# Axminster Rider No 7... concave sole, customer service pants as usual



## PaulArthur (1 Dec 2020)

Hi everyone

I've got a No 7 from Axminster, and I've been using over the last 18 months to flatten large slabs and boards, but I haven't needed it to joint anything. I've been working on some toy boxes for my kids over the last few weeks and I've had to make some panels up and I've noticed that I just cannot get the blooming thing to joint anything properly. There's a noticeable hump in the middle of any boards I try to joint, and that means that over an 80cm board, I've got a 1.5mm gap at one end when I close up the other.

I've had a look at the sole against the straight edges I've got (none of them are certified straight, but they all agree) that the sole is concave. I expect this a little bit, but I don't know how far away from flat is acceptable... Anyway, Axminster aren't interested in helping me, because it's out of their 1 year warranty (despite me pointing out that the sole won't have changed shape in that time, so it must have been like this when I bought it, and they are bound by the consumer rights act to provide a product that can do what it's designed to do). Their customer service really is pants these days. I've spend thousands with them over the last couple of years, but they're losing my loyalty these days.

Anyway, my question really is how on earth can I flatten something this size, without it completely killing the bank balance? I know I can buy lapping plates are so on that would work with smaller planes, but given that the no 7 is so big, is there something that you can recommend?

Many thanks...


----------



## PaulArthur (1 Dec 2020)

Half thinking it would be cheaper just to buy a better quality jointer plane and hope that it's flatter!


----------



## pe2dave (1 Dec 2020)

Given time and patience...
Find something flat (thick glass, a 'scrap' plain tile (tilers often have scrap bins).
Buy lots of sheets of emery cloth (whatever you call it). Mostly rough stuff to reduce the tedium.
A can of oil (or water) and you can keep busy for a while.
Find the way you are happy testing for flat (worth buying a new 12" steel rule?) and do so, regularly (OK, that was the bit I forgot)
It does work, even to take 2mm off a #7.

Then check the sides for 90... if you ever intend to use it like that.


----------



## PaulArthur (1 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> Given time and patience...
> Find something flat (thick glass, a 'scrap' plain tile (tilers often have scrap bins).
> Buy lots of sheets of emery cloth (whatever you call it). Mostly rough stuff to reduce the tedium.
> A can of oil (or water) and you can keep busy for a while.
> ...


Problem is that if I'm right, I need something longer than the plane to flatten it on... The plane is 560mm long... so finding something that's reliably flat, and that size, that isn't expensive, seems problematic.


----------



## pe2dave (1 Dec 2020)

Go down to a tile shop and have a look? Some huge tiles around?
Or a glazier and see if they can help - but needs to be toughened (safety) - Only need to be 200mm wide?
Or use a shorter piece and find a pattern that covers it all.

££ - your abrasives are getting expensive - unless you tape down 2 or 3 sheets (double sided tape) together.


E.g. Bathroom Tiles | Wall & Floor Tiles From £9.97/m² | Victorian Plumbing 914x152? End of line and I'm sure you'd get a good deal.


----------



## --Tom-- (1 Dec 2020)

Trying to lap the sole by rubbing it back and forth on abrasive isn’t the way I’d go. If it was bad enough that it needed it just work on the toe and the heel separately checking often with a straight edge.

Also, and this may not be the case here, but when jointing boards it’s really easy to plane them into a hump. 
Custard’s thread on edge jointing is worth a read and a try first.


----------



## NickM (1 Dec 2020)

--Tom-- said:


> Also, and this may not be the case here, but when jointing boards it’s really easy to plane them into a hump.
> Custard’s thread on edge jointing is worth a read and a try first.



I agree with this. No matter how flat the plane is, it’s certainly possible to plane an edge concave. Custard’s thread is excellent.


----------



## MusicMan (1 Dec 2020)

Tip 1: If you have three straight edges and they all agree. ie fit together with no gaps (1 to 2), (1 to 3) and (3 to 1) then they are all straight. You don't need any other reference, in fact this is the most accurate way of all.

Tip 2: If you build yourself a long shooting board (which can just be a thin board on a bench with a planing stop) with a straight edge, you don't need a flat sole, as the sole doesn't enter into it except for a narrow bit at the bottom, which runs along the edge. You can allow for the hump by pushing the back of the plane against the edge. Make sure the plane blade edge is straight and square to the bench. You can then joint.

Tip 3: If the sole is way out, start with a file.


----------



## AESamuel (1 Dec 2020)

How far out is the plane sole? Granted I have found rider planes to need some flattening but unless it's really far out then it could actually just be technique that is the issue.
Jointing with a and plane will generally result in a belly so you have to take extra passes just in the middle to bring it down.
Another method is to "undercut" the middle and then take one or two full length passes.

David Charlesworth has an excellent video on the "undercutting" method on youtube here:


----------



## D_W (1 Dec 2020)

for inexpensive, you need a reasonably flat surface (which is something you may need to plane and check with a straight edge) and then a float glass plate of length and relatively narrow width to place on top. The underlying surface needs to be flat as the glass will flex easily. I'd avoid things like tiles, flooring stone, etc, as that is usually surface finished, but the surfacer may not be that flat. It could be (and if it tests out well against a reliable straight edge, then no problem, but I'd check that before running home with anything). 

Where do you get the glass? Call specialty glass shops and ask if they stock glass shelves for cabinets, and ask for something around 8x42. Do not order custom glass. The cost for a stock shelf of that size here was $20 and at 10mm thick. The cost for a custom cut glass run of that size 1/2 inch thick was well over $100. 

