# The Super Smoother thing...



## iNewbie (10 Jan 2013)

Excuse my newbie ignorance. 

I've noticed a recommendation of using the 5 1/2 Jack as a Super Smoother. Would this do-away with the need for a 4 1/2 smoother? 


Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Racers (10 Jan 2013)

Hi, iNewbie

No, its considered bad form not to own at least on of each size/type of plane.

Pete

p.s. the extra mass and length helps.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jan 2013)

and you definitely need a Stanley, a Record and a Marples in each size as well.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Jan 2013)

iNewbie":18sxpaiz said:


> Excuse my newbie ignorance.
> 
> I've noticed a recommendation of using the 5 1/2 Jack as a Super Smoother. Would this do-away with the need for a 4 1/2 smoother?
> 
> ...



In the vast majority of cases, yes. Of course a 5 1/2 is a lot longer and heavier than a No.4 so if you have a LOT of smoothing to do then the No.4 might be a little less tiring. I suppose it also depends on the actual size of the timber you need to smooth.


----------



## Vann (10 Jan 2013)

iNewbie":2ecdk29k said:


> I've noticed a recommendation of using the 5 1/2 Jack as a Super Smoother. Would this do-away with the need for a 4 1/2 smoother?


Maybe it would do away with the need for a large smoother like the No.4½, making a No.4, or even a No.3, a better choice as a second smoother - for finer work :| 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2013)

iNewbie":3q50cnrd said:


> Excuse my newbie ignorance.
> 
> I've noticed a recommendation of using the 5 1/2 Jack as a Super Smoother.


Really? A bit big for a smoother but ideal as a jack -if you only have one this is the one to have.


> Would this do-away with the need for a 4 1/2 smoother?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any advice.


I've never found much use for a 4 1/2 - it's also a bit big for a smoother but if you have one you could keep it set up for smoothing - less camber, steeper effective angle etc. Or swap it for a 4.


----------



## Racers (10 Jan 2013)

I was using a No8 on a small very thin piece of wood the other day. it had a long enough toe to cover the whole piece of wood, and hold it down against the bench stop, I was having problems with it shooting over the stop as the top is slightly chewed up.
So you don't know when a different sized plain will come in useful.

Pete


----------



## iNewbie (10 Jan 2013)

Racers":1n169lif said:


> No, its considered bad form not to own at least on of each size/type of plane.



I have no intent in becoming the Imelda Marcos of planes.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jan 2013)

iNewbie":f9se1ygp said:


> Excuse my newbie ignorance.
> 
> I've noticed a recommendation of using the 5 1/2 Jack as a Super Smoother. Would this do-away with the need for a 4 1/2 smoother?
> 
> ...



Smoothers are conventionally as short as is convenient, since they're meant to alter the surface texture, not the surface shape.

The workpiece should already be flat when you smooth it, courtesy of long planes used in earlier stages of stock prep.

So - in short - I wouldn't recommend the #5 1/2 as a smoother, certainly not a dedicated one.

BugBear


----------



## Fromey (10 Jan 2013)

I agree with Bugbear. Arguably you use longer planes to true up boards so they are flat. *One *use for a smoother is to work on localised areas of tearout. That will, by necessity, create small areas of depressions in the wood (hopefully not so much as to be noticeable). If using a longer plane (like a 5 1/2) you may find it gets progressively more difficult to cut down into the depressions and so smooth out the tearout. Just my off the cuff thoughts on the matter.


----------



## speeder1987 (10 Jan 2013)

Until Christmas my shortest plane was a no.5 which I used for pretty much everything.

For Christmas I got a qangsheng (excuse the spelling) no as a dedicated smoother. It makes a big difference, much easier to work on localized areas of the wood. There's a reason why they makes planes of different lengths!!

So you can use a no5 if you needed to, but I definitely recommend a dedicated smoother. 

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bugbear (10 Jan 2013)

Fromey":1pevzuao said:


> *One *use for a smoother is to work on localised areas of tearout.



I saw Mario Rodriguez demonstrate this using a LN #102 block plane with a narrow mouth (special order) and a high EP blade.

That's a mighty localised smoother.

BugBear


----------



## iNewbie (10 Jan 2013)

Luthier Brian Burn's only plane is a standard Veritas Block Plane - with an extra blade for figured wood. :shock:


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2013)

Alan Peters is reputed to have only used a no 7. That's a daft idea too!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (10 Jan 2013)

Since all the bench planes - numbers 1 to 8 - are of pretty much the same basic design, differing only in length, width and consquently mass, you could in theory make any of them perform any bench planing task. There's no law saying you can't if you want to, either. 

