different plane. Some seem happy doing most of their jointing with a #5 1/2 or #6 and may not own a #7 or #8. Then there are some who make monster 26" or more wood planes for jointing.

I wonder if, starting on the small end, a # 5 1/2 might actually work fine for joining boards up to 24" maybe 36". Those who may want to prepare the entire edge of an 8' board and then cross cut out needed pieces might want a longer plane. I think we may have a poster on these pages who uses a 5 1/2 for most of his work. I am guessing many boards were jointed with a #6,#5 1/2, #5, #5 1/4....back in the day. Regarding the chip breaker and blade angle I am wondering whether the edge of a board might be more or less in need of a chip breaker and higher/lower blade angle?

Now that we have a plane maker who will make frogs for BD planes at custom angles, might this option offer some interesting new approaches to preparing boards for joining as well as for surfacing?

[Kees Heiden]

I have a choice. An antique Stanley #7, setup with a rather straight edge, minimal amount of camber. Of course equiped with a chipbreaker that I definitely use when neccessary. I also just made a 27" wooden jointer with an old 2 1/2" wide double iron. This one happens to have slightly more camber, I am still experimenting if that is helpfull for me or not. They are really both equally usefull, but I like wooden planes a lot.

So, in both cases a bevel down plane with a capiron. I wouldn't want something else, and I don't see the need to spend several hundreds of euro's for a bevel up variant.

[Bill White]

I use a #7 because of the weight. Seems to give me an easier follow through. My 5 1/2 has a cambered iron. Not too cool for shooting, and the irons are somewhat hard to find, so a replacement iron is not available.
Bill

[Brian Holcombe]

Jointing large work in a vise, I prefer the double iron try plane. Jointing thin work affixed to my bench top I use a 7 plane followed by a 4 plane, both are BD with chip breakers.

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for your thoughts Kees,

I am sort of the opposite of you in terms of planes. My main jointer is a BU. My wood jointer is a whole inch shorter than yours. Also my wood jointer is built for 2" single irons. I have Stanley #6 & # 5 1/2 planes.

I work on chair/table legs a good deal lately. They are typically 24"-32"- 2x2" oak which I plane into tapered squares then octagons. There is a tendency to loose track of edges vs surfaces. So far I have done the work without guides, by eye. I do not have a lathe and have no plans to buy one, at least until I sell a house, build a new one...Using a #7 size jointer for that work seems over kill to me. I use #5, 5 1/2 & 6 for these. A larger plane will wear a person down, removing that much wood. More of the work I have planned is boards under 36". If I get around to building a bench top, table top, dresser top....I am guessing this is where the long jointers will be nice to have.

The other thing about "jointer' style planes that gets me thinking relates to whether I plan to use the plane more like an old style fore plane, for removing larger shavings, or whether I plan to use it more as a finishing type plane, to produce final surfaces. My Stanley planes are set up more for rough/medium shavings. At the moment my BU plane is the one set up more for fine shavings. Jointers, especially the shorter incarnations, seem to work at two extremes in terms of rough vs fine work. One can sort of see why some people do not use these medium length planes at all and some use them much of the time.

Kees I am interested in hearing more about your experiments with camber on these planes.

[Jim Koepke]

The size of the plane is relative to the size of the piece to be worked.

A #6 is more common than a #5-1/2. It is also usually less expen$ive on the secondhand market. For many things either would be fine planes for jointing. For some of my smaller work a #3 has been used for edge jointing.

My preference is for a bevel down plane with a chip breaker for edge jointing.

As always, 336331

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

The other factor I wonder about is the physical dimensions and blade angles of planes used for jointing. In the other thread I ran some people even copped to using block planes for shooting small pieces. Certainly the little planes get used frequently to relieve edges...So my question becomes how long and wide does a jointer need to be? To answer my own question I suspect the answer relates to specific work. Typically shorter planes for shorter boards. It is fairly easy to figure out that a 26" jointer might not be necessary to joint a 1 foot board. To over simplify, the plane body, via it's length, is suppose to ride over valleys removing humps until the board becomes level, but how wide apart might those humps be?