That becomes your reference lap - you know it's flat if you have a good straight edge, have a flat surface to lay it on and you can press down any part of the glass and still not get a feeler under the straight edge. 

your other option is just to use the straight edge (and that's probably fine if you're only doing this once. Check left, middle and right and then diagonals. mark high spots, and either file them off or create a 2x3 inch block of hardwood and put PSA 60-80 grit paper on. It's not that easy to lap a 7 if the concavity is any appreciable amount, but you can clean up the sole of the plane when you're done by lapping the whole thing at once (it'll look nicer and confirm that you have overall flatness. 

Your cost for PSA roll and glass should be about 30-40 pounds in your money. 4 inch x 10 yard roll is a nice size to have for planes. one roll should be enough to do every plane you have if you find the results favorable, and it's handy to have around for clean up of old tools and removal of pitting on older irons. 

you can use a marker or marking fluid to mark the sole to see where steel is contacting on your flat glass lap, and then use the file or small block to work the areas where the marking fluid has rubbed off, then remark and check. 

The small block is necessary (i think filing is a bit more unrealistic for someone new) for any speed of removal as paper dulls fairly quickly and it limits the number of points of contact (Focusing more pressure on each) and allows the dulling paper to work far better. IT seems counterintuitive, but a 2x3 block will remove material from a jointer about 5x as fast as a large lap. not in each section, but in total -with a small contact area, the cast just sands right off. With a large contact area, it mostly skids on the paper. 

In terms of flatness, what's annoying on a jointer or jack plane? very small amounts of concavity make edge jointing a pain - as little as a few thousandths. The effect is doubled on boards and you have to bear down on the plane (which makes no sense anywhere except the middle of a cut - you can't push the concavity out of the plane on the two ends of the board - one end always goes unsupported). 

In the opposite direction? an error of 4 or 5 times as much isn't intolerable - spec is often given by thousandths for a plane, but what the manufacturers should really do is grind a bias and guarantee 0 to 3 or 4 thousandths convex rather than +/- a certain amount. I realize this is problematic for surface grinding. 

I purchased a LN 62 to do testing and write an article a couple of months ago. It was almost intolerable to smooth flat wood as it was out exactly at spec concave (1.5 thousandths) to my starrett edge and feelers. The first several passes for everything was just to clip the ends off of the wood before finally being able to smooth. I flattened it and now it works well. Their production was fairly accurate, but because of the direction of the error, it was still a pain. I make planes, so in my case, it was just easier to fix the plane than request LN send me a plane that wasn't right at spec. I've had about 10 planes from them and two were like this - right at spec concave - both were a pain to use (the other was a #8) for accurate work. It's reality despite calls from the not-very-accomplished that there's no way that it could make much of a difference. 

I'm not surprised that axminster wouldn't do anything - I don't know them from adam, but most manufacturers and retailers have to have some kind of guideline to go by or they'll be replacing 10 year old planes owned by the third owner. LN and LV would probably entertain that, but it's part of their reputation. Axminster may have some recourse to the distributor based on their terms, but have to eat the entire cost of the return if you try to return it after the window has closed.


----------



## Jameshow (1 Dec 2020)

Being such a long plane would putting too much weight on the tote and knob be flexing the plane and when the plane reaches the end of the board it's taking more off the board. 

Just a thought. 

Cheers James


----------



## D_W (1 Dec 2020)

AESamuel said:


> How far out is the plane sole? Granted I have found rider planes to need some flattening but unless it's really far out then it could actually just be technique that is the issue.
> Jointing with a and plane will generally result in a belly so you have to take extra passes just in the middle to bring it down.
> Another method is to "undercut" the middle and then take one or two full length passes.
> 
> David Charlesworth has an excellent video on the "undercutting" method on youtube here:




That's generally regarded as common consequence of planing, but it's something to learn to avoid. If the cap is set on a plane and pressure biased at start and finished, the result should be a board that's worked slightly hollow with *through* strokes rather than the ends being planed off. If a concave plane is suffered through to get stop shavings and then planes the ends down when finishing with a through shaving, then it's a problem.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> Then check the sides for 90... if you ever intend to use it like that.


 Nothing like making work! If using a shooting board just compensate with the lateral lever - you need to check the squareness of the actual cut after replacing an iron after honing, even if using a dead square plane.


----------



## pe2dave (1 Dec 2020)

I can't see any reason to use a #7 with a shooting board, unless building muscles is the aim?
What #4's are meant for.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Dec 2020)

So there's no point in worrying whether the sides of the OP's N0.7 are square, then.


----------



## D_W (1 Dec 2020)

Jameshow said:


> Being such a long plane would putting too much weight on the tote and knob be flexing the plane and when the plane reaches the end of the board it's taking more off the board.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Cheers James



tearout, etc, can cause the ends to be planed off (when planing proceeds with tearout, it's never even in terms of thickness removed), but the check is what the OP mentioned second - the plane is either straight to straight edges or not. Two things are OK -straight and convex. Two are a nuisance - concavity and twist. 

Twist is checked on the diagonals, of course, and should be fairly uncommon on modern planes (half the time in older metal planes, it's just due to wear. 

Whatever shape the plane is out vs. a straight edge, even if you can pretty easily flex the amount out of it, the influence will still be there in the cut.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (1 Dec 2020)

I also think that technique is the most important aspect here, and I second (third?) the suggestion to refer to Custard's posts on the subject. Believe it or not, it is possible to get 'perfect' results with an 'imperfect' tool. I think that there is a British Standard for flatness of plane soles - I think that the Workshop Heaven website/blog gives references. You need feeler gauges and a straight edge - does your plane meet BS whatever?


