# How flat can you plane your work? With a flat plane?



## ivan (11 Aug 2009)

There was some mention of this in a related thread on flattening plane soles, where someone mentioned that a plane will flatten wood only until toe, cutting edge, and heel are just touching. In short, producing a shallow curve through these three points. This is sometimes shown as a diagram in text books. _However, I believe this is wrong._

Why? well consider the process of taking stop shavings*, also often quoted as a good way to ensure a flat surface. This makes the surface very slightly hollow (2 or 3 thou or so) to allow subsequent use of a square with no possibility of it rocking.

You keep taking stop shavings until the plane does not cut - nothing coming out of the mouth. It is at *this* point you have produced the slight hollow as defined in paragraph one above. You have planed a hollow of a shaving's thickness over the length of the plane (or 2 shavings thickenss over twice the length etc.) 

_Then_ you take full passes (ie. over the full length of the timber) until you get a continous, full length shaving. At this point the surface should be still slightly hollow, but less hollow than as described in paragraph one above.

The effect of a convex sole will be to increase the depth of the hollow produced by this process by roughly the amount of the convexity. A hollow, concave sole reqires the iron to be set further out before it cuts full shaving, and the above process may produce a convex surface, which you don't want.

At this point we'd better consider the bending of the sole under planing action. My Record No.8 will deflect** between 1 and 2 thou under firm downward planing pressure, and my Clifton 6 about 1 thou. In practice a well set plane requires little pressure to maintain a cut, and a firm downward load is only applied as the toe leaves the end of the board. However, the possibility of sole flexing suggests a slight hollow in the length may be less of a problem in a try plane.

From this you can see roughly how flat a plane's sole needs to be. Your best smoother, probably as flat as you can*** if you like a planed (no sanding) finish, and your try plane not more than a thou or so hollow.

It looks to me as if the old addage of para. 1 is only half the story; maybe the rest (if my thoughts are correct!) got lost in the rapid decline in handwork as working wood became industrialised.

* Stop shavings: start and finish planing about 1 cm from the edge of the work to introduce a hollow over the length. Repeat this till plane stops cutting. Now take full length shavings until you get a continuous ribbon from edge to edge; then stop.
** plane resting on mouth and heel, measured by clock gauge about half way in between, with load on the tote.
*** wet/dry or lapping film on cheap granite surface plate.


----------



## Paul Chapman (11 Aug 2009)

ivan":2lep0qot said:


> At this point we'd better consider the bending of the sole under planing action. My Record No.8 will deflect** between 1 and 2 thou under firm downward planing pressure, and my Clifton 6 about 1 thou.



I'm always rather amused about all this talk of planes flexing. While it has been shown that they can flex with enough pressure, do you really lean on your planes that hard while planing :? If you need to, it's probably time to sharpen your blade :-k 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (11 Aug 2009)

ivan":ow82mblj said:


> ..flatten wood only until toe, cutting edge, and heel are just touching. In short, producing a shallow curve through these three points


A plane sole should touch in three points, not two as described. Toe, immediately in front of the cutter and at the heel, but that aside if I worried about the absolute flatness (or not) of a bit of wood I'd never get anything made. As long as the timber can be prepared to my requirements so that I can make stuff, I'm happy  Whether it's flat to within a gnats dooberie is purely academic - Rob


----------



## xy mosian (11 Aug 2009)

woodbloke - Rob, I agree entirely. Is it fit for purpose? This is my own over-riding test.

xy


----------



## David C (11 Aug 2009)

Well, 
Ivan's post almost exactly describes the technique which I demonstrate in my second DVD, for flattening a component which is roughly the same order of magnitude of length as the plane.

I will be talking about this and demonstrating "precision planing" at Westonbirt. Courtesy of Mike Hancock.

Slightly convex soled planes (in the length) work fine but significantly hollow planes do not.