I know some posters here do not feel the need to own a #6 or #5 1/2. Some of those who like the #6 or #5 1/2 do not care for the "other" 1/2 size different plane. Some seem happy doing most of their jointing with a #5 1/2 or #6 and may not own a #7 or #8. Then there are some who make monster 26" or more wood planes for jointing.


Mike, if you are jointing two thin edges, and doing this on your bench top, then you need a long plane, such as the LV Custom #7 I showed in the previous thread. It is only when you use a long shooting board that you can use a short plane to joint a long board.

For most users, there is little difference when shooting side edges with a BD/chipbreaker or a high angle BU plane. The main advantage of a chipbreaker is on face grain, where the surface is seen. On the other hand, I use wood with much reversing grain, and I like the reassurance that the chipbreaker offers, that is, planing into the grain without fear of tearout.

As for jointing in the vise .... I think that issue of woodies vs metal planes is really a personal preference for amateurs. There is too little use in the week in the shop to claim advantages of one over the other. My personal preference is a plane with a lower centre of effort. I have designed and built, and purchased, woodies along these lines. Nevertheless, I flip back-and-forth with metal planes, and probably use them more. The high-sided woodies feel too detached (this is my experience).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for all the thoughts,

As always the YMMV! comment from Jim above is very relevant. I started out thinking I wanted to build cabinets. Now I am more interested in furniture, with a developing interest in green wood. Tool preferences for these types of work are certainly different.

The work I have done recently often entails removing lots of stock, which is about the opposite of what I originally thought I might be doing making cabinets using wood dimensioned, for the work, on at least two sides. Planing a 2x2" or a split from a oak log down into a tapered octagonal leg may be more intense/longer work than what the average person is considering doing regularly? For this type of work, weight & length becomes not just an ally but a physical challenge that needs to be considered.... I am thinking 5-5 1/2 size planes with maybe a 5 1/4 for when I get whipped out.

I have several BU Veritas planes which I bought because of my preference for the low heavy feel Derek mentions above. I still like that kind of plane but if one figures doing hundreds of strokes vs ten or twenty things change. I see more rough and green wood in my future and I am not getting any younger.

[Patrick Chase]

My personal rule of thumb for jointing is to choose a plane that's at least half the length of the workpiece. Obviously there are cases where you can't do that, but on the whole it works for me. I routinely joint smaller work with a #5 or #6, but I also have a #7 and a #8 for the big stuff.

w.r.t. the BU/BD/cap-iron question Derek hit the nail on the head. and this is something I tried to raise in the other thread as well: Jointed surfaces are generally not cosmetic. When we joint edges we usually do it as a preparation for glue-up. When we joint faces we usually smooth afterwards. If you use a high-bevel blade to avoid tearout then the resulting loss of "glassiness" won't be a problem in either case. Even in the case of jointing a face a single pass with a well-tuned and tightly set BD smoother will generally get the surface up to snuff (note that this is emphatically not the case if you use a low-bevel blade in your BU jointer and get tearout as a result).

With all of that said, I subjectively prefer to joint using BD planes and relatively close-set cap irons. I think that I could get equal final results (after glueing/smoothing/etc) with a BU jointer and appropriately beveled blades, but I subjectively perceive that as a somewhat "messy" solution. Other people will have different preferences.

IMO the final planing pass (typically smoothing) is where you get the big payoff from "cap iron magic".

The surface quality tradeoff isn't new BTW. If you go back and re-read what David wrote years ago or at Derek's review of the Veritas custom planes you'll see it spelled out pretty clearly (at least that's how I interpreted both at the time).

[Patrick Chase]

I have several BU Veritas planes which I bought because of my preference for the low heavy feel Derek mentions above. I still like that kind of plane but if one figures doing hundreds of strokes vs ten or twenty things change. I see more rough and green wood in my future and I am not getting any younger.

The Veritas BU jointer is a great plane and will get the job done with appropriately beveled blades. If you like the feel then there's no reason to replace it with a BD plane, unless you're one of those crazies that smooth with your jointers...

[Tony Zaffuto]

The Veritas BU jointer is a great plane and will get the job done with appropriately beveled blades. If you like the feel then there's no reason to replace it with a BD plane, unless you're one of those crazies that smooth with your jointers...

