rough stock removal

[Raymond Stanley]

I'm trying to get a routine down for dimensioning lumber by hand. The recommended first step is to remove cup, twist, etc. This is typically done with some tool or combination of tools for rough stock removal, before the face is flattened with a jointer plane and then finally smoothed.
For this rough stock removal step, who uses a jack or fore plane with a cambered blade, as opposed to a dedicated scrub plane + jack to remove crests?
This is what Chris Schwartz recommends.
If I could get by with one step instead of two before the jointer, I would prefer that.
Also, it seems it would be difficult to judge flatness of overall board as you go with the scrubbing, due to the crests.
However, I could see that if you really need to do lots of *thicknessing*, rather than just flattening, a scrub could do things more aggressively.

Any feedback would be great.

Thanks!
Ray

[Samuel Velleca]

My old Stanley scrub plane really takes it down fast. eyeball it and use winding sticks. I follow up with a no 6. etc etc

[Ken Bryant]

I use an LN scrub plane. I'm going to try the Chris Schwarz style, though. Have an extra blade for my LN bevel-up jack plane, and am going to try to figure out how to grind the right degree of camber.

Anybody have any advice about that grinding project?

[Mike Henderson]

I use a scrub, also. The problem with a regular plane with a cambered blade is that the blade is too wide which means that you take too much of a cut, which in turn tires you out quickly. I suppose you can adjust it to take a lesser cut but my scrub works fine (and fast) so I haven't felt the need to change. Scrubs sell for $40 -$50 on eBay so they're not too expensive.

As Samuel noted, following with a #6 works well. I have also used a #5 1/2 and that worked fine, also.

But let me comment that stock preparation is just hard work (if you're doing any amount of stock). I prefer to use power tools for stock prep and save my hand work for later steps. But sometimes, I don't have access to a jointer and I have to do it by hand.

Mike

[Roy Wall]

Raymond,

I use the LN #62 with a "toothed blade" for my rough stock removal....but I don't use it on "severe cases"....of twist and cup. This plane is a LA Jack size.

I already had the 62, and thought I could get more versatility with it by adding the toothed blade. It does make it more agressive for sure. Switching back to the original blade turns it into a regular LA Jack (which is the next step!)

[Tom Marchner]

I use my Lie-Nielsen scrub plane for flattening boards. I too wondered if the ridges and grooves it leaves would make it hard to use winding sticks but I've found that that is not a problem. It helps to make the cuts in a diagonal, cross-hatch pattern and evenly spaced. The reading I get from winding sticks agrees with the check I do when I put the board face on a flat surface and check for rocking.

I think I've had an insight into hand planes: there's a good reason why there is such a variety of hand plane types, good reasons for the design of each type, and good reasons to use just the right type for a given purpose. I love the feeling of getting a hand plane to do just what it's made for. That's what woodworking is really about!

[Bruce Branson]

I start with a early 90's Record #4 that I converted into a scrub and finish with a type 15#6 with a Hock blade and chipbreaker.I use the scrub almost straight across the board then take the #6 at about a 45° angle then straight down the board.At this point it is just about dead flat.

[James Mittlefehldt]

I am building a blanket box right now and my aim was to do it totally without electrons, if you don't count the lights and radio.

It is white pine so fairly easy to work, and for this project I am using a Veritas scrub plane, followed by a 07 Ohiio Tool jointer, and finish with the veritas 4 1/2 bench plane.

As Mike noted above it is hard work no doubt, but what has surprised me so far is the speed with which I can do the stuff. I have not as of yet gotten to the large sides so that should be a challenge, I am working on the plinth right now.

[Robert Rozaieski]

I just use a trusty old #5 with a cambered blade. I'm not convinced that a scrub plane's real intended purpose is rough flattening of a board's face. Seems counter-productive to me to purposely introduce deep troughs into a face you are trying to flatten. And the short length and narrow width of the plane also don't make a lot of sense to me for flattening. The fore plane (similar in size to a #6, much longer and wider than a #5, never mind a scrub with its narrow iron and body) would have been the first plane picked up in 18th century shops, from what I've read anyway. Scrub planes aren't typically mentioned in 18th century inventories (at least the ones I've seen).