We had two current Stanley No. 5 planes in the workshop this summer and they were both about 6 thou" hollow in length. With a two or three thou" shaving set, neither was capable of planing a straight edge.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbloke (11 Aug 2009)

David C":2chmvh1b said:


> We had two current Stanley No. 5 planes in the workshop this summer and they were both about 6 thou" hollow in length. With a two or three thou" shaving set, neither was capable of planing a straight edge.
> 
> best wishes,
> David Charlesworth


Back in the 70's I saw a Record No5 that was about 1 or 2mm concave...and it wouldn't take any sort of shaving - Rob


----------



## Caruso (11 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":2nbsrlls said:


> Back in the 70's I saw a Record No5 that was about 1 or 2mm concave...and it wouldn't take any sort of shaving - Rob



I would call that a compass plane.


----------



## bugbear (12 Aug 2009)

ivan":2yag3f0q said:


> There was some mention of this in a related thread on flattening plane soles, where someone mentioned that a plane will flatten wood only until toe, cutting edge, and heel are just touching. In short, producing a shallow curve through these three points. This is sometimes shown as a diagram in text books. _However, I believe this is wrong._



It's the most _concave_ surface a plane can make.

A plane can work a remarkably convex surface (and beginners often do...)

Further, working in "japanese smoother" mode (i.e. simply taking a uniform thickness shaving all the way), a plane will obviously _maintain_ a flat surface.

BugBea


----------



## ivan (12 Aug 2009)

I don't think flexing is important either; I just put it in because someone raised it on another thread. It took less than a couple of minutes to put a clock gauge on my No8, and see that it did give as described. The downward pressure I used was about what you'd use on the tote at the end of a stroke as the toe leaves the work; not very significant. (If you were to press Very Hard All The Time, you'd just reduce the effective length of the plane)

Stop shavings are a very very old technique, but I have not seen the link between them and the incorrect ,oft repeated addage, that a plane aways cuts hollow, mentioned anywhere else. As Bugbear says, it's the most concave surface that plane can give you. This has the advantage of repeatability, so the technique gives you consistent results at the bench. If it _doesn't_ work, you can also estimate what and how much tuning up you have to do!

Woodbloke, I believe you may be missing the point. It's _when the plane *stops* cutting _that toe, cutting edge and heel are just touching. And a plane sole is flat enough if you can use the stop shaving technique and end up with the _work_ a couple of thou hollow. It's the wood wot gives the answer!


----------



## woodbloke (12 Aug 2009)

ivan":1rs5j4nk said:


> It's _when the plane *stops* cutting _that toe, cutting edge and heel are just touching.


Ah...I see your drift now. Agreed - Rob


----------



## David C (12 Aug 2009)

My experience is that if one starts with a straight edge, it will become more and more convex as one takes repeated through shavings. The more shavings taken, the worse the convexity becomes.

I would be very interested to hear from anyone who is prepared to try this simple experiment. My results are based on an edge about 15 to 20 inches long, using a No. 5, 5 1/2, or 6.

If two edges are prepared the need for an accurate straight edge can be avoided.

Planes do not maintain flatness. We always have to work with "stop" shavings to preserve it.

This is in stark contrast to a well set machine planer, which can maintain flatness.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## xy mosian (12 Aug 2009)

I am reading this thread with a great deal of interest.

Mr. Charlesworth, you have reminded me of a niggling thought. That is as everyone knows. The effective plane sole before the cutter is not co-planar with the effective plane sole behind the cutter on a planing machine. I have been trying to find a scruffy old plane to achieve the same effect on a hand plane. In use I would set the cutting edge of the plane flush with the rear bed.
Now I do not mind the hand work in removing some of the sole but doubt that I can do this with any great degree of accuaraccy.
I can imagine a hand plane with an adjustable sole. Of course it would have to be in the form of a rebate plane to avoid problems. In fact a hand electric plane with a fixed blade and quieter having no motor.

xy


----------



## bugbear (13 Aug 2009)

xy mosian":2xu2m3ha said:


> I am reading this thread with a great deal of interest.
> 
> Mr. Charlesworth, you have reminded me of a niggling thought. That is as everyone knows. The effective plane sole before the cutter is not co-planar with the effective plane sole behind the cutter on a planing machine. I have been trying to find a scruffy old plane to achieve the same effect on a hand plane. In use I would set the cutting edge of the plane flush with the rear bed.
> Now I do not mind the hand work in removing some of the sole but doubt that I can do this with any great degree of accuaraccy.
> ...