As a hybrid woodworker, I would also endorse this as an excellent means of getting a job done. One of my most used planes is my LN BU #7 (or is it a 7-1/2??). I do have a #7 Bedrock and #7 Bailey, but my subconscious seems to guide my hands to the LN virtually every time.

[Kees Heiden]

My wooden jointer is very fresh, but I have some experience with vintage wooden jointers too. I am doing carpentry work at the moment, but it is fun to try to get an entrance door really straight and square, or on the side of the lock of the door to introduce a definite chamfer of a few degrees, so the door can actually open. With the camber on the edge this is laughably easy. Shift the plane to the high side and the camber takes care of removing stock where it needs to be removed.

Thick things like entry doors are rather easy to joint. The thickness makes for a stable surface. Just plant the plane securely on the wood and do what needs to be done. Balancing on narrower boards is more difficult.

A long plane is helpfull (as long as it has a straight sole). It doesn't matter to me if it is a little too long. Jointing is usually something I do once in a while for short periods, so I don't mind if the plane is a little heavy. For flattening large pannels, a smaller plane is better, like a tryplane. I do have a 21" wooden try that is lighter then my Stanley #7. But the #7 isn't too bad, weight wise.

I have no experience with bevel up planes, so can't comment about them. Being happy with the BD's, I have no urge to try them.

[steven c newman]

Last project I just finished working on....
336350
had a panel that needed the edges jointed. The plane sitting there did the work
Mohawk-Shelburne # 900/Millers Falls No. 90. Panel was a glue up, to make a lid for a small box.
Kind of handy, since I also cleaned up the glue joint with the same plane. No camber, chipbreaker is 2mm back from the edge.
I match the size of the plane to the work being done. There are a few Stanley No.7c, a Stanley No.6c, a stanley no.5-1/2 a few #5s and a 3 5-1/4. There is a Stanley No.31 as well as an Ohio Tool/ Auburn 22" long Try plane. All about what size the job is. The only bevel ups I have are block planes, low angle and standard.

[Robert Engel]

I wonder if, starting on the small end, a # 5 1/2 might actually work fine for joining boards up to 24" maybe 36".
Short answer, no, it will not be satisfactory.

In my shop, the #6 is actually the most frequently used plane. It is capable of jointing boards up to 24" after that I use a jointer plane.
It is my preferred plane for truing the faces of boards.

As for jointing a long board, then cutting, I would cut boards to length first, then joint.
IMO, jointing an 8' board will take more time than jointing 3 or 4 shorter lengths.

[Prashun Patel]

The best (glib) answer is the one that feels best in your hands so you'll be inclined to practice.

I think a #7ish plane is a good investment if you have the forearms for it, because it does more of the guesswork for you.

I own a wood try plane, bevel up jointer, and Bailey BD #7 jointer with a hock blade.

They all work fine. I don't believe there is anything practically better about BU vs BD; by far, the biggest variable is the quality of your sharpening.

[Jeffrey Martel]

I usually go by the 1.5-2x length rule as well. Longer stuff I'll use my #8, shorter things I'll use my #6. Really short things I'll use my LV bevel up smoother or a block plane.

[Patrick Chase]

Short answer, no [using a 5-1/2 for boards up to 24 or 36"], it will not be satisfactory.

The critical figure of merit here is the ratio of the workpiece length to the plane length. Claiming that a 5-1/2 (15" long) can't adequately joint a 24" board is equivalent to claiming that a #7 can't adequately joint a 35" workpiece, and I think we all know that's bunk.

Mike, for a 36" piece you'd ideally want a slightly longer plane but it will work if your technique is good. It's equivalent to using a #7 on a 53" workpiece, which isn't uncommon. At 24" the 5-1/2 is perfect.

[Patrick Chase]

I think a #7ish plane is a good investment if you have the forearms for it, because it does more of the guesswork for you.

If you're using your forearms to drive your #7 then you're making life needlessly hard for yourself :-)

[steven c newman]

After a few hours of using them bigger planes,,,sore forearms are the least of the problem.....shoulders.....the area of the back between the shoulders......neck gets stiff.....things like that. Good thing the biggest of the jointers is a bit lighter in weight..
336433
Stanley No. 31....24" long. weighs about half of a Stanley #8c did. Yeah, yeah, it only has a 2-3/8" wide iron.....didn't really need the extra 2/8" in width, anyway.

