Plane Order for Dimensioning Boards

[Mike Holbrook]

This may sound weird, but in answer to Patrick's statement about neander methods failing when it comes to roughing out pieces. I beg to differ.

More recently a good deal of the wood I work is split from actual green logs. Green wood is relatively easy to split with simpler neander tools like, wedges, froes, gluts, axes...The resulting pieces can actually be roughed into shape fairly easily with a drawknife, axe, adze, large spokeshave...

The "rough" pieces created with these "older" methods typically have near perfect grain orientation, which certainly makes planing them later much easier. Yes it is more steps, some different skill sets and you may want a drying kiln. Still if we are talking neandering and having fun doing it. Working green wood is a real pleasure, at least for me.

[Patrick Chase]

This may sound weird, but in answer to Patrick's statement about neander methods failing when it comes to roughing out pieces. I beg to differ.

I didn't say "failing". I said "least payoff" in comparison to using neander methods for other phases of preparation.

Nothing you've said directly contradicts that.

[Mike Holbrook]

Not trying to contradict you Patrick, just starting from a "different" raw material. My point being that people tend to only think of starting from "manufactured" lumber. I got interested in chairs, which got me started down a little different line of thought.

If we want to "neander", what could be more neander than starting with a log? Today I am working on glued up, store bought, SYP panels, trying to plane them into raised panels. Even with a good plane, chip breaker and sharp blade I still get tear out trying to take large shavings. I am just saying that green wood is usually much more pleasant to work with and it is easier to do with simpler tools too.

Sure there are many projects that sort of demand manufactured wood, which is why I tend to look forward to the projects that I can use green wood for.

[Jim Koepke]

I didn't say "failing". I said "least payoff" in comparison to using neander methods for other phases of preparation.

Nothing you've said directly contradicts that.

"Least payoff?" I do not have any power planers or jointers. planing rough cut lumber gives me a good cardio workout and the payoff for that is priceless when my blood pressure is tested.

jtk

[Mike Holbrook]

Right Jim, and with green wood you get to swing a sledge and an axe, lift a few weights (wedges & logs)...I usually work up a decent sweat. Especially wrestling large oak logs in this kind of weather, even using a peavey.

[Brian Holcombe]

Prepping by hand will also teach you quite a bit about your material selection.

[Jim Koepke]

Right Jim, and with green wood you get to swing a sledge and an axe, lift a few weights (wedges & logs)...I usually work up a decent sweat. Especially wrestling large oak logs in this kind of weather, even using a peavey.

Today my grandkids and I are out with a chainsaw and Block & Tackle pulling some fallen trees up the side of our hill.

Kind of fun with a bit of intermittent rain to keep us cool.

jtk

[Pat Barry]

Today my grandkids and I are out with a chainsaw and Block & Tackle pulling some fallen trees up the side of our hill.

Kind of fun with a bit of intermittent rain to keep us cool.

jtk

So you use the chain saw to automate the block and tackle? Very creative Jim. What do the grandkids do?

[Roy Lindberry]

Hello,
I just watched Rough to Ready with Rob Cosman and I was surprised to see that his process for dimensioning rough lumber was... Scrub Plane, Jointer Plane, Smoothing Plane. Is this the process that most here follow? I am starting with a Jack Plane and a Smoothing plane. Am I not starting out correctly? I thought the Jack Plane was recommended to be the first plane one should buy.

Thanks for your comments.

That is a good video by Cosman. I learned a lot by watching it. Note, however, that it makes little difference whether you use a scrub or a jack plane (properly set up). Both are what are called roughing planes. The traditional fore plane was an English style, while the scrub hailed from continental Europe, if I remember correctly. It is just two different styles to accomplish the same end goal.

Dimensioning lumber is really all about the job, not the specific tool. If you were to do it with a belt sander, you would start with a very coarse grit, move to a medium grit, and finish with a fine grit. Planes are the same way. You do the grunt work with a coarse tool (fore plane or scrub plane), the initial flattening with a medium tool, usually a bit longer (try plane or jointer plane), and prep the surface with a fine tool (the smoothing plane).

Myself, I rough with a Stanley #5 with an 8" camber on the blade. My intermediate step is a Stanley number six with a much less pronounced camber. Finally, I generally smooth with a Stanley 4 1/2 with a very, very slight camber. My jointer is a Stanley #8 with very little camber. This is my basic setup, though I do use others when I feel it is necessary.