----------



## Ttrees (1 Dec 2020)

I think the headline is a bit harsh, it might not have been if you happened to buy a certified straight edge and feelers from them, and they weren't interested.

If you do decide to flatten or even check it, then Musicman's suggestion on making straight edges make sense, and is the start of a reference as David W has said.
However toughened glass can be out also, as it is float glass that is the flattest,
so back to checking for a suitable plate with the straight edges.
A typical rule will be miles out.

A quick tip to asses the situation very quickly is having a flat surface to start with...
and pivoting the plane from one end like so

Where does the plane have contact?

If you want to do some further checking on the cheap,
then the three reference surfaces the length of the item, and no shorter can be used to check for overall flatness with feelers, and if you have a good wee square and a precise block of some sort, or another good square then butting them against each other and pushing them along the length will give a good impression to check for consistency.
(the tops of the squares may open up and show some light between)

And if you wish to lap a concave error along the length.... a theoretical scenario worth mentioning for clarity...
with no twist, and flat along its width (so a flat ground iron will have the same projection everywhere)
Then it is worth mentioning that if its lapped on a longer and wider area than the plane is, that the abrasion will favour the edges, so may not be that much work to do.
If its out by a good bit, then you might end up making your plane convex by the time you sort out a lengthwise concavity.
Keep going to try and lap out that widthwise error and now you have a badly convex error along the length of the plane.

I would only ever lap a plane in the usual fashion that you might have seen (with the longer and wider abrasive than the plane is)
If it was convex both along the length and width, with a bad error and not just with only a few rubs needed to fair out the concavity.

If its not, and only convex along the length, I would make sure to have a narrower abrasive than the width of the plane, but exactly as long or longer than the plane to focus on the ends, with constant skewing to remove the four corners of the plane, simulating the effects of an hourglass patterned strip (for want of a better description)

You can cover the plane in marker and do three rubs on the plate with full sheet of abrasive to check if the marker is gone everywhere.
That is the only time you can trust the ink.

As I said lapping will favour the edges, and can be misleading if you are lapping on a full size length to remove ink, before you know it you could have removed that concavity and have a convex plane, which cannot be lapped out with that large of a lap, as it will pivot from the middle and it will end up like a banana.

All the best
Tom


----------



## D_W (1 Dec 2020)

The float glass question is a good point - you can order tempered float glass from suppliers here. I know little about glass, so I don't know if that's terminology that doesn't match technical reality. 

When I got a cabinet shelf (non-tempered, I guess on the assumption that it shouldn't be in a position to be at risk of breaking and causing injury), I asked the local glass shop if it was float glass and he pretty much said "it is. nearly everything is now". But, it's worth asking. 

I have a deliberately planed very flat area on my bench, but it's unlikely to be a thousandth over its span. It's close, though. My acid test is to get out a straight edge, lean on the glass and then see if I can get a feeler under any area (my thinnest is .0012". The edge that I have is a 24" starrett, so that's only under partial length of the glass, but it's as long as most planes are likely to be. 

I've found that literally a single particle of 60 grit paper (I haven't had this issue since switching to 80 grit) will not get pushed far enough into ash to not throw off the test. That is, if a single 60 grit particle off of the sandpaper is under the glass on one end or another, the glass will flex and the feeler will get through. I find that annoying. 

It's a reasonable test to show how important it is for the surface under the lap to be both flat and cleaned at the same time. 

I guess the starrett isn't cheap (they were $60 at the time here new, now about $85), but the glass was very cheap. A machinist would make fun of the setup, but it's practical more accurate than any boutique planemaker's standard.


----------



## thetyreman (1 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> I can't see any reason to use a #7 with a shooting board, unless building muscles is the aim?
> What #4's are meant for.



it's far easier to use a no7 because of the extra mass and longer surface, I use a no7 or no 5 1/2 on my shooting board, prefer the no7 though.


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Dec 2020)

DW should post a link to his vid on dealing with long metal planes.

The Rider planes are a disappointment. If you are on a budget the Chinese planes are a better bet.


----------



## Jameshow (1 Dec 2020)

I bet the rider planes are a cousin to the faithfull planes from the same sobo assembly line. 

Cheers James


----------



## D_W (1 Dec 2020)

G S Haydon said:


> DW should post a link to his vid on dealing with long metal planes.
> 
> The Rider planes are a disappointment. If you are on a budget the Chinese planes are a better bet.



I'm sure the information in it was accurate (it's just the same thing as my post earlier), but as I recall, it was rambling, cranky and not that easy to follow. I probably made it after a post from someone asserting here in the states that the only way to get an accurate plane sole was to surface grind (which is fine if you can do it for free, but one could learn to do both flattening and squaring to tolerance in the amount of time it would take to get a plane back. .


----------



## Andy Kev. (2 Dec 2020)

PaulArthur said:


> Half thinking it would be cheaper just to buy a better quality jointer plane and hope that it's flatter!


As you've confirmed with your straight edge testing that it is out, then that is the quick way to reliability and to getting back to the task in hand. It's a matter of biting the bullet and looking at Veritas, Clifton or L-N. I can recommend the Veritas BU No 7 but I would bet that the equivalent offerings from the other two are at least as good. In the unlikely event that the plane would be out, it would be a good idea to buy from someone who will either check the plane in advance (a phone call before buying would probably sort that out) or will accept and replace returns. The dealers who specialise in hand tools are probably the best ones to buy from.