However, it's usually most convenient for most woodworkers to use a medium-sized plane with a coarse setting and a wide mouth for preparation work, a long plane with a tightish mouth and not-too-deep setting for truing-up boards after initial heavy stock removal, and a small nimble plane with a tight mouth and fine setting for final finishing and refining surfaces for fit or finish.

So in general - number 5 or 5 1/2 for heavy stock removal, 7 or 8 for truing up, 3, 4 or 4 1/2 for smoothing. Which one you choose is as much down to the scale of the workpiece and to personal prejudices and preferences as anything else.

But, if you fancy using a 5 1/2 as a smoother, go right ahead. Ain't no law agin it!


----------



## David C (13 Jan 2013)

I would bet fairly large sums, that those advising you not to tune a 5 1/2 as a smoother, have never tried it.

What have you got to lose? It can always be detuned again.

The small workshop usually has a planer thicknesser. I do not often find myself hand planing away more than a few thou, to remove machine ripple and snipe, and to check accuracy.

No 4s feel light and insubstantial to me, local removal of tearout with one of these is going to produce hollows in a surface. The length of a 5 1/2 is a very useful aid to maintaining straightness.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth.

And Alan Peters was in no way daft.


----------



## iNewbie (13 Jan 2013)

Hi David. Do you still use the 5 1/2 when you come up against gnarly wood? Or, what do you do. Thanks.


----------



## David C (13 Jan 2013)

Yes, with a back beveled blade.

David


----------



## Jacob (13 Jan 2013)

David C":3rvwtthy said:


> I would bet fairly large sums, that those advising you not to tune a 5 1/2 as a smoother, have never tried it.
> 
> What have you got to lose? It can always be detuned again.


Yebbut why bother when you have a better alternative i.e. a smaller plane? If you have it working nicely as a jack it's best to leave well alone IMHO.


> The small workshop usually has a planer thicknesser. I do not often find myself hand planing away more than a few thou, to remove machine ripple and snipe, and to check accuracy.
> 
> No 4s feel light and insubstantial to me, local removal of tearout with one of these is going to produce hollows in a surface. The length of a 5 1/2 is a very useful aid to maintaining straightness.


Except you are likely to get new areas of tear-out if you attempt to smooth the whole of a surface, which is why you want a small plane to enable you to get at small areas of tear-out. Bin there dunnit - and got the belt sander out!


> And Alan Peters was in no way daft.


So do you use a 7 for everything? If not why not?


----------



## Fromey (13 Jan 2013)

So this begs the question, why were No 1 through to 4 1/2 ever made?


----------



## woodbrains (13 Jan 2013)

Jacob":1h0m5o8v said:


> Alan Peters is reputed to have only used a no 7. That's a daft idea too!



Hi,

Not reputed, said and wrote in his own words that he did. His furniture, being held in high regard as it is, contradicts entirely that it is a daft idea. It really rather proves that it might be something worth at least giving a try before dismissing as daft.

Wouldn't a No 5 1/2 be something akin to the size and at least aproaching the heft of a Norris panel plane, a super smoother of sorts? Of course it is not a law that a 5 1/2 or even a 7 should be used as a smoother, but it is not to be dismissed, either, if it works and is a personal preference.



Jacob":1h0m5o8v said:


> Except you are likely to get new areas of tear-out if you attempt to smooth the whole of a surface, which is why you want a small plane to enable you to get at small areas of tear-out. Bin there dunnit - and got the belt sander out!



If your plane is truly sharp and well set up for the task, why would you be any more likely to get new areas of tearout, because the sole is longer? If there is tear free areas from the thicknesser, these will not be likely to tear from the hand plane. so why not level the whole surface with a long plane, deal with the tearout there is and not create localised hollows.

Resorting to the belt sander is evidence that the plane used is NOT likely to be sharp and well set up for the task, however.

Mike.


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Jan 2013)

I use my #7 more frequently than any of my other planes and often for finishing work. Can't understand why some people see the use of a #7 as daft.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## David C (13 Jan 2013)

Well said Paul & Mike.

I have certainly used my 7 for finishing work. It is a very well balanced plane.

David


----------



## Jacob (13 Jan 2013)

woodbrains":266iv9lq said:


> .........
> Resorting to the belt sander is evidence that the plane used is NOT likely to be sharp and well set up for the task, however.
> 
> Mike.