[Patrick Chase]

After a few hours of using them bigger planes,,,sore forearms are the least of the problem.....shoulders.....the area of the back between the shoulders......neck gets stiff.....things like that. Good thing the biggest of the jointers is a bit lighter in weight..
336433
Stanley No. 31....24" long. weighs about half of a Stanley #8c did. Yeah, yeah, it only has a 2-3/8" wide iron.....didn't really need the extra 2/8" in width, anyway.

Burn baby, burn (http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan4.htm#num28) (see also the para and picture just before the #21 section).

[steven c newman]

Well, I have the #26, the # 28, #29, and the #31......there is also an 035 in the till. No complaints with them, at all.

[Pat Barry]

After a few hours of using them bigger planes,,,sore forearms are the least of the problem.....shoulders.....the area of the back between the shoulders......neck gets stiff.....things like that. Good thing the biggest of the jointers is a bit lighter in weight..
336433
Stanley No. 31....24" long. weighs about half of a Stanley #8c did. Yeah, yeah, it only has a 2-3/8" wide iron.....didn't really need the extra 2/8" in width, anyway.
That plane is practically as long as the board you are jointing. That in itself makes for too much work. You are expending too much effort to hold that thing level for the amount of work you are getting accomplished. In fact, I wonder if you can actually get the edge straight with a plane that long. Thank your stars and neck / back that its a transistional

[steven c newman]

That board was 36" long, the plane is 24". I wrap the front hand around the body of the plane, using the knuckles as a fence. Board was part of a five board glue up
336450
Seemed to work out fairly well.....

[Pat Barry]

That board was 36" long, the plane is 24". I wrap the front hand around the body of the plane, using the knuckles as a fence. Board was part of a five board glue up
336450
Seemed to work out fairly well.....
It did turn out nice! The picture was very deceptive

[Normand Leblanc]

For many years all I had was a LV bevel-up jointer and a Stanley no.4. I've added bevel down planes of all sizes to those. The more I use the bevel down - comparing with bevel-up - the more I like them. I'm hardly using my LV BU plane at this stage.
Because I like to sharpen free hand, the use of a BU plane isn't great because, for all those high angles, I have to go back to a guide. It also seems to me that the surface finish of a BD is nicer than a BU with a high angle.
As for the length, if my plane is 1/3 of board length, I'm fine with it.

[Glen Canaday]

That plane is practically as long as the board you are jointing. That in itself makes for too much work. You are expending too much effort to hold that thing level for the amount of work you are getting accomplished. In fact, I wonder if you can actually get the edge straight with a plane that long. Thank your stars and neck / back that its a transistional

A cooper's jointer is usually far longer than that thing.

[lowell holmes]

My 607 Bedrock works just fine on a shooting board. I don't feel the need for another plane. It also does great with the board in a vise.

[Patrick Chase]

Well, I have the #26, the # 28, #29, and the #31......there is also an 035 in the till. No complaints with them, at all.

The Schwartz is with you (http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodworking-blogs/chris-schwarz-blog/no-more-iron-bananas).

Seriously, those are amazingly polarizing planes. I haven't used one to any great extent, so I have no actual opinion of them either way. Leach's writeup cracks me up though.

[Mike Holbrook]

My challenge at the moment is making tapered/staked chair/table legs usually from oak. I do not have a lathe and do not plan to buy one any time soon as I may be moving. This work can be very time consuming.

The challenge is more like making a bench top from glued up hard wood boards than making a single edge flat & 90 degrees to the surface of a board. It requires many strokes to make four or more octagonal chair or table legs from rough wood or splits. I started out using a #5 with a cambered blade to do the heavy stock removal. I have been experimenting with # 5 1/4, #5, #5 1/2, #6 & BU Jointer. I am thinking either the 5 1/4 or 5 to make a taper square, the heavy stock removal. Once I get the heavy work done I am thinking about a 5 1/2 or 6 to work the square into a reasonably equal sided octagon. A full size metal jointer gets heavy fairly quickly. I may work on my Purple Heart jointer so I will have something lighter. I am not going to get too concerned with the legs being exactly the same and even so I may or may not finish with a smooth plane.

