Why do we focus on tear-out only with smoothers

[Chuck Hart]

Thanks Stewie for bringing up the concept of scrapers. Like several others here I use my 6 to do most of my planing. A very sharp blade and a tight mouth and cap always helps in making those less than .001 size shavings that clear up tear out. If that doesn't work then I bring out the scrapers. Tyler try out different planes and find the one you like best. Eventually you will find a plane or combination of planes that works for you.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek,

A quote from AP's book, page 45.

A number 7 jointer used for practically every hand planing operation, however short the timber. I keep 3 spare irons and only sharpen when all four are dull.

He certainly used machinery as much as possible. Not to would have been lunacy!

best wishes,
David

Hi David

Thanks - I do recall in Alan's book photos of wooden smoothers as well. I know much was made of his #7.

What has not been mentioned here is that #7 (or even your infamous #5 1/2 ) is an inefficient plane, unless the surface is flat. If it is used to smooth surfaces that are flat off a machine, then further thickness loss is minimal, and one may use any length plane to good effect. However, if the board or surface is not flat, then a long plane will remove more thickness than a short plane, such as a #3 or #4. That is generally a big reason to use a smoother.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tyler Keniston]

However, if the board or surface is not flat, then a long plane will remove more thickness than a short plane, such as a #3 or #4. That is generally a big reason to use a smoother.

That's an interesting point. I never thought of it that way, because I always assumed we would have created a flat board before smoothing. Certainly there are situations where a board we are smoothing is not perfectly flat, but I would have assumed that most of the time smoothing would be performed once the board has been trued (either by machine, or another plane). Perhaps I cling too strongly to certain ideals and hypotheticals that don't hold perfectly true in reality.

[Patrick Chase]

That's an interesting point. I never thought of it that way, because I always assumed we would have created a flat board before smoothing. Certainly there are situations where a board we are smoothing is not perfectly flat, but I would have assumed that most of the time smoothing would be performed once the board has been trued (either by machine, or another plane). Perhaps I cling too strongly to certain ideals and hypotheticals that don't hold perfectly true in reality.

Even if the board starts perfectly flat you may end up not wanting to keep it that way.

One way to deal with localized defects is additional smoothing of just the impacted area, which sacrifices O(mils) of flatness in exchange for not having to rework the entire piece. That's not so easy to do with a #7 (though of course you can always use a scraper instead of a smaller plane, and that brings yet another set of tradeoffs into play).

[Chuck Hart]

Silly me. When I thought we were talking about a smoother I ASSUMED we were talking about a FLAT board. Using a 6 on flat board to clear tear out is a reasonable effort

[paul cottingham]

I think that is folk lore ... not quite true. If you read his book, he predominantly used machinery, however he was equally adept with hand tools, and had a wide range of planes. If he used the #7 as much as reputed, it was for the mass rather than the length, and his boards were already pretty flat.

Yeah, I got that from an article written by Peters himself, where he talk about fitting hand made drawers. So I wasn't implying that he used it exclusively, just pretty much so when planing, whether smoothing, or jointing or whatever.

[Brian Ashton]

So perhaps this isn't even true, but I get the sense that when we talk about taming tear out with hand planes, we are generally referring to the last finishing step, i.e. smoothing. This is where focus on super tight plane set-up and fine shavings seems to be.
But are not the previous planing steps (not across grain of course) as likely to cause tear out, and even more so if we're not taking those whispery fine shavings we often take with smoothers?

I ask because I feel like I treat every planing operation (e.g. even when jointing) as if I'm smoothing; taking fine shavings as to avoid tear out. I actually don't own a smoother, though I'm looking to change that.

If the grain is perfect, perhaps its a moot point. And if its horrendous, it'll probably be tough no matter what and again moot. I'm thinking here about the mid range hardwood with some mild reversing grain and the like. Isn't every operation other than roughing across the grain going to be treated the same? If we can't take a thick shaving, we can't. It we can, we can. It seems like every operation would need to be treated with the same slew of anti tear out measures we use for smoothing.

So what I'm wondering is: what differentiates the operations at all? I think I want to buy a smoother, but why? I already feel like I am smoothing when I use my #7. Am I using the 7 wrong?

It probably has a bit to do with tradition and a bit to do with form and function.

When all you had to work with was hand planes you kept a couple to the side that were only for finishing up the work so they were in good shape and stayed nice and sharp. Back then you tended to do the heavy work with bigger planes and the blades would take a beating. So when it came to tidying up a piece, instead of pulling the blade and resharpening, you simply reached for the smoother that was nice and sharp and ready to go.

Smoothers, by comparison, are much more agile than a 7 or 6 and take much less effort to push. That also lends itself to the task as they're much easier to take skew cuts when having to adjust for planning a patch of difficult gain... They can also follow the subtle contours of a board better so taking really fine finishing cuts is better with them.

As you also said. If the planing is adequate right off the jointer plane why do anymore with any other plane. Unless you find it very therapeutic to make lots of shavings why waste the time and effort.

[Jim Koepke]

Unless you find it very therapeutic to make lots of shavings why waste the time and effort.

Brian, though I do agree pretty much with what you and others have posted the quote above plucked at my heartstrings. Some times watching a wispy, translucent shaving slowly fall to the floor can be quite therapeutic.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

A problem with using a #7 as a smoother, that a board that might have been very flat, isn't always remaining in that shape for ever. I don't finish my projects in a single afternoon, usually they take quite a bit longer! So, when the boards have been made flat, either by machine or with a handplane or both, they may be lying around for a while until I do the joinery, and then it takes even more time to get to the assembly. Smoothing is something to be done at the end, just before assembly, or after assembly when I can still work on them or after a sub assembly or whatever. They are rarely flat enough anymore at that point for a #7 to be efficient.

[Warren Mickley]

The trying plane is designed to true up a rough planed board, to make it flat and out of wind. A smoothing plane is designed to clean finished work, that is to remove scuffs, markings and such after joinery and just before glue up or finishing. A smoothing plane can be used for trying, but it is awkward. Likewise a trying plane can be used as a smoother, but it is clumsier. And when we reserve separate planes for these tasks we can set them up for their narrow range of work.

If the smoothing plane needs to take more than a superficial one or two shavings, the trying plane has not done its office. And if the smoothing plane does not take regular full length shavings, the surface will be of a lower grade.