Have you ever tried to finish a large table top (3' x 7') of tricky wood*, entirely by plane? I guess not. 

Can we have some WIPs from our planing wizzos? Not just little samples in a vice but real projects?

*This was some very variable sycamore, cross grained, knotty, and strangely fibrous in parts. You can nearly get it all down but then it only takes a bit of tear out and you have to start again unless you accept the slight hollowing from smoothing locally with a small plane or a scraper. I tried it too with sapele tops and these too get nearly all the way there but never 100%. It planes really easily but tears out easily too.

What is a 'balanced' plane? Which are the unbalanced planes?


----------



## Jacob (13 Jan 2013)

Paul Chapman":1gfu8nwz said:


> I use my #7 more frequently than any of my other planes and often for finishing work. Can't understand why some people see the use of a #7 as daft.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul


Recent WIPs?

PS I was quite into the _completely hand finished without sanding or scraping_ idea but it's often not possible. Depending on the wood, the bigger the project the less possible it is.


----------



## Racers (13 Jan 2013)

Hi, Jacod

Don't know why you don't believe people and I don't know why I am posting this as you won't believe it but, I re-plained my teak table top just before xmas with a No8.







Pete


----------



## Jacob (13 Jan 2013)

Racers":3gpf5w5l said:


> Hi, Jacod
> 
> Don't know why you don't believe people and I don't know why I am posting this as you won't believe it but, I re-plained my teak table top just before xmas with a No8.
> 
> ...


That's incredible Pete. Well done! Difficult wood and entirely the wrong plane! 
Have you made many of these tables and would you finish _entirely by hand_ with a no8, next time?


----------



## Vann (13 Jan 2013)

woodbrains":1sl2fjt6 said:


> If your plane is truly sharp and well set up for the task...
> 
> Resorting to the belt sander is evidence that the plane used is NOT likely to be sharp and well set up for the task, however.


Come on, this is Jacob you're talking about :!: 

Of course his planes aren't *sharp* - He uses coarse oilstones for final honing, and that silly rounded bevel.... (hammer) 

Cheers, Vann :wink:


----------



## matthewwh (13 Jan 2013)

If it were called 'small try plane' rather than 'super smoother' I think people would find it easier to understand DC's concept.

Good quality machinery will get the timber to a similar state of accuracy that would be achieved with a jack plane in the traditional role. On small components (less than three feet for arguments sake) a 5 or 5-1/2 is plenty long enough to achieve an accurately flat surface. The way that the plane is set up is very similar to that of a smoother, and it will produce a smooth surface, but the plane is not performing the function of a smoother (to produce an aesthetically uniform surface, even if not perfectly flat, with minimal change to dimension).


----------



## Richard T (13 Jan 2013)

Exactly Matthew - try plane. For truing up. 

I think that "Jack", and "fore" get all too often confused. A narrow 14" er with a 10" camber + is a fore and a 5 - 1/2 is meant to be a Try with less camber; - for taking the high spots off.


----------



## Sawyer (14 Jan 2013)

Jacob":3kiuvzaq said:


> Have you ever tried to finish a large table top (3' x 7') of tricky wood*, entirely by plane? I guess not.



I have, often and agree with Jacob. My usual sequence: no. 5, no. 6, no. 4 or 4.1/2, then a cabinet scraper. If this leaves a few infinitessimal hollows, so what? If something is genuinely wrought by hand, then it's allowed to look like it, in my book.


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Jan 2013)

Jacob":1woi9yln said:


> Can we have some WIPs from our planing wizzos? Not just little samples in a vice but real projects?



Table tops can present problems because boards are often arranged for appearance rather than grain direction. There are various options for dealing with this to avoid tearout, such as back bevels on bevel-down planes or steeper angles on bevel-up planes. I tend to favour the scraper plane, which I find virtually foolproof. This 3' diameter table top in oak was finished entirely with a scraper plane











The advantage is that you don't get the tearout in the first place. Dealing with localised tearout using a card scraper risks depressions that can stand out like a sore thumb on something like a table top.

Some people say that a scraper plane does not leave such a good finish as an ordinary plane but I've not found that.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (14 Jan 2013)

There you go then - 2 votes for the scraper so far.

A back bevel on a BD or a steeper angle on a BU basically turns them into scrapers, or in that direction anyway. So a "5 1/2 super smoother" which can finish 'gnarly wood' or whole table tops, has merely been adapted to become a scraper. A Stanley 80 does the same job with a lot less fiddling and 'tuning'.