----------



## SMALMALEKI (2 Dec 2020)

PaulArthur said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I've got a No 7 from Axminster, and I've been using over the last 18 months to flatten large slabs and boards, but I haven't needed it to joint anything. I've been working on some toy boxes for my kids over the last few weeks and I've had to make some panels up and I've noticed that I just cannot get the blooming thing to joint anything properly. There's a noticeable hump in the middle of any boards I try to joint, and that means that over an 80cm board, I've got a 1.5mm gap at one end when I close up the other.
> 
> ...


 
I am sorry to see your problem with Rider No 7. I had the same plane from them with some issues. What I did was to get a piece of granite kitchen countertop and stick sand paper to it. It worked for me. I have a flat surface granite but it was too small for this plane. 
you can get it from stone merchant near you.


----------



## Benchwayze (2 Dec 2020)

I have flattened plane soles using a piece of 25mm MDF on a flat bench. However I tend to agree a better quality plane is probably the answer.

John


----------



## Benchwayze (2 Dec 2020)

Benchwayze said:


> I have flattened plane soles using a piece of 25mm MDF on a flat bench. However I tend to agree a better quality plane is probably the answer.
> 
> John


I have two Quanshengs that are reliable and Rob Cosman speaks for Wood River planes. Might be worth consideration. 

John


----------



## PaulArthur (2 Dec 2020)

Thank you everyone for your thoughts - I’ll have a good hard look at my technique first, as that’s the easiest thing to diagnose perhaps! 

As it happens. I have a big chunk of 30mm mdf hanging around as an off cut. That on a flat bench might be flat enough for dry lapping, I suppose.


----------



## NewbieRaf (2 Dec 2020)

Total newbie to Planes here and have been researching them. I know this won’t help this issue but I’ve just started looking at “vintage Stanley bailey” number 7 plane as I joint boards regularly. I must say it’s a total rabbit hole which one to go for, date, iron type, blue/black, quality of the used plane, rust, cracks argg all not easy to see from eBay which is causing me to think to buy new. But because this will be my first plane I’m not sure if I should spend the cash on a Nielsen or something of top quality. I would appreciate any advice especially around what I should buy for a reasonable price or even if you think I should go top dollar


----------



## Jameshow (2 Dec 2020)

I'll be checking my no6 faithfull plane when it appears at Christmas. 

Not that my skills are anything to go by. 

Cheers James


----------



## Andy Kev. (2 Dec 2020)

NewbieRaf said:


> Total newbie to Planes here and have been researching them. I know this won’t help this issue but I’ve just started looking at “vintage Stanley bailey” number 7 plane as I joint boards regularly. I must say it’s a total rabbit hole which one to go for, date, iron type, blue/black, quality of the used plane, rust, cracks argg all not easy to see from eBay which is causing me to think to buy new. But because this will be my first plane I’m not sure if I should spend the cash on a Nielsen or something of top quality. I would appreciate any advice especially around what I should buy for a reasonable price or even if you think I should go top dollar


A quick check of the Classic Hand Tools website shows the following prices in GBP:

Veritas No 7 BU 299 - 309 (depending on choice of blade material)
Clifton No 7 345
Lie-Neilsen No 7 430
Lie-Neilsen No 8 480

The choice seems to boil down to whether or not you want bevel up or bevel down. I've got the Veritas No 7 BU and all I can say is that it joints perfectly. (Mind you, I'd love to have the Clifton but I simply don't need it.) Have a look at the various reviews and see what you think.


----------



## Lons (2 Dec 2020)

Hi
I've always found Axminster very good but if it was me so upset about my purchase I wouldn't leave it at being fobbed off by customer services and before trying to flatten the plane myself, after which it would be too late I would write a carefully worded letter politely outlining the issues and the response you received then email it to the MD. I would also highlight your loyalty and expenditure which is easy for them to check and not a bad thing to say you're a member of forums and will be discussing the matter there, be careful not to make that an obvious threat.
Tell him you're losing faith which is a shame and you hope he is able to offer help before you have to buy elsewhere.
I'm not trying to tell you how to word a letter as I'm sure you know but we don't know how many other potential customers are lurking in the background taking note.

I don't want to post the guy's email address on the forum but the MD when I last checked was Ian Styles and you can get his email from this the following link if you search for the company. https://ceoemail.com/

cheers
Bob


----------



## johnny (2 Dec 2020)

why not take it to an Engineering shop and get them to precision skim it like they do with cylinder heads ?


----------



## Jameshow (2 Dec 2020)

__





Questions Answered -Considering Longer Planes - Paul Sellers' Blog







paulsellers.com





Paul sellars says he has trouble with longer planes not being flat.... 

Another good blog post....









My Stanley Bailey N0 7 Plane - Wallybois - Woodworkers Journal


One tool I regularly used in my workshop is ‘The Stanley Bailey’. I still use hand tools alongside machines for the production of my products?




www.wallybois.com





Cheers James


----------



## PaulArthur (2 Dec 2020)

Lons said:


> Hi
> I've always found Axminster very good but if it was me so upset about my purchase I wouldn't leave it at being fobbed off by customer services and before trying to flatten the plane myself, after which it would be too late I would write a carefully worded letter politely outlining the issues and the response you received then email it to the MD. I would also highlight your loyalty and expenditure which is easy for them to check and not a bad thing to say you're a member of forums and will be discussing the matter there, be careful not to make that an obvious threat.
> Tell him you're losing faith which is a shame and you hope he is able to offer help before you have to buy elsewhere.
> I'm not trying to tell you how to word a letter as I'm sure you know but we don't know how many other potential customers are lurking in the background taking note.
> ...




Thanks Bob - I’ve already started this actually. Interestingly, I needed to buy a couple of new Mortice chisels, and I bought elsewhere. Along with a couple of new router bits. That’s after spending £2,000 elsewhere last month on a table saw elsewhere. Shows what happens if you don’t look after customers.


