Plane Length

[Mr Ed]

OK, here's one I've been mulling over for a while, but the recent thread on flattening LN (or other) planes brought it to the forefront of my mind. Not the bit about flattening, but the discussion of the phrase 'super smoother' and whatever that may mean.

We all know that a longer plane can create a truer surface as the length allows it to bridge the bumps and plane a level face. Hence the reason a jointer is the length it is.

We also know that generally heavier smoothing planes are thought to be better as the weight gives momentum and stability on the work.

So, given those two facts, why are smoothing planes generally fairly short? Surely a longer, heavier plane would be a good thing provided the weight is not so great as to be tiring. I have heard David Charlesworth quote that Alan Peters did everything with a No.6 and said the work would have to be very small before he would consider using anything shorter. I presume this is where David C's phrase 'super smoother' begins to come in.

So why having made the work true using a longer plane (or a machine surface planer) would you want to finish it with a short plane, other than if you wanted something easier to handle? Assuming that is the case, if one feels comfortable with handling a 5 or 5.5 for finishing jobs why would you need to own a shorter smoothing plane? (This is genuinely a question not a statement phrased as a question - I'm not sure I know the answer...)

Any thoughts anyone?

Cheers, Ed

 

[shim20]

what you have heard about the no6 is true, i use mine (old stanley usa) all the time for everything its just right imo, i still use a no4 but only for small things.
hope this helps in some way :lol:

 

[Philly]

Ed
My take on this is this: When preparing stock a jointer (or "long soled plane") is used after roughing out to flatten the stock. Depending on the grain, the jointer may a perfect or near perfect finish on the stock. The Smoother is then brought in to tame any localised areas of tear-out.
The short sole of a #3/#4, etc, is to allow you to plane just a localised area - a plane with a long sole won't allow many shavings on this task.
As for the weight of a smoother - if we use it for its true purpose (to take a final polishing cut with a very fine shaving thickness) then a heavy weight really shouldn't be necessary. A truly sharp edge taking a fine shaving will need little real effort.
Does that make sense?
Philly

 

[Mr Ed]

well, yes and no.

If the surface is planed true with a longer plane then you could still as you say take a few shavings with the same plane from part of the board before it stopped cutting. If the argument for a shorter plane is that you can take more shavings from part of the board then you will be creating a hollow, which I would say doesn't take many shavings before it becomes noticeable. But I don't think the scenario you describe of working part of a surface is what most people do - I think mostly people are planing a whole surface with a smoother which I would argue could be done as well, if not better, with a longer plane (especially if that plane is set up with a fine mouth / sharp blade, which is what I think DC is meaning with his super smoother)

As to the heavy weight I don't know if scientifically it is beneficial, but hefty smoothers is something people always talk about, and is the argument for infills I thought...

Cheers, Ed.

 

[Digit]

To me Phil the No 4 etc is just what it's supposed to be a smoothing plane. If the surface it is used on is true the length of the plane's sole is surely irrelevant?

Roy.

 

[Mr Ed]

You're right Roy, that once the surface is true the shorter length of say a no.4 is not a problem, provided you don't start excessively working localised areas. What I'm getting at is what is the benefit of the shorter length?

Cheers, Ed

 

[Karl]

What I'm getting at is what is the benefit of the shorter length?

Cheers, Ed

Well, speaking purely from my own personal experience, i've found that long, metal planes are more difficult to push when using high a Effective Pitch. Earlier this year I made a large set of sliding wardrobe doors from Oak, which had plenty of grain reversal. Had to switch to an EP >60degrees to eliminate tearout. My Clifton 7 was a real pain to use as the length/weight combination seemed to act against it, even though a fine cut was being take. A wooden smoother (from our very own Philly - a toted beauty) was the answer.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Paul Chapman]

I don't think one should worry too much about what the plane is called. All that really matters is the piece you are planing and which plane (and which set up) is best for the particular job.

I have all size bench planes from #3 to #7 and with some sizes I have more than one. And I use all the sizes for scrub-plane work through to smoothing - it just depends what I am working on.

I wouldn't be without any of them but if I could have only one, it would be the #7. I have two #7s and in one of them I use a heavily cambered blade and sometimes a toothed blade. In the other I use a straight blade and tight mouth.