MODERATED TO REMOVE ANTAGONISTIC COMMENT


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Jan 2013)

You do love to distort things, Jacob, by putting your own interpretation on what people say. I would say that I try to use the most appropriate tools and techniques for the particular job in hand. For finishing that might be a scraper plane but in another situation it might be a different tool or technique.

My previous post was just one example of a tool and technique which I judged to be best for that particular situation.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (14 Jan 2013)

Vann":1nrfuipe said:


> woodbrains":1nrfuipe said:
> 
> 
> > If your plane is truly sharp and well set up for the task...
> ...


Yes they are


> - He uses coarse oilstones for final honing,


No I don't


> and that silly rounded bevel.... ....


Still waiting for someone to tell me what is silly about it. :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Jan 2013)

#-o Why does every thread involving planes, chisels and sharpening things end up in the same place? #-o


----------



## Racers (14 Jan 2013)

You need to look for the common denominator.

Pete


----------



## iNewbie (14 Jan 2013)

phil.p":15e6bpoq said:


> #-o Why does every thread involving planes, chisels and sharpening things end up in the same place? #-o



Being _abrasive_ is living-on-the-edge of bluntness.


----------



## bugbear (14 Jan 2013)

Jacob":39a0njto said:


> Racers":39a0njto said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Jacod
> ...



Apparently it wasn't the wrong plane, judging by results 

"Someone" on this forum keeps banging on about it only being the woodwork that matters, not the tools.

BugBear


----------



## Fromey (14 Jan 2013)

phil.p":1my2ju73 said:


> #-o Why does every thread involving planes, chisels and sharpening things end up in the same place? #-o



And with the same people......


----------



## Jacob (14 Jan 2013)

Fromey":1cdchsa0 said:


> phil.p":1cdchsa0 said:
> 
> 
> > #-o Why does every thread involving planes, chisels and sharpening things end up in the same place? #-o
> ...


Fair questions.
1 "same place" - perhaps because there's a long held cultural divide between a traditionalist approach (as represented by Sawyer's post above, which I also support) and a whole set of 'new woodwork' ideas with people fiddling with sharpening techniques, bevels, steels, expensive modern tools, which is fine except that they tend to be somewhat dogmatic (and irritable) about the various quasi-magic formulas they keep turning up with. There is a clue in their tendency to attack the messenger rather than attend to the message.
2 "same people" - because they (we) are the ones interested obviously.

All good fun though!


----------



## Racers (14 Jan 2013)

Or something to do with the green words in one of the above posts.

Pete


----------



## SammyQ (14 Jan 2013)

Oh dear, not so much droll as troll.........................AGAIN!!!


----------



## Dodge (14 Jan 2013)

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH CHAPS -LETS CALL IT A DAY THERE PLEASE BEFORE THIS THREAD DETERIORATES FURTHER.

ANY POSTS THAT DO NOT PROVIDE POSITIVE INFORMATION ON THE TOPIC WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT NOTICE


----------



## marcros (14 Jan 2013)

Paul,

What plane is that one please?

Also not a question, but a good example there of the veritas wonder dogs in use.

Mark


----------



## Racers (14 Jan 2013)

Looks like a Veritas to me.

Pete


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Jan 2013)

marcros":klmyvz0g said:


> What plane is that one please?
> 
> Also not a question, but a good example there of the veritas wonder dogs in use.



Hi Mark,

It's the Veritas scraper plane. It comes with a thin blade which you can bow like the one in the #80 style scraper. You can also get a thick blade for it, which I have, but I prefer using it with the thin blade.

I saved two of the pieces when I cut the circle. I planed them a bit thinner, then slipped one piece over a bench dog







and used the other piece with two bench pups






It held the top really well  

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## marcros (14 Jan 2013)

Racers":2pogjshq said:


> Looks like a Veritas to me.
> 
> Pete



in which case, with the budget set at the more expensive of the two, would the veritas scraping plane or the veritas BU smoother be the better buy of the 2 for finishing an awkward table top? in short, could either be used for the job?


----------



## Jacob (14 Jan 2013)

marcros":7s75jqf4 said:


> Racers":7s75jqf4 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like a Veritas to me.
> ...


The veritas BU smoother (I've got one) is very good and better (as a smoother) than any of the BD planes, but may reach a limit on difficult wood - at which point a scraper is the next step. Or a ROS.
But doing the whole thing with a scraper looks like hard work to me.


