Never square; I can't joint straight.

[david charlesworth]

My "Hand Planing" DVD is designed to show methods for the precision planing of a component sized piece of timber.

All 6 faces are explained, and it is available from L-N.

Best wishes,
David.

[Jim Koepke]

What is the advantage of a longer plane in jointing?

A longer plane, other than a #5-1/4, will have wider blade and more mass along with more length.

A #3 will be rocked by any variance in the surface it is planing. It will follow the contours of the surface. A larger plane, #5 and up, will be less influenced by bumps and valleys.

Yes I know some say you can do it all with a small plane. I would bet I can join an edge quicker with my larger planes.

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

It depends on the work that you're doing. Of course for prep work I think that a 7 or a try plane is good, but sometimes a fine plane is helpful. For instance, I'm working on the cabinet back currently and jointing it with a 4 plane because I'm going around mitered corners and a fine setting is something that offers more assurance at that juncture. I check my work with a straight edge to ensure that I'm not going astray.

[James Waldron]

A couple of thoughts here:

One of the first things stated by the OP was that he practiced until the board wasn't usable any longer. He also mentioned planning off over an inch. A part of the problem here may have been that he kept practicing whatever error caused the problem until is was deeply ingrained. When something isn't going right, a Good Idea is to stop and think or stop and correct (something) or stop and get help. Practicing the wrong thing won't ever make it get better.

Second, there has been a lot of very good advice given in the thread by highly experience, highly able, highly articulate and highly respected people. Following their good advice is a good thing to improve one's technique. Even so, one key aspect of this issue is not amenable to suggestions by the experienced - mainly because they are so experienced that they can't actually articulate what it was that got them there. I would suggest that "seeing square" or "feeling square" is such an issue. I routinely plane square edges and know they're at least damned close even before I check with my engineer's square. But can I tell you how I know that other than in "touchy-feely" terms that don't help anyone else? Absolutely not. Can I tell you any specifics of how I gained my sight and touch? Not a chance. I can't even tell you when I attained such a capability. All I do know for sure is that the capability is the result of experience.

I can remember my lacrosse coach denying the Five Ps, "Practice Prevents Piss Poor Performance" were good enough. For him only the Six Ps are enough: "Perfect Practice Prevents Piss Poor Performance."

That "Perfect Practice" comes from assimilating all the good advice given above and implementing it with care. Go Mr. Charlesworth one better: periodically stop, check for square, and then sit your plane on the edge and look and feel what you've got without planing, just looking and feeling. Then continue and check again. With experience, the sight and feel will come.

Learning the technique requires a bit of an investment beyond planing the edge of "this" workpiece to get on with your build. But like any investment, you have to invest wisely.

[Don Morris]

Not much replaces experience.

[Robert Engel]

What is the advantage of a longer plane in jointing? I assumed that it was just straightness. If that's the case, I can achieve a straight, flat surface with a smoothing plane over a fairly long surface. But, is it also an issue of guarding against twist and such when planing the edge of boards? I could see how a short plane would allow for more twist to be imparted.

Imagine a long board with waves. A short plane will ride the waves up and down while the long plane will just skim the tops. The longer the board, the more important to have a jointer plane. Yes, as I said before, I think a wider, heavier plane is more stable and less prone to tilting.

Troblem for a lot of guys is the cost of a one-task tool. Even a vintage Stanley will be upwards of $200.

My advice is don't get frustrated, but having the right tool to do the job is the key . In addition to the correct plane, you also need an accurate square, a straight edge, and some winding sticks.

It takes a lot of practice. The masters with experienced eyes and fine tuned muscle memory make it look easy.

[Warren Mickley]

The hills and valleys explanation has been around for a while, but is lacking in real world experience. If a #3 plane is inadequate for a 12" board, then surely a #7 plane is inadequate for a 29" board. In fact it is no problem planing a board that is two or three times (or more) as long as the plane.

What is needed is skill and understanding, not equipment. I made full size furniture without a jointer and bought one only when it was justified by my level of business.