[Kees Heiden]

I strongly believe that for most furniture work a #4 and a #7 are fine for all jointing tasks. The #5 would be nice too, but in my case it is setup as a jack plane with strongly cambered blade.

The #4 for all small stuff, up to twice the length of the plane. The rest with the #7. Only for really large stuff like entry doors, large dining tables etc, the long woodies come in nicely. They are usually dirt cheap and are easilly trued up, so no reason really not to find one. Those long transitionals look usefull for this task too.

[Warren Mickley]

I agree, Kees. I use a #7 for everything over six inches, whether eight inches or eight feet. I think it is important to avoid too many planes in regular use because one loses intimacy with the tools. If you have one plane that is devoted to jointing, you know the plane and the iron well, you can keep track of how much camber, depth of cut, when last sharpened, et cetera.

If a fellow were working in a factory and jointing the same length boards over and over, I could see having a jointer tailored to that length.

[Chris Hachet]

Short answer, no, it will not be satisfactory.

In my shop, the #6 is actually the most frequently used plane. It is capable of jointing boards up to 24" after that I use a jointer plane.
It is my preferred plane for truing the faces of boards.

As for jointing a long board, then cutting, I would cut boards to length first, then joint.
IMO, jointing an 8' board will take more time than jointing 3 or 4 shorter lengths.

Pretty much this. I have a #8 sized wooden plane with a chip breaker which is lighter and easier to sue over long edges. For most other jointing I use a #5 or a #6. With a little practice, I got 36 inches plus out of the #5, I can do a 48 inch board if I am patient.

[lowell holmes]

What's interesting is that the #6 Bailey is left out. I have a 1940's #6 that is a good plane, but for some reason I don't use it. It will joint about as well as as the 607 I have.

I also have a 5 1/2 Bailey that I like. It is longer than a #5 and wide. It does a pretty fair job smoothing large boards and will do a bit of jointing as well.

I don't disagree with Kees and Warren.

[Pat Barry]

A cooper's jointer is usually far longer than that thing.
I've seen (pictures) of those monsters that approach 6 ft long and today I found a video showing how (at least one person) uses it. He sets the plane into his bench vise to hold the plane and then pushes the wood across the blade. Don't know if this is common but at some point a plane as long as something like that would take Superman or the Incredible Hulk to use as a traditional joinery plane.

[steven c newman]

Those long Cooper's planes use a stand. It held one end up, with the heel of the plane on the ground/floor. Just a matter of Gravity helping the cooper push a stave down the sole.

[Pat Barry]

It did turn out nice! The picture was very deceptive


That board was 36" long, the plane is 24"
336450
.



336433
Stanley No. 31....24" long. weighs about half of a Stanley
Steven, I have looked at this last picture quite a bit and I'm confident that there is no way the board in that picture is 36" long if that plane is 24". Not saying you didn't use a 36" board for your table, just that the picture of the board in the vise with the plane in the background isn't the same boards as the table.

[steven c newman]

Plane is 24" long. board was 36". there was about 8" between the end of the plane and the board. Toe does not reach all the way to the end of the board.

[Jim Koepke]

Plane is 24" long. board was 36". there was about 8" between the end of the plane and the board. Toe does not reach all the way to the end of the board.

It looks like there is another plane behind the first one. I can see the vertical edge of a toe on the closest plane.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

It did turn out nice! The picture was very deceptive


That board was 36" long, the plane is 24". I wrap the front hand around the body of the plane, using the knuckles as a fence. Board was part of a five board glue up
336450
Seemed to work out fairly well.....


After a few hours of using them bigger planes,,,sore forearms are the least of the problem.....shoulders.....the area of the back between the shoulders......neck gets stiff.....things like that. Good thing the biggest of the jointers is a bit lighter in weight..
336433
Stanley No. 31....24" long. weighs about half of a Stanley #8c did. Yeah, yeah, it only has a 2-3/8" wide iron.....didn't really need the extra 2/8" in width, anyway.