You would need a different "sole step" for each depth of cut!

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Aug 2009)

xy mosian":1oou734g said:


> I have been trying to find a scruffy old plane to achieve the same effect on a hand plane.



People have experimented with this in the past but it's never got anywhere. As BugBear says, you'd need to keep varying the front sole as the depth of cut varied.

Stop shavings are a far easier option - and it works :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## xy mosian (13 Aug 2009)

Good points fellas. Although I was not aware of previous trials, which of course suggests failure. I had got around to thinking that a maximun thickness for a hand driven cut would be not much more than 10 thou, 0.25mm, and that in softwood. That puts my adjustable sole in the bin, it would be very difficult to organise a range of adjustment between 0 and 10 thou.

Right back to sleep for me then.

xy


----------



## bugbear (13 Aug 2009)

xy mosian":wi2gz9r5 said:


> Good points fellas. Although I was not aware of previous trials, which of course suggests failure.



It suggests no improvement over "normal" planes. I think "failure" is a little strong!

BugBear


----------



## ivan (13 Aug 2009)

It's not only beginners who can produce a convex edge! I find it quite hard to start a cut "correctly" with shorter planes, even a 5. You haven't got that much toe to set the level for the first few cms of the cut

Perhaps it's time to think a bit more about Alan Peters technique - use a No 7 for everythng. Perhaps the real old timers used longer planes than we think, like the bloke in the background of the archive film on tv*. For all that, past generations of handtool craftsmen using the stop shavings technique would stop taking through savings when the first or second continous shaving appeared. This sugests they expected their plane to gradually turn slightly concave into unwanted convex.



* using tryplane with lenght of over half his height


----------



## xy mosian (13 Aug 2009)

Bugbear, sorry this was shorthand for "Failure to be an improvement", which I assumed was the purpose of the exercise.

xy


----------



## Karl (13 Aug 2009)

ivan":1nh0yhre said:


> Perhaps it's time to think a bit more about Alan Peters technique - use a No 7 for everythng. Perhaps the real old timers used longer planes than we think, like the bloke in the background of the archive film on tv*.
> 
> * using tryplane with lenght of over half his height



I find longer planes much easier to use than, say, 5 downwards, even on shorter stock (shorter than the length of the plane, that is).

I am in the process of building a long wooden jointer, and originally cut the stock to 36". I have trimmed it down to 30", but now wish that I had left it at its original size and tested the performance of a 36" jointer. 

Maybe if this one turns out ok i'll make another :shock: 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Aug 2009)

Karl":36v2srbd said:


> I have trimmed it down to 30", but now wish that I had left it at its original size



But Karl, it's still longer than Rob's, so you are in the lead in the "Size Matters" stakes :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (13 Aug 2009)

Paul Chapman":2gif87l3 said:


> Karl":2gif87l3 said:
> 
> 
> > I have trimmed it down to 30", but now wish that I had left it at its original size
> ...



Big Woodie at 28" is more than long enough...a decent 6mm Phillyblade though has made a big difference - Rob


----------



## bugbear (13 Aug 2009)

xy mosian":2m21vo8k said:


> Bugbear, sorry this was shorthand for "Failure to be an improvement", which I assumed was the purpose of the exercise.
> 
> xy



I just thought you were being a little harsh on your own idea!

BugBear


----------



## David C (13 Aug 2009)

Still hoping someone will do the experiment and report results!

Just ten shavings off each straight edge.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Karl (13 Aug 2009)

woodbloke":2t0l5zov said:


> Big Woodie at 28" is more than long enough



Hi Rob 

I'm not being flippant when I say this, but long enough for what?

I've never really understood the relationship between the length of edge that can be straightened with a given size of plane. But it seems to me that a longer plane will flatten an edge easier than a short one. 