----------



## Ttrees (2 Dec 2020)

Will we get to know if the plane is within tolerance?
This might be interesting for some folk who might be thinking of getting a Soba plane.
Seems a knock for both companies with seemingly no sort of evidence to back anything up.
Did you do some more testing since then?

Nose diving will happen with a long plane, or any plane for that matter, much reduced if the cap iron is set close, and when not set so closely, stopped shavings are employed to achieve a straight edge, Charlesworth's videos are the go to for anyone who really want's sound advice on precision stuff in video format,
he is honest which is something that is missing from a lot of other folks.

Tom


----------



## MusicMan (2 Dec 2020)

pe2dave said:


> I can't see any reason to use a #7 with a shooting board, unless building muscles is the aim?
> What #4's are meant for.


There's two ways of using a long-grain shooting board. One is like the usual cross grain and this is what I was suggesting to the OP, where the edge of the shooting board defines the straightness. Then the length of the plane does not matter. The other is to use the length of the plane to get the straightness (I think this is what Custard does). In this case the plane does not run along the edge of the board. This method is useful for thinner boards, where it is difficult to plane them vertically-held as the plane tends to wobble.

Having the plane running on its side makes it a bit easier to use good planing technique with even pressure, for me, but YMMV.

And yes, one uses the lateral lever to make the plane blade perpendicular to the board.


----------



## Ollie78 (2 Dec 2020)

You could do it on an oscillating edge sander, you might need the blue belts for better results on metal though. 

Ollie


----------



## pe2dave (2 Dec 2020)

NewbieRaf said:


> Total newbie to Planes here and have been researching them. I know this won’t help this issue but I’ve just started looking at “vintage Stanley bailey” number 7 plane as I joint boards regularly. I must say it’s a total rabbit hole which one to go for, date, iron type, blue/black, quality of the used plane, rust, cracks argg all not easy to see from eBay which is causing me to think to buy new. But because this will be my first plane I’m not sure if I should spend the cash on a Nielsen or something of top quality. I would appreciate any advice especially around what I should buy for a reasonable price or even if you think I should go top dollar



Pay *lots* for a name who check their product, or buy from ebay and set it straight.
If you've the time and patience, you will wind up with a good plane. 
You can set the bed / sides right.
Worst comes to the worst, a new iron is rarely that expensive. 

I take great pleasure in using a sharp, smart plane that was rusty and neglected when I received it.
It's *my* tool. I know it well and can fettle it in future if needed.


----------



## rafezetter (2 Dec 2020)

PaulArthur said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I've got a No 7 from Axminster, and I've been using over the last 18 months to flatten large slabs and boards, but I haven't needed it to joint anything. I've been working on some toy boxes for my kids over the last few weeks and I've had to make some panels up and I've noticed that I just cannot get the blooming thing to joint anything properly. There's a noticeable hump in the middle of any boards I try to joint, and that means that over an 80cm board, I've got a 1.5mm gap at one end when I close up the other.
> 
> ...




I had a similar problem with a plane and ended up lapping - I bought a 3ft long section of 10mm float glass (NOT TEMPERED!) and used clips to attach a long section of 60 grit fabric backed zircon paper (blue stuff designed for metal) and then flattened a section of reclaimed slate hearth that I had to use as a support backer - siliconed the two together and added a way to attach the paper without clips.

I've now got a long flat lapping station I can use for ensuring my plane soles are flat, which is especially useful for my wooden ones.

Some people use a granite surface plate or tile with wet n dry, which I tried in the past but I never really managed to get the paper edge sections to lie flat, and almost always ended up tearing them - my version with fabric backed abrasive is under tension to stay flat, won't tear even when saturated with water and can be swapped out for another grit easily once the main cutting has been done.

Edit - DO NOT BUY TEMPERED FLOAT GLASS - I know the safety issue is a thing BUT tempered glass is not flat - it might LOOK flat, but my experience has shown it's not always FLAT - FLAT (I used a tempered glass section before buying the float glass and could nto understand why the sole wa not flattening, until I checked the glass with an axminster straightedge - there was light under it - the glass I thought was "flat" - because it's glass right and how it's made, had deformed in the tempering process. - Far as I know all glass sold for "scary sharpening" kits is NON TEMPERED float glass.


----------



## Dave Moore (3 Dec 2020)

Hi,
Another way of flattening is to get a piece of flat glass from a car or van from scrapyard. Using carborundum paste as for grinding engine valves this will flatten the sole of your plane.


----------



## segovia (3 Dec 2020)

I use aluminium 24"x 1" x 2" hollow form straight edges with sandpaper on the 1" side for flattening. I prep the straight edges first to remove any hollows/bows from them. Initially, I used a piece of 30" x 10" x 3/8" plate glass as my reference to flatten the 1" edge of the aluminium bar. I spent hours trying to get a flat edge on my straight edges and couldn't figure out why my marker pen wasn't getting removed in some areas. After I a couple of hours hard graft with no progress I checked the glass, it was bowed! - Moral of the story I made an assumption the glass was flat before you spend hour flattening a plane sole make sure your reference in flat


----------



## D_W (3 Dec 2020)

johnny said:


> why not take it to an Engineering shop and get them to precision skim it like they do with cylinder heads ?



If they're not familiar with grinding flexible items, they may not do the work to a standard that will satisfy you. Also, there are accounts of folks in the U.S.who took planes to job shops to find a significant amount of material milled from their planes. How many of those are direct accounts, I don't know, but worth asking if you're going to pay someone to do something that may cost more than the materials would cost to do 10 planes in your shop.