I had a scrub and sold it. I didn't like using it. My #5 seemed to get a board's face to rough flat much faster than my scrub. Maybe just my technique but I doubt it. I use my #5 just like I used my scrub, first to remove twist (high corners), then to remove rough milling marks by planing across the grain, then diagonal in both directions before switching to a #7. I even wonder if my #6 with a heavy camber on the iron (not currently set up that way) won't work even better than the #5 albeit it will be much heavier.

Seem's Chris isn't so convinced that a scrub was intended for a board's face either.

http://www.wkfinetools.com/tUsing/art/scrubPlanes/scrubPlanes1.asp

[James Mittlefehldt]

Based on what he says in that article I gather the CS thinks the scrub was more of a carpenter's plane than a joiner's plane and he may be right.

I once talked to a fellow about scrub planes and he brought up what Scwartz said about there being little or any reference to them prior to Stanley's introduction. His thoughts were that the older guys being both practical and thrifty probably used an old jack or coffin smoother with a too wide mouth,for that purpose.

The blanket box I am doing right now I surfaced with a scrub plane to start and the boards did not have much cup or twist, but even though it takes deeper groves when surfacing by the time I finished the boards in question they were still 7\8 thick. So I don't think the amount of surface removed is that radical. I do agree however that it is a job and a half.

I love it when these threads turn to historical discussions.

[Eric Sabo]

I am using an oldish Stanley #5 (cheaper model, not a nice one, but it works) set to cut deep with a slightly cambered but very sharp blade to dimension and remove some cupping/twisting/warping from some Figured walnut I have here. Its not an extensive amount 48" board, 6-7" wide and 13/16 thick.

Its taken me quite a while, and a few honings to get it, but I am darn clsoe now. I've got probably 3 hours into fixing the problems (which were pretty bad), but I need to improve my technique quite a bit. I'd like to try a scrub but I'm not entirely convinced it would make that much difference, especially considering my lack of experience.

[James Mittlefehldt]

Further to my previous post I just came back in from the shop and I had occasion to use the scrub plane as a rough jointer as per C. Scwartz, and he was right it works very well for that purpose, I was quite surprised.

Eric I once did some rough planing of some white ash with a Stanley Bailey 5 and while not the ideal, it had a regular blade, and it wasn't cambered it served okay, as it was all I had at the time.

[Tom Marchner]

Robert, your post is interesting. I guess there are always lots of ways to do something. When you say you use your #5 I guess that means a Stanley #5 or equivalent. Do you have an actual Stanley #5 or an equivalent made more recently? And what type of plane is this called, i.e. a jack plane, smooth plane, etc?

Thanks.

[Robert Rozaieski]

Mine is an older Stanley #5 with low knob and keyhole style lever cap (I don't know the type as I've never really been interested). It's commonly known as a jack plane. Think "jack of all trades" as I believe this is how they were marketed.

Historically, for dressing rough lumber, a fore plane (similar in size to a stanley #6) would be used first (think beFORE). After the fore plane, a try/trying plane (similar in size to a stanley #7 or #8) would make the faces and edges flat and straight (a process commonly referred to at the time as trying the face/edge). Finally the smooth plane would put the final surface on the board.

For a historical perspective on types of planes, Adam Cherubini's article in one of the past issues of Popular Woodworking is excellent. I believe the title of the article is something like "Rumplestilskin is My Name" and the article basically talks about how the historical name of a plane can tell us a lot about what it was/is typically used for.

A lot of what he talks about in the article makes a lot of sense. For example, to make something straight/flat you use a long tool (try plane) so only the high spots are planed. The long plane makes doing this automatic. With a short plane (scrub and even the jack which is what I normally use) you need to keep checking for high spots. Slows the process considerably.

The more I think about it the more I am considering putting a heavier camber on my stanley #6 and trying it out as a true fore plane rather than using the #5 for rough planing. The only thing stopping me is the big difference in weight between the #5 and #6. This is the advantage of a wooden fore plane. It would be much lighter and less tiring to use for taking thicker shavings during the roughing stages but would still have the advantage of a longer sole to start the flattening process. Unfortunately, I don't have one.