What size plane will flatten the edge of an 8' board? I suspect that a #7 will be too short, and will follow any overall deviance in the edge (ie if it is already hollow in its length, the #7 may take off any intermittent bumps, but the overall degree of holowness will largely remain). I've experienced this problem myself on numerous occasions. 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Aug 2009)

Karl":28sz3zts said:


> What size plane will flatten the edge of an 8' board? I suspect that a #7 will be too short, and will follow any overall deviance in the edge (ie if it is already hollow in its length, the #7 may take off any intermittent bumps, but the overall degree of holowness will largely remain). I've experienced this problem myself on numerous occasions.



I've wondered about this on the odd occasion when I've had to plane a really long board. Maybe the answer is to knock up a shooting board from an 8' length of MDF, as long as the edges of that are straight.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Karl (13 Aug 2009)

Paul Chapman":1zxsadgo said:


> I've wondered about this on the odd occasion when I've had to plane a really long board. Maybe the answer is to knock up a shooting board from an 8' length of MDF, as long as the edges of that are straight.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



I've been considering doing just that for my new workbench - a jig which can be popped in place to allow the easy squaring and straightening of long stock - or short stock for that matter. 

I'll add it to the list..... :lol: 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Paul Chapman (13 Aug 2009)

Karl":16jzivum said:


> I've been considering doing just that for my new workbench - a jig which can be popped in place to allow the easy squaring and straightening of long stock - or short stock for that matter.



That's a great idea, Karl 8) If it were drilled out to line up with the dog holes on your bench, it would be very easy to put on and take off - and perhaps a couple of folding wedges to take up any slack. Might do one myself some day........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Karl (14 Aug 2009)

Hi Paul - I made something similair a while back







It didn't have a guide for the plane as seen in a traditional shooting board, but the plane was used on its side to square the edge of a board. It worked well, but was cumbersome to store so I got rid of it in the end. Because it didn't have the guide for the plane to run up against, it didn't automatically straighten an edge either - that was still down to me.

The next one will have to be less cumbersome to remove and store, and will also need to have the guide for the plane to run against. 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## bugbear (14 Aug 2009)

Paul Chapman":1zghotbf said:


> Karl":1zghotbf said:
> 
> 
> > What size plane will flatten the edge of an 8' board? I suspect that a #7 will be too short, and will follow any overall deviance in the edge (ie if it is already hollow in its length, the #7 may take off any intermittent bumps, but the overall degree of holowness will largely remain). I've experienced this problem myself on numerous occasions.
> ...



Long edge shooting boards were used historically, but only to keep the edge square. Contrary to end-grain shooting boards, the planes were run on the workpiece, not a guide.

This may be due to the difficulty of "feeding" a large workpiece after each shaving, which is easy to do with small, end grain work.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (14 Aug 2009)

Karl":9jzbkmwe said:


> woodbloke":9jzbkmwe said:
> 
> 
> > Big Woodie at 28" is more than long enough
> ...



http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php? ... t_thread=1

http://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/sag.htm

BugBear


----------



## Karl (14 Aug 2009)

bugbear":1kawdc2v said:


> This may be due to the difficulty of "feeding" a large workpiece after each shaving, which is easy to do with small, end grain work.
> 
> BugBear



This, I believe, will be the main stumbling block. I think an alternative approach to "feeding" the work will be required. 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## woodbloke (14 Aug 2009)

Karl":2lj5hx97 said:


> woodbloke":2lj5hx97 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Rob
> ...


Hi Karl - for me to use comfortably  If the thing gets any longer, it then _may_, in my very 'umble opinion :lol: start to become too unwieldy to use at the bench. I thought 28" was a sensible, practical length to make it - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 Aug 2009)

bugbear":3giznxyp said:


> http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php? ... t_thread=1
> 
> http://www.liutaiomottola.com/formulae/sag.htm



:shock: :shock: Blimey, BugBear, that was as clear as mud :lol: Easier to just plane the wood, I think, and see what happens........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul (who was never very good at maths  )


----------



## bugbear (14 Aug 2009)

Paul Chapman":1ow8vd2o said:


> bugbear":1ow8vd2o said:
> 
> 
> > http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php? ... t_thread=1
> ...