There aren't many job shops left here that do more than engines and welding on a regular basis, though.


----------



## rafezetter (4 Dec 2020)

Dave Moore said:


> Hi,
> Another way of flattening is to get a piece of flat glass from a car or van from scrapyard. Using carborundum paste as for grinding engine valves this will flatten the sole of your plane.



Sorry but this is bad information, if it's from a vehicle it'll be tempered, and thus not "flat" enough for lapping a plane - there's a reason why makers like Ollie Sparks (a member here) use a certified granite surface plate and elbow grease - for some things there are just no shortcuts and a plane without a dead flat sole along most of it's length* will just give continued poor service and headaches.

* ideally from the tip at the front, in front of the mouth most especially (no hollows), and the majority of the back towards the end - for those unfamilar with how a plane sole should be lapped.

Lapping a plane sole on tempered glass will result in a slightly convex sole, and a plane which is good for F ALL but as a door stop - or planing the inside circumference of REALLY REALLY REALLY big wagon wheels


----------



## Roseland 2 (4 Dec 2020)

Can you not have the sole skimmed by an engineering workshop? Years ago a garage organised for my car's cylinder head to be skimmed, and it wasn't expensive.
Andrew


----------



## Jameshow (4 Dec 2020)

How about asking at your local FE college they may well have a certified flat bench and some wet and dry. For a few beer tokens they might do it. 

Failing that a granite worktop off cut off ebay? Or ask at a local kitchen installers?? 

Just s thought. 

Cheers James


----------



## Ttrees (4 Dec 2020)

rafezetter said:


> Lapping a plane sole on tempered glass will result in a slightly convex sole, and a plane which is good for F ALL but as a door stop - or planing the inside circumference of REALLY REALLY REALLY big wagon wheels



Lapping on a larger surface abrasive than an item is will make everything convex, doesn't matter how flat your lapping plate is, if your not going to use it right.

I would argue that you can achieve a flatter plane with something pretty flat, rather than stick ones head in the sand and believe a guaranteed flat surface to whatever tolerance will automatically ensure that lapping is a mindless process with nothing but elbow grease involved.

You don't have a choice on where you want to remove material if you are using that large of a surface, doesn't matter how clean and taut the abrasive is stretched out, the plane will go convex if its lapped enough.
I messed up a few planes before doing that, thanks to being absolutely convinced that mindless lapping was the correct way to do it.
Those videos you may see of folks lapping things like that are doing a disservice, as those before them, which led to so many hand planes having most of the mass removed from the heel and toe, just look on the bay for some job lots to see.
Ask yourself why have they still full length irons?

Some historical numpty must be to blame, still not as ignorant as the advice you see in this day and age from some of the gurus, which probably have something flat in the background to check the thing...
And yet other folks and myself have to keep repeating ourselves to stop planes turning into bananas.

Tom


----------



## Ttrees (4 Dec 2020)

I have some granite which is very convex on the polished side, unusable.
Very evident if you butt two squares against each other and push one with the other, that might just be the best way to check if you don't have a precision straight edge handy.
More difficult than it sounds to get something flat enough, if you don't want to pay the earth for it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Dec 2020)

I think many people are trying to split an atom. There are many methods that might not be perfect but are good enough for 95% of the people 95% of the time. I "flattened" a Marples No.5 on an abrasive disc on my lathe (it was not only hollow, but winding. It's perfectly useable.


----------



## Ttrees (4 Dec 2020)

I can't speak for doing so on a lathe Phil, but I will rant on for them gluttons for punishment who are going to do it by hand.

I've made huge errors in the past lapping with a surface plate,
destroyed two no.60 1/2's, a wafer thin welded Bailey no.5, thankfully I made sure I had sense to buy a thick soled n.8 which I also made convex.
I'm not talking a sheet of paper or two hollow either!
(not to mention other things not so important as a hand plane)

This needs to be understood for the folks using a lapping plate, as there is a large amount of misinformation out there.

The longer a plane is, the more material will be removed off of the toe and heel, as it will start to pivot from the point that's getting larger somewhere in the middle,
and this will lead to it going convex across the width next.
(which means possibly hindering the use of the cap iron if its bad, as it would act like a negative camber)

Having a slightly concave plane only needs to have the edges feathered off, if its only concave across the width, then it is very likely that one would need to stop removing metal from the toe/heel on a plane this long.
That means the abrasive must be shorter than the plane is.
_lapping will always favor removal of the edges_

For the folks still in doubt, then I suggest getting some 4 or 5mm mild steel plate and doing some experiments with a small square, scribble marker over all of a face and try and remove metal only from the middle, or try and lap flat some intentionally filed convexity , and you will see lapping will just copy the profile and polish it.
You will learn the same thing as with wood preparation that the edges are the reference and those contact points are important for the wood to sit flat and not pivot/see saw about from the middle.
See Charlesworth's video again

Tom


----------



## pe2dave (5 Dec 2020)

Perhaps the caveat is that common sense needs to be applied to the lapping process.


----------



## D_W (5 Dec 2020)

Ttrees said:


> I can't speak for doing so on a lathe Phil, but I will rant on for them gluttons for punishment who are going to do it by hand.
> 
> I've made huge errors in the past lapping with a surface plate,
> destroyed two no.60 1/2's, a wafer thin welded Bailey no.5, thankfully I made sure I had sense to buy a thick soled n.8 which I also made convex.
> ...


 In this case, the toe and heel of the plane are low and a long flat lap is exactly what's needed for a final check. I think it's more practical to have a long reference and work convexity out if that were the problem here, and then finish on the lap.