It looks like there is another plane behind the first one. I can see the vertical edge of a toe on the closest plane.

jtk
336490
There must be significant optical distortion because I don't see that board as 36 inches. Oh well...

[Steve Voigt]

Here's a cooper's plane I saw in Alsace last year. My shoe in the second pic gives a sense of the scale.

336492

336493

[steven c newman]

This one was a tad too big for the shop....
336544
No, that isn't patrick Leach, either. I don't wear plaid.

[Stewie Simpson]

The critical figure of merit here is the ratio of the workpiece length to the plane length. Claiming that a 5-1/2 (15" long) can't adequately joint a 24" board is equivalent to claiming that a #7 can't adequately joint a 35" workpiece, and I think we all know that's bunk.

Mike, for a 36" piece you'd ideally want a slightly longer plane but it will work if your technique is good. It's equivalent to using a #7 on a 53" workpiece, which isn't uncommon. At 24" the 5-1/2 is perfect.


The Australian Carpenter & Joiner; (1958; 1966; 1975; 1981; 1985) Fifth Edition; 1985 ; Volumes 1 to 5.

Try plane ; 560mm and 610mm long with a 60mm cutter, used mostly for shooting the edge of boards that are to be jointed together, but also useful for planing large flat surfaces to a perfectly level face.

Fore plane ; 450mm long with a 60mm cutter. This also makes a reasonable good job when shooting joints and planing large flat surfaces, and is more favoured generally than the try plane because it is lighter and fits in the tool kit more easily.

Jack plane ; 355mm long with a 50mm cutter, referred to as a No.5 plane. This is the plane that does most of the rough work and is a plane for general all- round work. This plane is the first favourite with tradesmen because it can be used for roughing off surfaces, and then by setting the cutter fine, for finishing off, and can be used fairly successfully for jointing short timbers.

Wooden Planes; when new, should have the aperture of the mouth stopped with putty, then filled with linseed oil, which in time will soak into the wood, filling the pores, and thereafter preventing the absorption of moisture. With planes, where it is impossible to do this, rub frequently over the surface with the oil until no further penetration takes place. Planes when out of use for any length of time should have their wedges released, as continued tension is harmful to the plane.

[Mike Holbrook]

When I originally made this post I was thinking about the whole idea of jointing, working edges, as a job typically done by a single try or jointer plane. I think this is where guys like Kees and Warren are coming from too, with their comments about exclusively using a #7 jointer. I think people typically think about jointing the relatively thin edge of a single board. When we glue up a bunch of boards to make a bench top though, I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

It seems to me that when we talk about flattening an entire bench top we might be well advised to go back to the coarse, medium and fine plane concept. We start with a coarse plane to do major stock removal, then move to a medium plane to start removing the deep tracks created by the coarse plane and then finish with a fine/smooth plane.

It seems to me, the unique thing about a jointer plane is it may be used like a smooth plane to produce a "final" surface, particularly on longer surfaces. So my question for the guys who apparently use a #7 for "all" jointing, is how they deal with the wide, heavy stock removal jobs? I don't think anyone wants to flatten an entire glued up bench top with a jointer set up with a close chip breaker for making fine shavings. Do some guys have multiple jointer planes set up for heavier and lighter cuts? The other alternative I see is using a scrub/jack for the heavy work followed by a jointer to remove plane marks and level the bench. I'm not sure whether or not a #4 type smooth plane should be used at all on a surface that long?

My main goal is to figure out the best way to make chair/table legs with hand planes. Some may not consider this jointer plane work. It is a little difficult to tell edges from top & bottom surfaces when you start with a 2x2" board that winds up an octagon. On the other hand, we might end up with eight edges on a single board.

[Jim Koepke]

My main goal is to figure out the best way to make chair/table legs with hand planes. Some may not consider this jointer plane work.

This is when the Goldilocks theory kicks in. A person needs at least one of each plane. Then they can be switched around until you find the one that is just right.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

I must confess that I am not a real plane monagamist :D. They are too nice not to have a few extras. At the moment I have a rather complete serie of Stanley's (#3,#4,#5,#6,#7, managed to avoid the siren call of the 1/2 sizes) and a full set of wooden planes from smoother upto the large jointer (7", 14", 16", 21", 27"), plus some random wooden planes that are just too cute to sell, but not being used much.