But using a longer roughing plane like the fore plane would begin bringing the board into flat during the roughing stage resulting in much less planing at the trying stage.

[Tom Marchner]

Thanks for the info, Robert.

[Raymond Stanley]

Thank so much everybody for the info. It seems we have people in both camps - scrub then jack, or straight up cambered jack or fore. Please keep the info coming, this is a great discussion!
As a follow up question...I am currently building my first workbench...which is my first woodworking project...and my first all handtool woodworking project. For removing twist/cup on my construction grade 2x4s that I am laminating (no specific thickness needed, just flat), I have not found the need for a heavily cambered bench plane or a scrub. Specifically, I have just put a few extra passes where needed with a 5.5 jack set up like a jointer (no camber, medium cut). Then I take the jack and joint the whole surface. And it seems flat. Does anybody else get away with just a plane set up as a jointer, for all flattening? Are the people working with cambered bench planes with rank cut or scrubs working with really ugly lumber?
Thanks!
Ray

[Robert Rozaieski]

When I built my workbench all I used to flatten the top was a stanley #7 set up as a try plane (mild camber).

I camber the irons of all of my surfacing/truing planes. This includes my smoothers, #5 jack, #6 fore, #7 try. Cambering the iron eliminates the plane tracks that can be left behind when planing a surface wider than the iron (board face) and is also useful for squaring an edge to a face, if necessary.

On the other hand, all of my joinery planes have irons that are ground straight with no camber. This includes my #78 rabbet plane and #33 jointer plane. The reason for a straight edge on a joinery plane should be obvious...you want the straightest, flattest edges when mating two or more surfaces together such as in rabbets and edge joints. For match planing the edges of two boards, the straight iron of the jointer plane aids in making the complementary angles that result in flat panels when glued together.

[Wiley Horne]

Hello Ray,

This is my first post on SMC if my name is unfamiliar. But decided to jump in here as this is a favorite topic.

Nearly all my woodworking begins with roughsawn lumber. This is timber that is right off the mill's bandsaw, and has never been planed. If you start with roughsawn, it takes a different procedure than if you're starting with S2S, S3S or S4S.

I use a 15" wooden jack plane without exception to get started, and have recently added an 18" woodie fore plane. The jack plane blade is cambered with a radius of 5-1/2"--Bill Clark of C&W lays it out with a coffee can lid or somesuch that is 11" diameter; draws an arc on the blade; grinds back to the arc, and then bevels the blade. This plane is bedded at 50 degrees, and if it were a low-angle plane, then it would take a shorter radius to get the same results. I have an LN40-1/2, which is a very fine plane, but it hasn't seen much duty since I got the woodie jack. Between the jack and the fore plane, you're pretty much flat when you get done, and all that remains is to remove the 'channel lines' with the jointer. I like that neither the jack nor the foreplane will be removing any meat from the low areas of the board. What the cambering does is make it easy. Might add that I do rough cross-cutting before beginning the flattening, in order to preserve as much thickness as possible--if I face joint a 9- or 10-foot board without crosscutting, I remove way too much wood, which is useless work, and give up too much thickness.

Anyway, at one time I would tackle a roughsawn board with a straight-bladed 5-1/2, say, or a 65mm Japanese plane, and it was just too much blade in the cut. Way too much effort, and way too long to get results. It's like the difference between night and day to tackle boards like these with a well-cambered blade--it cuts the effort down to where it doesn't wear you out. The cambered blade gives you a deeper cut, but less blade in the cut, and kind of a skewing effect which makes the cut easier. I do one side by hand, and run the other side through a thickness planer. All the edge-jointing is done by hand.

I happen to really like woodies for the initial stock preparation. But no reason that a metal plane with similar camber wouldn't get the same results. The woodie is lighter, is all, if you have a stack of boards to do.

Now if you're starting with dimensioned lumber, less camber is needed, and particularly if it's a softwood 2x4. I do agree with Bob Rosaieski that every bench plane benefits from some camber, other than a true jointer for match-planing.