Of course, maths is true wether you understand it or not...

Just like gravity worked (very well) BEFORE Newton!

BugBear


----------



## ivan (15 Aug 2009)

David,
in case you're still looking for an experimenter...just got round to it. Put a piece of softwood over the planer, which gives me a hollow of about 3-4 thou over a 3' or so. Sawed off a piece the same length as the No.8 (stuff looked pretty flat under st. edge) and took off 25 good shavings (after the power cutter marks planed off). I wouldn't normally choose a plane this long. It was much easier to start; much less thumb pressure needed on the toe at the start, to hold it steady, despite the longer length sticking out in the fresh air. After 25 shavings the board edge still had a _very _slight hollow, seen as a sliver of light under the straight edge. How many shavings are you talking about, to produce a noticeably convex surface? Just the ten? Over what length with respect to the plane?

Will repeat, and try something longer later on today, and No.6, (but grandchildren in residence "Do you think you could make me a...")


----------



## David C (15 Aug 2009)

Ivan,

Thank you so much.

I am surprised, my 15 to 20" edges planed with a 5 1/2 become convex.

David Charlesworth


----------



## ivan (15 Aug 2009)

It's hard to be sure when under continual assualt by kneebiters, but my No 6 also maintains a _very_ slight hollow in the same piece. Will bear this in mind over coming days, and keep using longer planes than usual, and smoothers, with something more dense. 

The No6 is pretty flat end to end (75% eng blue) with slight oval hollow in middle of sole well behind mouth. No8 is as Record made it, still flat within no more than 1.5 thou total, but now has a slight twist in the "tail", so maybe needs a few passes over the granite plate.


----------



## Joel Moskowitz (16 Aug 2009)

A couple of things:

I would agree that a plane should be either 
1) flat or 
2) touching at the obvious 3 points
3) slightly convex.

if the #1 the plane works the most predictably on all timber. 
if #2 the plane will work fine but takes a little more skill - especially on very short timber in relationship to the plane. 
if #3 the plane will continuously follow the wood and produce a continuous shaving but not do much for accuracy.

When I first studied planing flat was a mystery then, since I mill wood by hand, a few hundred board feet of rough lumber hand planed taught me how to do it easy peasey. 

Very little of the above matters.

Here is how to plane just about anything flat in a trice. 

1 - with a shorter plane intentionally plane the wood slightly hollow. a jack plane is a good plane to do this with, gets rid of the rough spots and gives a hollow. 

2 - with the longest plane you have plane continuously from end to end. Initially you will only get shavings at the ends. but slowly - well not to slowly the long strokes will plane out the hollow and when you start getting continuous shavings for the length of the board. STOP. unless your plane is seriously concave you will have a flat surface. - certainly a flat enough surface for woodworking. 

With practice you can sight down a board and see if you are off.


----------



## newt (16 Aug 2009)

bugbear":3bz3mr3v said:


> Paul Chapman":3bz3mr3v said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":3bz3mr3v said:
> ...



I never said anything  regards newt


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Aug 2009)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## ivan (28 Aug 2009)

Quick follow up for David C, now grandchildren away home:

With newly sharpened blade in no.6, planed the ~600mm softwood as hollow as possible (no more cut) with stop shavings, leaving unplaned ends ~10mm each. S'wood tested on surface plate between 10 and 12 thou* hollow. 8th full length shaving was first complete one end to end, at which point hollow was 6 thou. 10 more reduced it to ~2 thou. Another 10 to reach 1.5 thou, and another 10 more no change. Pivot point remained at ends of stuff throughout. Estimated shaving thickness ~1.5 thou.

When using the stop shavings method I have always been careful to stop planing soon after 1st full length shaving, as taught years many ago, but for this plane at least, such caution is not necessary.

* feeler gauge


----------



## David C (31 Aug 2009)

Ivan,

Thank you for those interesting results.

Not what I was expecting.

When I take ten through shavings off a straight edge, say 16" long, with a 5 1/2, it becomes convex.