Mind you, your needs probably depend partly on whether you use machines. I don't. If you do - particularly a planer/thicknesser - then I suppose all your planes are really smoothing planes because the rough work has been done on the machine.

I agree with the point about heavy planes being generally better.

One other point - depending on the piece of wood, the final smoothing might have to be done with a scraper or scraping plane.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Mr Ed]

I wouldn't be without any of them but if I could have only one, it would be the #7.

Well that's broadly my logic as well. I do most things with a LN 5.5, originally influenced by the words of David C but after trying the theory for some years I find it works very well.

Mind you, your needs probably depend partly on whether you use machines. I don't. If you do - particularly a planer/thicknesser - then I suppose all your planes are really smoothing planes because the rough work has been done on the machine.

I agree, and this is how I work (with machines that is). If you are refining machine planed stock then you don't need the full range of planes to take it from rough to ready (as Mr. Cosman would say). Therefore you are looking for a plane that can be a 'jack' of all trades which the 5.5 seems to suit.

Cheers, Ed.

 

[Digit]

To me Ed the main advantage is the lighter weight, why push a heavy plane if you can achieve the desired result with a lighter one?

Roy.

 

[Mr Ed]

Well the lighter weight is the only reason I can think of, but that doesn't square with what a lot of people say about heavy smoothers working better. For instance, the LN smoothers can be had in bronze because its heavier than steel. I also believe people like the no 4.5 because it is heavier than the no.4... Furthermore, I thought that the reason for infills using dense tropical hardwoods was to pack in as much weight as possible (although they do look nice as well :wink: )

Why would you shorten the plane to make it lighter, then add back other features that take the weight back up again?

Cheers, Ed.

 

[Paul Chapman]

why push a heavy plane if you can achieve the desired result with a lighter one?

In my experience, a heavy plane will always out-perform a light one. I have some Records, fitted with Clifton blades and cap irons, and which work well, and some equivalent Cliftons which are significantly heavier. The Cliftons will always work well - particularly on difficult woods - whereas the Records will often struggle.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Digit]

That's covered by my comment Paul 'why push a heavy plane if etc etc'.

Roy.

 

[newt]

I don't think Ed's dilemma has really been addressed. If you use a long plane and the piece becomes flat and smooth why would you then go over it again with a shorter plane. This assumes that both the long and the short produce the same finish, and there is no reason why they should not (assuming depth of cut, sole flatness, mouth size are the same). However if there is localised tearout which requires a steeper angled cutter then I could understand that you could use a shorter plane if that was already set up with a steeper blade. But you could also have a long plane set up with a steeper blade which I assume would also remove tearout with out leaving a hollow. But I have not heard of say a n07 being set up with a steep angle blade. As more effort is required with a steeper blade angle I suspect you would not want to joint or flatten with a no7 set up like this, however what if you had 2 no7's one at 45 and the other at the steeper angle to eliminate any tearout. It may be that a long plane can never produce as smooth a finish than a dedicated short smoother, although I do not understand why.

 

[custard]

I use a LN 5 1/2 with a 50 degree frog for the great majority of my hard wood work, and if I could only have one or two planes a 5 1/2 or 6 would be amongst them.

However, I do find shorter planes to be useful. Specifically I keep a LN 4 1/2 with a 55 degree frog for difficult smoothing. The high frog helps, but also the manoeuvrability of the shorter sole. In practise I find I'm often changing planing direction sharply to deal with complex grain, or skewing the plane, and both of these operations are more awkward with longer planes.

 

[Digit]

although I do not understand why.

Me neither.

Roy.

 

[Paul Chapman]

It may be that a long plane can never produce as smooth a finish than a dedicated short smoother, although I do not understand why.

Pete, I find that I can produce just as smooth a finish with my #6 or #7 as I can with my #3, #4 or #4 1/2.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[newt]

I can understand and in fact know that a shorter plane is easier to use than a long plane particularly when changing direction. But there must be other reasons that smothers are short.

 

[Paul Chapman]

But there must be other reasons that smothers are short.

Surely a plane is only "short" or "long" in relation to the length of the piece of wood?

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[newt]

Valid point paul, but lets assume that for this thread the board is 600mm long and 150mm wide and has some grain reversals.