Wiley

[greg Forster]

Just ran across this discussion. My tools and books are all in storage:(, so dimensions may be a little off. The 18th c foreplane and the 19th c foreplane (what most people are thinking about) are two different animals. The 18th c foreplane is a much smaller tool.
I have three 18th c planes set up as foreplanes ( wide mouth,cambered iron and no chipbreaker) One was probably converted from a larger bench plane and is 3" wide.
The other two, I feel, are "original" 18th c foreplanes for initial planing on 18th c ROUGH-SAWN ( much rougher than what comes off a modern bandsaw) lumber.
They are slightly over 2" in width with a 1-3/4" iron.
Curiosity got the best of me and I tried one of the smaller planes on some rough-sawn (very furry) white pine. Planing across the grain, this plane made short work of the job and provided a good surface for a trying plane(22" long, with slight iron curve). Before, the trying plane just skidded over the board's surface. The plane I used has a maple body and offset open tote. A thumb impression on near side and impressions of three fingers on the other side show how the plane was gripped. (How much planing does it take for your fingers to wear major depressions into a piece of maple?). The other "original" foreplane is yellow birch; and no makers mark on either of the two smaller planes.
The larger plane is beech and has the stamp of a late 18th c & early 19th c New England plane maker. (I just can't remember who, sorry).

"With Hammer in Hand" by Charles Hummel, has some photos of 18th c planes, showing the narrow width of the foreplanes.

Also, the discussion`on the Stanley scrub 's "true" purpose is quite interesting. Would reading the patents provide some insight?

[Ian Gillis]

Also, the discussion`on the Stanley scrub 's "true" purpose is quite interesting. Would reading the patents provide some insight?
I did a little searching and came up with a blog entry by Chris Schwarz of Woodworking Mag.

I don't know if blogs are considered forums under the TOS, but I'll stick my neck out for a good cause.

http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/Scrub+Planes+A+Curious+Animal.aspx

Also if anyone has a #40 with patent numbers they can now search the Patent Office records via Google Patent Search. Nice interface and very fast. (No, I'm not affiliated - I only wish I was !)

Cheers
Ian G

[Raymond Stanley]

Thanks for the info everybody! Great discussion!
How much camber do those who use a jack or fore put on their blade for rough stock removal?
-Ray

[Ian Gillis]

On the #4 that I use as a scrub I don't camber per se - I radius the blade. On the grinder I swing the tail of the iron as I grind. I guess that the radius is between 6" - 8". It's all done freehand and by eye and I don't think its critical by any means.

In my mind, the scrub plane does what the curved adze did in earlier times. It knocks down the high points on your plank and prepares it for the straight adze or the jointer. A jackplane with a moderate camber can be used to remove the ridges left by the scrub and make the jointing go faster. I guess that the camber on the jack means that the center of the blade is about 1/16" proud of the wings.

I think the main idea is to make a progression between humpy and flat. Let each plane refine the finish left by the previous plane. Use winding sticks and a straight edge as your guide and keep progressing towards a flat face.

Cheers
Ian G

[Ruston Hughes]

This is another great thread on preparing rough stock and I always learn a little more each time I read one. To me, the question of scrub or no-scrub comes down to how much stock needs to be removed to get the surface flat and to the correct thickness. If the stock doesn't require much to get it flat I'll skip the scrub and go straight to a lightly cambered #6 using diagonal strokes. However, if there's a lot of stock that needs to be removed I find the scrub makes quick work of it. Once I get close I switch to the #6 to clean up the groves and finally to a #7 for final flattening.

I believe the key to using a scrub is the frequent and accurate use of winding sticks and a straightedge. Unless you can effectively identify and remove the high spots a scrub can do as much damage as good.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Hi Ian, When the Terms of Service were written, blogs were not too common and hence weren't considered when writing the TOS. As such, there is no specific prohibition to linking to them. Please note that we would ask you to be very careful in choosing any blogs you link to. As a family forum, we want to be careful not to expose members (youthful or otherwise) to profanity, sexual content, or political or religious material. We ask that you do no more than exercise good judgement.

In the specific case of Chris Schwarz and PWW, the link would be encouraged because it is germaine to the discussion, and both Chris and PWW would not publish on a website any objectionable material.