I was demonstrating this all weekend at Westonbirt, for Mike Hancock's Masterclass lectures. It was good to meet some of the forum members.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (2 Sep 2009)

David C":3dpnyigm said:


> When I take ten through shavings off a straight edge, say 16" long, with a 5 1/2, it becomes convex.



Interesting. 

If using a Japanese tuned smoother (2 point contact), which takes off (AFAIK) perfectly parallel shavings, continuous planing should leave the board straight, if (and, of course, only if) it started straight.

BugBear


----------



## ivan (2 Sep 2009)

One might be forgiven for wondering if David C's No.5 1/2 is just a trifle hollow? What does your engineering st. edge say, DC? Published photographs have shown DC flattening planes on plate glass, silicone sealed to timber? Possible plate glass edge distortion under grinding pressure? For what it's worth, I do mine on a granite surface plate from Ax. tht's about 700mm on the diagonal.


----------



## bugbear (2 Sep 2009)

ivan":342ziyex said:


> One might be forgiven for wondering if David C's No.5 1/2 is just a trifle hollow? What does your engineering st. edge say, DC? Published photographs have shown DC flattening planes on plate glass, silicone sealed to timber? Possible plate glass edge distortion under grinding pressure? For what it's worth, I do mine on a granite surface plate from Ax. tht's about 700mm on the diagonal.



IMHO there's more to making flat plane soles (should one believe such a thing important) than a flat rigid lapping surface 

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Sep 2009)

ivan":fnqnze6y said:


> One might be forgiven for wondering if David C's No.5 1/2 is just a trifle hollow?



I doubt it. In my experience, David is right - if you keep planing a piece of wood from end to end, without taking stop shavings, you will eventually plane it convex.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## David C (2 Sep 2009)

My experience tallys with Paul's.

My 5 1/2 and most of my other planes are all very slightly convex, due to failure to use Bugbear's superior flattening methods!

David


----------



## bugbear (2 Sep 2009)

David C":27ihht1e said:


> My experience tallys with Paul's.
> 
> My 5 1/2 and most of my other planes are all very slightly convex, due to failure to use Bugbear's superior flattening methods!
> 
> David



Which (of course) one might well expect to plane concave (the mirror image of a convex plane).

BugBear


----------



## newt (3 Sep 2009)

All my planes produce a convex surface, unless I significantly reduce downward pressure at the beginning and end of stroke. However I do not practice that technique only a reduction at the end. Bad practice to only use light pressure at the beginning as there is a high probability of not engaging the cut.


----------



## woodbloke (3 Sep 2009)

newt":prkhp2y8 said:


> All my planes produce a convex surface, unless I significantly reduce downward pressure at the beginning and end of stroke. However I do not practice that technique only a reduction at the end. Bad practice to only use light pressure at the beginning as there is a high probability of not engaging the cut.


Pete's description is the standard way to teach planing. Vertical pressure on the front at the start of the cut with an easing off (or removal of the hand completely) at the end of the stroke. Continual downward pressure at the end of the stroke will make the board, or edge go convex...just like the guy planing in the Wickes ad - Rob


----------



## bugbear (3 Sep 2009)

woodbloke":2a2pwdep said:


> Pete's description is the standard way to teach planing. Vertical pressure on the front at the start of the cut with an easing off (or removal of the hand completely) at the end of the stroke.



I'd seen that description, in some cases with a diagram, in several books.

An "a-ha" moment for me was when someone described it as "trying (and failing) to scoop out the middle of the board", which is much easier to visualise, and results in the same pressure changes.

BugBear


----------



## Jeff Gorman (6 Sep 2009)

Paul Chapman":1syefaeh said:


> ivan":1syefaeh said:
> 
> 
> > One might be forgiven for wondering if David C's No.5 1/2 is just a trifle hollow?
> ...



I wonder whether David's bench top is slightly hollow?

Though I haven't yet tried to repeat David's experience (that for me defies all logic) the workpiece will deflect while under pressure and return to a slightly convex form when pressure is released. 

Even a few thou's hollow can make a difference, which is why to reach some mild tearout at the mid-point of a length, I've had to put a few turns of a rolled-up shaving under the wood.