----------



## marcros (14 Jan 2013)

i have a ROS, so may spend my hard earned on one of the BU smoother family then.


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Jan 2013)

marcros":1ht3gtjg said:


> may spend my hard earned on one of the BU smoother family then.



If you are considering a bevel-up smoother, you might want to have a look at the LN #164 http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?grp=1256

I've recently bought one. It uses a modified Bailey-type blade adjuster which is nice in that you can advance the blade while using the plane. With the Norris-type of adjuster used on the Veritas BU planes, you need to slacken off the lever cap before adjusting the blade so as not to damage the thread over time, which I find a bit of a faff. Just a small detail but makes the plane much nicer to use when doing very fine work.

Haven't had a chance to compare it with the scraper plane yet for planing really difficult wood.

David Charlesworth has published quite a few articles in Furniture & Cabinetmaking on the use of scraper planes; steep angles on bevel-up planes; back bevels on bevel-down blades and is currently writing stuff on very closely set cap irons. They all concern dealing with tearout so might be worth reading if you haven't done so already.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## marcros (14 Jan 2013)

cheers, i will have a look.


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Jan 2013)

Jacob":15an2en9 said:


> But doing the whole thing with a scraper looks like hard work to me.



It doesn't have to be, Jacob. In that example I posted, the boards were well prepared before glue up and they were carefully aligned with biscuits, so the top was very flat and I didn't need to remove much material. The shavings with the scraper plane were about the same thickness as they would have been if I'd used a smoothing plane and the scraper plane, if well sharpened, is not hard to push - probably easier than a smoother with a high effective pitch.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Racers (14 Jan 2013)

Hi,

A scraper plane isn't difficult to push, and you can make your own for next to nothing.

Here's one I made earlier.






Pete


----------



## marcros (14 Jan 2013)

Racers":2egjvt0u said:


> Hi,
> 
> A scraper plane isn't difficult to push, and you can make your own for next to nothing.
> 
> ...



do tell how, Pete, what did you start with, what did you add to it etc etc?


----------



## Racers (14 Jan 2013)

Hi,

Its just some bits of steel cut and welded together.














And a blade made from 3mm O1 steel.

That's all there is to it.

Pete


----------



## Dangermouse (14 Jan 2013)

marcros":ay93bv8q said:


> i have a ROS, so may spend my hard earned on one of the BU smoother family then.


You could also consider this BU smoother / jack too

stanley-62-sweetheart-la-jack-plane-t67083.html
I think its stunning and at £88.00 inc postage a bargain.


----------



## Jacob (14 Jan 2013)

Paul Chapman":r89emcam said:


> ....With the Norris-type of adjuster used on the Veritas BU planes, you need to slacken off the lever cap before adjusting the blade so as not to damage the thread over time, which I find a bit of a faff. .....


Yes the Norris adjusters are hopeless. You just ignore them and use a little hammer instead.


----------



## Dangermouse (14 Jan 2013)

Jacob":2htlkrmo said:


> Paul Chapman":2htlkrmo said:
> 
> 
> > ....With the Norris-type of adjuster used on the Veritas BU planes, you need to slacken off the lever cap before adjusting the blade so as not to damage the thread over time, which I find a bit of a faff. .....
> ...


Depends on how much of a hurry you are in.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Jan 2013)

In my opinion, both David and Jacob are correct - it is just that neither have clarified the conditions for working the way they do.

Starting with the bottom line, if a panel is flat and smooth straight out of a preparatory stage, then there is no need for further smoothing. For example, whether using a power jointer or a hand jointer, flat and smooth is an end result.

If some finish work is required, such as removing minor scars, and if the panel is flat (as immediately off a jointer/thicknesser, then a #5 1/2 will work very well since it will not remove much from the dimension. If a surface is flat, even small localised areas can be planed. If I went down this path, the LV LA Jack would be my choice.

That is not my preferred method since much of what I do is worked by hand and/or needs careful attention as the wood is seriously interlocked. If there is moderate tearout, and I need then to protect the dimensions, the smaller/shorter the smoother the better. There is a reason a traditional coffin smoother was 6 1/2" - 7 1/2" long. 

My preferred smoothers are LV SBUS (generally set with a 62 degree cutting angle), LN #3 (with 55 degree frog), and a 7" BU infill I built (60 degree cutting angle).

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------