[Tom McMahon]

No matter which plane or planning method you use it will not make a straight square board by itself. The operator must be aware of the high and low areas of the board and only remove the material needing to be removed. You can't just push a plane [any plane] across a board and expect the board to become square or flat. It's not the plane it's the operator.

[Kees Heiden]

A relatively long plane certainly makes the work a whole lot easier!

[Patrick Chase]

The hills and valleys explanation has been around for a while, but is lacking in real world experience. If a #3 plane is inadequate for a 12" board, then surely a #7 plane is inadequate for a 29" board. In fact it is no problem planing a board that is two or three times (or more) as long as the plane.

What is needed is skill and understanding, not equipment. I made full size furniture without a jointer and bought one only when it was justified by my level of business.

Yup. This came up in another thread a few wks ago when somebody tried to argue that a #6 wasn't long enough for a 36" board IIRC (I know it was 2X, just not positive about which plane). Similar math, same conclusion.

[Patrick Chase]

Imagine a long board with waves. A short plane will ride the waves up and down while the long plane will just skim the tops. The longer the board, the more important to have a jointer plane. Yes, as I said before, I think a wider, heavier plane is more stable and less prone to tilting.

Troblem for a lot of guys is the cost of a one-task tool. Even a vintage Stanley will be upwards of $200.

Unfortunately the jointers have joined the #2, #10-1/2, #62 and many others in the category "tools that are at least as economical to buy new as vintage".

w.r.t. hills/valleys you can deal with those with a short plane. Good woodworkers can feel when a shorter plane is on a high spot or dip and adjust accordingly. For the rest of us a straightedge does the trick - just check your work frequently and take partial strokes on the high spots. I've done a 4' board with a #4 that way and gotten good results.

[Jim Koepke]

I've done a 4' board with a #4 that way and gotten good results.

Can it be done? Of course it can.

Would it be easier to work an edge true and square on an 18" piece of wood using a #5 or #6 compared to a #3? For myself, yes.

jtk

[Tom McMahon]

I would give you that a longer plane could make it easier to make an edge flat, but how does a longer plan help with square?

[Jim Koepke]

I would give you that a longer plane could make it easier to make an edge flat, but how does a longer plan help with square?

The short plane is more prone to follow the hills and valleys. Sometimes those are side to side. It is also easier to use the 'finger fence' technique with a longer nose on the front end of the plane. When I have an out of square edge the plane is held up off the low side and a narrow shaving is taken on the high side. With my thumb pressing down on the toe of the plane it is easy to ride this narrow ridge to take a slightly wider shaving. Repeat until a shaving the full width of the workpiece is taken, check and repeat as needed.

Some folks like to use a camber on their plane blades. With a #3 plane on 2X material with any more than the very slightest camber there may be parts of the work not being touched by the blade. Others have mentioned with using a larger plane and cambered blade they only need to move the center of the plane to the high side to achieve a square edge.

Mostly I do not used cambered blades, but in theory it sounds quite reasonable.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

1) In this case, I was using a Stanley No. 3 on a fairly short piece. I've had the same trouble on a variety of planes (a Japanese plane, and a few other wooden or western planes), and a variety of pieces. Much the same results in all cases.

2) I don't know. That is a good point. Maybe I'm being too much of a perfectionist. But, it is important in some cases where you want the edges to fit squarely, at say a 90 degree angle to another piece. The difficulty is, that with such a narrow piece, if you're a millimeter, or even half a mil low on one side, that can translate into say 10 degrees or so.

3) If I were edge gluing, I wouldn't worry so much about squareness. I'd just joint both pieces at once and they'd match regardless. Basically, I just want nice 90 degree corners; partially for aesthetics, and partially for functionality, when I want to have that edge register against another at 90 degrees.

It's somewhat of a matter of just not feeling that my level of accuracy is within acceptable standards. I'm not a huge stickler for having everything perfect, but sometimes things are just off enough to potentially cause problems.

There are few situations in which you really need to be perfectly square with a jointed edge, other than when jointing the edges for an edge glued panel. Even then there is an alternative as you described. If you do find yourself in a situation that requires a perfect square edge then look into the various shooting board jigs and find one of those that will work for you.