Jeff
www.amgron.clara.net


----------



## David C (7 Sep 2009)

Jeff,

I am well aware of the effects of timber deflection on a bench surface which is not flat.

This is why I suggested planing the edge of a 15 to 20 " board, about 4 1/2 inches wide. This is held in the vice. Mine is about 16" long.

The edge should not be subject to deflection.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Tim Nott (12 Sep 2009)

You must be the David Charlesworth that wrote the plane-tuning piece for FWW Sept-Oct 2004. I've just been applying it to an Anant jointer, with excellent results. The big problem was that they (Dick.biz) supplied a nice thick blade, but unless you set the chipbreaker about 5mm back from the edge, the shavings couldn't escape. So, doing the 15 degree mouth filing thing did the business. I haven't tried flattening the sole, but it seems pretty good in terms of performance. 
So, many thanks for the article.






David C":iw82t7gh said:


> Well,
> 
> 
> We had two current Stanley No. 5 planes in the workshop this summer and they were both about 6 thou" hollow in length. With a two or three thou" shaving set, neither was capable of planing a straight edge.
> ...


----------



## afreegreek (7 Apr 2010)

why on earth would you need something absolutely flat in the first place is beyond me. but, you don't need a perfectly flat surface on your plane to make one on a piece of wood.. Japanese planes are an excellent example of this as they are purposely relieved in places along the sole (depending on use). smooth and polish planes are set up to touch only in front of the mouth and at the front of the sole. the space between is relived and so is the entire sole behind the blade. on jointers it's the front of the sole, in front of the blade, and the back of the sole. set this way they will straighten an edge as good as a steel plane with a sole machined to within a billionth of an inch of flat.


----------



## mr grimsdale (7 Apr 2010)

You can make a flat surface on a piece of wood with an adze (curved in all directions) if you really have to.
The point is - the plane doesn't do it, you do it, i.e. use the plane (or adze, or your teeth, or anything) to remove the high points.


----------



## bugbear (7 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":2xcn3ef3 said:


> You can make a flat surface on a piece of wood with an adze (curved in all directions) if you really have to.
> The point is - the plane doesn't do it, you do it, i.e. use the plane (or adze, or your teeth, or anything) to remove the high points.



So why do we use planes, not adzes? Surely all that design has some benefit.

I think the oft-repeated picture of a long ship and a small ship on ocean waves may be informative here. 

A plane inherently hits the peaks, and (if long enough) cannot cut the troughs, regardless of operator intent or skill.

BugBear


----------



## newt (7 Apr 2010)

> A plane inherently hits the peaks, and (if long enough) cannot cut the troughs, regardless of operator intent or skill.
> 
> BugBear



A technically sound statement.


----------



## o_LuCaS_o (13 Oct 2010)

Hi! 

I read this subject with great interest. I'm struggling with a planning problem and I think this thread shall solve it. 

My problem is, of course, that I'm unable to achieve a flat surface. I get the surface reasonably flat (no cup or bow) with a fore plane (no. 5 or 6 with significant camber) by shoving across and diagonally to the grain. Check for twist and eliminate. But then, when I turn to the jointing/smoothing part (no. 5 with local slight convex no bigger than 2 thou) I get a convex surface. And again...I try to do the stopped shavings hollow out...and again convex surface. What I've read is, that the through shaving are naughty and change the board to a convex shape. The scooping technique of planning is another hint. Board deflecting on bench unevenness following. 

Are there any other things in my technique or karma, that could be pulling me away from the Land of flat Stock?  I think the conclusions of the thread should be sticked somewhere for newbies, as flattening by hand is the first and very important task one shall learn, if using only hand tools. 

Thanks!


----------



## Benchwayze (15 Oct 2010)

woodbloke":27tgvhrp said:


> ivan":27tgvhrp said:
> 
> 
> > ..flatten wood only until toe, cutting edge, and heel are just touching. In short, producing a shallow curve through these three points
> ...



Yep.. Fit for purpose again.
regards
John


----------