I've used the long lap for 10 plus years now and never had a problem making bananas. A couple of thousandths of toe and heel pride on a long plane is probably a good thing.


----------



## Ttrees (5 Dec 2020)

Agreed David, a long lap is very very good to have around to _check_ the state of the entire sole. 
A bit of a toss up between buying a straight edge to check for a flat plate or a plate if you can't find anything.

I've not used the method you have mentioned before with a flexible file working the high areas down first, and as you say not needed if the plane is concave.

However, how much concavity there is, is unknown yet.
It could be way out for all we know...
enough to start the banana cycle off, especially for someone who might not be used to treating the edges as a reference.
Quality of abrasive could play a part, as a lesser quality would multiply the strokes more than likely highlighting the issue.

I assume many folks would be weary of using a file to sort an issue out prior to lapping, that's why continue my issues with the full lap method.
It may well be a _whole lot slower_
Surprised you have not had issue with this occurrence before
as I presume you have picked up some old jointers in the past prior to your plane making days..

Another issue I have with a full lap plate, even a small one, (to take questionable surface plate deflection out of the equation)
is working on cheap adjustable mouth planes, which the bed for the shoe needs to be in line with the sole, otherwise the mouth will lift the plane when adjusted.

That cost me some mula to get three 60 1/2's... two of which didn't make it from that, and I won't mention what jewelry i bought not to have to experience this issue again.

Tom


----------



## D_W (5 Dec 2020)

The concave removal or spot removal (either with a flexible file - especially if the plane is steel instead of cast - or with a 2x3 or so wood block with psa or some kind of coarse machine paper attached) is the way to go if a plane is convex. The long lap is used as a reference and then to consolidate once all convexity is gone. It's much faster. 

I did experiment with shorter glass, but it's less accurate and slower and doesn't solve the issue of it being slow to remove much convexity with a lap in the first place. A smaller contact area is much more efficient. 

The long lap is very useful for other things (that you can live without, but once it's available, you won't). I can't think of an easy way around a good 24" straight edge, though (the very cheap could make one using high carbon bar stock if a friend has a reference square. I don't have a true reference square, but a friend does, and it's a nice thing to have available without paying to keep or chasing rust from). 

The only thing I could think of with wood is to bookmatch two sticks from a single board and then plane the meeting edges separately until they meet perfectly, and then plane a third to check. After that, if the two matched edges meet each other, they should still be dead straight and better than a lot of low cost metal straight edges. splitting a quartered board into a bookmatch would be a good way to avoid the boards moving in complementary ways - the bookmatched edge board will generally do the same thing, exacerbating any change away from flatness. 

I guess all of it doesn't matter if one only does a couple of planes. I flatten every plane that I get (and all new wooden ones, of course) just as a matter of courtesy for the coarse planes when I turn them over due to excess. A 5 may not need flattening, but I'd imagine 95% of purchasers are going to buy a plane to use as a long smoother and it's a nice gesture. I want fast and accurate. For infills, it's a matter of pride. If I can't beat LN's spec, then why build a plane. I can beat their spec (but 8 of 10 planes that I've gotten from them were dead on, way within their plus or minus 1.5 thousandths. Two have been concave exactly at it, so I can beat their spec, but maybe only match their average plane. 

The sectional edge is a good thing to learn for squareness, too, as few will create a 90 degree wall and lap that into a plane (the plane will end up at something different than the reference). It's very easy to square one side of a plane using a sectional approach and then consolidating for cosmetics.


----------



## TheTiddles (5 Dec 2020)

Toughened glass won’t be flat (compared to non-toughened) but also remember it’s not magic, if you put a 6mm piece of glass on an uneven surface and push on it, the glass will deform.

Aidan


----------



## D_W (6 Dec 2020)

TheTiddles said:


> Toughened glass won’t be flat (compared to non-toughened) but also remember it’s not magic, if you put a 6mm piece of glass on an uneven surface and push on it, the glass will deform.
> 
> Aidan



If you shop around for a "replacement shelf", it should just be non toughened float glass. I wouldn't get it thinner than about 9 or ten mm, but a longer shelf should be that thick, anyway, and inexpensive.


----------



## johnny (7 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> If they're not familiar with grinding flexible items, they may not do the work to a standard that will satisfy you. Also, there are accounts of folks in the U.S.who took planes to job shops to find a significant amount of material milled from their planes.



I cannot speak for US engineering standards but here in the UK Engineers are qualified to a high standard with a BSc Degree qualification and are registered with the Chartered Institute of Engineering CEng in order to practice as an Engineer and be entitled to use the title Engineer.

There is not much more precise than a CNC Milling machine, they work to +/-0.1mm geometric tolerance and a surface finish of 1.6µm (micrometer) tolerances tighter than 0.01µm can be achieved where the design requires it. ( General Tolerances to DIN ISO 2768. )

I' wasn't referring to back street mechanics and 'machine shops'


----------



## D_W (7 Dec 2020)

johnny said:


> I cannot speak for US engineering standards but here in the UK Engineers are qualified to a high standard with a BSc Degree qualification and are registered with the Chartered Institute of Engineering CEng in order to practice as an Engineer and be entitled to use the title Engineer.
> 
> There is not much more precise than a CNC Milling machine, they work to +/-0.1mm geometric tolerance and a surface finish of 1.6µm (micrometer) tolerances tighter than 0.01µm can be achieved where the design requires it. ( General Tolerances to DIN ISO 2768. )
> 
> I' wasn't referring to back street mechanics and 'machine shops'



Different terminology here, yes. An engineer wouldn't run a machine like you're talking about here, they would determine spec and a trade-trained (associates degree, or 2 year college type) would operate the machine. 