If planes weren't so much fun and if this would be my profession, I suppose I would be perfectly happy with just a #4, a #5 and a #7.

But to answer your question about large surfaces. A surface rarely needs the absolute flatness and straightness of an edge made ready for glue jointing. I use the rather conventional sequence of jackplane, try or jointer plane and smoother. The jointer makes the surfaces flat and true but often leaves some areas that need more attention, even with the chipbreaker set close to the edge. The smoother is perfect for that. The chipbreaker on the jointer isn't set at the optimum position for absolutely no tearout in any kind of board. It is set to reduce tearout as much as possible, while at the same time keeping the resistance as low as possible, while taking shavings as thick as reasonable. In the end everything is a compromise.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

My main goal is to figure out the best way to make chair/table legs with hand planes. Some may not consider this jointer plane work. It is a little difficult to tell edges from top & bottom surfaces when you start with a 2x2" board that winds up an octagon. On the other hand, we might end up with eight edges on a single board.

Here are my thoughts, taking into account that I think you indicated a lathe is not an option. I would make a jig to hold the legs. Rip two strips at a 45, and glue them to a board, so you end up with sort of a trough, with a 90 degree "V" in the bottom of the trough. Orient everything so you can put the square leg blank in the "V" with a corner sticking up. Put a stop one end. Glue a piece of scrap to the bottom so you can clamp it in your vise, or figure out some other way to hold it on the bench. Start by squaring your stock as you normally would. Then put it in the jig, and plane the corner that is sticking up. When half of the original "flats" are gone, rotate 90 degrees and plane the next corner, and so on.

As with so many things, the devil is in the details, and getting those eight sides pretty close to the same size so you come out with a respectable octagon, and not something else is going to take some attention to detail. I have done this with smaller pieces, and found counting "strokes" worked to get things the same size. With larger stuff, I think I would mark the centerline on all four faces before planing. Either way it is going to be a little bit tedious.

In terms of the plane setup, I would use whatever I have that would give me a moderately decent cut without making a mess. In my shop that would probably be my No. 7, and I would look to finish things with a couple of very light strokes from my smoother. I would not get too aggressive on the cuts, even if the first one seems to be going well, because the grain is going to change direction on you as you rotate.

I don't know if this is really what you are looking for, but hopefully it helps, and good luck.

[Mike Holbrook]

Good thoughts there Nicholas,

In the past I have just locked each leg in a vise with the corners straight up, which works decently. Maybe I could make a set of add on jaws to hold the legs in the vise...

Sounds like most people feel board edges for glue ups are not visible so not worth getting too worked up over appearance wise. Show surfaces get a final pass or two with the smooth plane.

I have odd wood planes, made from some of the last patterns that Steve Knight used. Think of something between a Japanese dia and a typical American/British design. They are not nearly as thick as many of the beech planes I see people making lately, more like a transitional. They are light compared to my metal planes. I have been trying to decide whether or not to adapt them to double irons. The problem being they are more designed for short irons. One is 15 1/2" long but lighter than a 5 1/2. I may add some camber to the single irons on this large Jack and experiment with it for heavy work, where tear out isn't a big deal. Kind of a trade off between weight helping and being tiring.

The other option is working green wood with a drawknife. A drawknife works many times faster than a plane on green wood, and the shave horse holds the work. If you have not seen Curtis Buchanan or Peter Galbert work a large blank, check it out on YouTube. In the chair classes I took we dried chair legs in simple kilns in a matter of days. I could at least "rough" out blanks and then decide how much refining I want to do to them with hand planes. The "issue" with this style work is everything is done by eye, there is never any set dimensioned board to work from. I am guessing a great deal of furniture was made like this a few centuries ago though.

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.jefflefkowitzchairmaker.com/chairmakers-journal/boggs-side-chair-build-21-hand-shaping-part-2-front-legs

[Mike Holbrook]

Thanks for the link Stewie (bookmarked). Good info. there, even though I prefer Windsor/stick chair designs to post and rung designs. For some reason I like the octagonal planed legs. I liked his legs best before he made them round.