But, like sandpaper, you can skip from coarse to fine if that's all you have: you just might need to spend a little more time with the fine tool. This is why many have suggested that you get a second iron for your jack and set it up for better jointing and flattening. You could also back off the frog on your smoother and take a heavier cut as an intermediate step, if you like. Working with hand tools is about finding out what works best for you. What meets your own preferences (some think the #4 1/2 & #8 are too large and prefer are #3 or #4 & #7), and what tools you currently have will help determine your road map to reach the same destination. If you have time, take a look at this link and watch "hand plane essentials": http://www.pbs.org/woodwrightsshop/w...2012-episodes/

[John Glendening]

You're right, Roy. The "normal" approach is always coarse, medium, fine. But every rule/approach has exceptions. The materials may dictate something else, and technique and experience will play. Ask Paul Sellers about using a #4 - for everything. But, sometimes neither he nor you would want to do that.

[Stanley Covington]

EDIT: Most people follow a rough-joint-smooth progression, but not necessarily with scrub, jointer, and smoothing planes. It depends on personal preference and scale of work.

The scrub is absolutely not necessary. Many people prefer Jacks (#5) or Fores (#6) with cambered blades for roughing, while others prefer the smaller/narrower and simpler scrub. All of them work perfectly well. Also if you're buying pre-dimensioned then you don't need a roughing plane at all.

The question of the jointer is a bit trickier. A common rule of thumb is that planes will easily flatten stock up to twice their length, where "easily" means that you don't have to measure and iterate. You can go longer with moderate effort. Your #5 is therefore very suitable for jointing up to ~28" work pieces, and longer with care.

The one catch is that roughing and jointing optimally need different blade configurations. Most people find that efficient roughing requires a heavily cambered blade (rounded edge profile), whereas jointing requires a straight or minimally cambered blade. If you were going to get one addtional thing I would therefore suggest an extra blade for the #5, so that you can reconfigure that plane between roughing and jointing by swapping blades. If you're limited to one blade then set it up for jointing and accept that your rouging will be a bit inefficient (unless you like the "scalloped look" :-)

Absolutely disagree. If one is doing all handwork (this is a forum about using handtools, remember), and one is starting with lumber that is not already S4S, and one values their time, then a scrub plane is an absolute necessity.

A jack will do the job of a scrub plane, but much slower and with more effort. Unless, of course, you are talking about a jack that has been setup as a scrub plane.... which makes it what?? Oh yea, a scrub plane.

Contrary to what Mr. Schwarz might suggest, if you are using an electric or hydraulic powered jointer and/or thickness planer in your shop to dimension lumber, or are using lumber previously planed and jointed by machine by others, then you are not dimensioning your lumber entirely by hand. Nothing wrong with that in the least, but it is counterproductive to tell newbies that don't own power planers and jointers that a scrub plane (or equivalent) is "absolutely not necessary" just because it is not necessary in your shop. Remember the context. Practice reading comprehension.

[Brian Holcombe]

I would not recommend doing this for getting a lot of work done, but I have worked Jack then smoother before. On very highly figured crotch table tops that will not really allow for wide and heavy long grain passes, in which case I prefer narrower and lighter passes.

So, it can be used to help get going, but you'll want to move to more efficient process quickly.

[Roy Lindberry]

You're right, Roy. The "normal" approach is always coarse, medium, fine. But every rule/approach has exceptions. The materials may dictate something else, and technique and experience will play. Ask Paul Sellers about using a #4 - for everything. But, sometimes neither he nor you would want to do that.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. I am a fan of Sellers, but I note that he generally (if not always) begins with pre-dimensioned wood. He does do a lot with a #4, though, that I'm not likely to do such a jointing 4x4s for a workbench.

I didn't intend to say that the general approach is the only way. My intent was to say that there is a general approach, but every individual will have to find what works for them and their tool kit. My apologies if it came out wrong.

[Patrick Cox]

"Least payoff?" I do not have any power planers or jointers. planing rough cut lumber gives me a good cardio workout and the payoff for that is priceless when my blood pressure is tested.

jtk

Totally agree. Also no screaming machines.

[Patrick Cox]

Thanks for all of the replies. All very helpful. And I also watched the pbs video that was recommended. That was helpful as well. I have a better idea of what I need to be working towards.