Not necessary for flattening planes, though. Each time this comes up, it's made really difficult because everyone has a lot of ideas and not much experience. I have a lot of experience doing this and not many remaining ideas because most of them are not functionally more accurate than doing this work manually (it is really easy as long as you only do things you're supposed to and not things you're not) and it would take me longer to get to and from somewhere to do it than it would just to do the work in house. 

The "back street" old school machinists here could work to a couple of ten thousandths of an inch, but they are mostly gone. They'd be a better choice for something like this, but only if they cared about the results - but even a regular machine shop is a strange choice for something like this unless there will be only one and a machine shop owes you a favor (since it's about 100 pounds to get a good surface to use and most of that 100 pounds would be eaten by a good quality 24" straight edge with a tolerance of less than a thousandth of an inch over its length).


----------



## pe2dave (7 Dec 2020)

Quite a few insults in your post @D_W 

Surely cost reduction means 'cheaper' labour to run machines.
We all have ideas and no experience? Doubtful if we're on this group.
My father (an old school machinist) would have been sacked for working to 10 'thou.


----------



## memzey (7 Dec 2020)

There's nothing insulting in Dave's post that I can see, nothing at all. He's giving the benefit of his own experience of actually flattening a bunch of planes and it all rings true to me (another one who has flattened the sole on lots of planes - including getting one precision ground by an engineering firm that specialises in the field). His point about "more ideas than experience" is, I think, particularly well articulated as this topic comes up frequently but the few people that have actually done this a number of times, always revert to the same small subset of methods.

And, with the greatest of respect, what your father would or would not have received his P45 for is of little relevance here, as is almost anything that talks to 10 thou' (0.0001”) tolerances in woodworking.


----------



## --Tom-- (7 Dec 2020)

D_W said:


> I purchased a LN 62 to do testing and write an article a couple of months ago. It was almost intolerable to smooth flat wood as it was out exactly at spec concave (1.5 thousandths) to my starrett edge and feelers. The first several passes for everything was just to clip the ends off of the wood before finally being able to smooth. I flattened it and now it works well.



I’m surprised by this as 1.5 thou is probably less than the amount steel moves due to the temperature difference between winter and summer. If I made sure my planes were always flatter than that, I’d have much less time for planing, if I ever got to that level of accuracy to start with.


----------



## Jameshow (7 Dec 2020)

I wonder if my faithfull planes are flat to the nearest mm!!!! 

Cheers James


----------



## johnny (8 Dec 2020)

tsk tsk what a load of tosh ....this really is. i seriously doubt whether any of the respondents including myself have the skill ,capacity or need to work to any of the tolerances stated. 

The initial enquiry was about making toy boxes for kids not precision medical equipment for laser surgery ffs shakes head .....dear oh dear.... some folk sure do like making a mountain out of a molehill and in the process insulting others that are trying to offer help and advice to the op


----------



## D_W (8 Dec 2020)

--Tom-- said:


> I’m surprised by this as 1.5 thou is probably less than the amount steel moves due to the temperature difference between winter and summer. If I made sure my planes were always flatter than that, I’d have much less time for planing, if I ever got to that level of accuracy to start with.



The last LN plane that I had was 1.5 thousandths hollow. I spent less than an hour correcting it to flat. A 14 or 15 inch long plane with a 1.5 thousandth hollow will be almost impossible to plane a match joint that closes unless you stand on the plane. You cannot use a plane properly to do that kind of work if it cannot cut flat or slightly hollow under it's own weight and no more than the downforce on the handle. 

I hear this all the time "you can't work to that level", that's false. You can work as reasonably close as you can see in flatness, which is a small fraction of that. 

I hear the same thing "a serious woodworker wouldn't have time for that". With all due respect, that's garbage. I could teach a mediocre woodworker how to flatten a plane to that spec from end to end in a matter of half an hour, both for convex and concave planes. 

And, no, a plane that is 1.5 thousandths concave will never be flat or convex or 3 thousandths concave at any time no matter how much the temperature changes. 

The other part of this is discretion - knowing when it matters (1.5 thousandths doesn't matter at all if the plane is convex and not twisted. On a long plane, two or three times that doesn't make an undesirable plane. And putting a plane between two boards and pushing on it with the toe and heel supported to see how much you can get it to move is a bogus test - I've heard that before, too. You don't plane with a plane sitting on two boards on the toe and heel. 

I answer this kind of discussion a lot. I have a lot of experience flattening planes and being able to measure when they're actually flat, despite not being a professional and despite spending about 200 hours a year woodworking. Seeing assertions made out of lack of experience, or from machinists who don't use planes, or whatever else gets really annoying. 

It misleads people. This is not a particularly high skill exercise. It's practical and can be accurate without being time consuming (though it's hard to get away from buying a straight edge that actually meets an accuracy spec, as well as a small set of accurate feelers to go with it.)


----------



## D_W (8 Dec 2020)

johnny said:


> tsk tsk what a load of tosh ....this really is. i seriously doubt whether any of the respondents including myself have the skill ,capacity or need to work to any of the tolerances stated.
> 
> The initial enquiry was about making toy boxes for kids not precision medical equipment for laser surgery ffs shakes head .....dear oh dear.... some folk sure do like making a mountain out of a molehill and in the process insulting others that are trying to offer help and advice to the op



when someone offers a simple solution and you offer a response of "nobody here has the capacity to do what they say", you're moving people backwards. 

Not all planes need to be flat. Some work better if they are (block planes, smoothers, jointers). It takes little talent or skill to learn to do it, and little cost. but it takes less talent to insult people who actually provide reasonable pragmatic advice.


----------

