Shall I continue lapping this sole ?

[Cabinetman]

Without it being actually stuck down onto a hard surface there is a chance the paper will rise up into the mouth and defeat one of the main objects of the exercise, Stanley in the 70s used linashers which did exactly that, when I arrived at college all us young students planes were sent back to Stanley for surface grinding – doubt that would happen now ha ha

 

[Jacob]

Without it being actually stuck down onto a hard surface there is a chance the paper will rise up into the mouth .....

Stays well stuck down by surface tension or whatever, if you get it all wet enough. Thin paper backed paper seems designed for the job, not thicker fabric backed.

 

[D_W]

Let's try reading again - that's what I did first. Glass plate, wet and dry paper with water. It did scuff a plane. It also resulted in paper needing to be replaced fairly often (any amount of swarf starts to float the paper and then an edge tears somewhere).

It's far substandard to my method, but I also have a second motive - to make a plane sole better than you're going to.

You also seem to have missed my post above - 60 grit silicon carbide is what I got down to before deciding it was pointless. PSA roll leaves it in the dust. Spot method eliminates issues with the paper cutting slow or making the toe and heel high.

I don't expect you to grasp all of this, but at least some folks will want to do it once and get really good results and have the option to do it as well.

I would guess about 50 minutes of the video was working the sole of the plane. On a small plane doable entirely by lapping, it may be 5 minutes.

You haven't done a 6-8 with your method in less than an hour. I've been there. If you haven't done many long planes, you may not have a concept of why 5 minutes of lapping is about the same as an hour or hour and a half of spot work on a jointer. if you want to compare lapping, you can trade a #7 or #8 lapping in hours to minutes with a 4 - you don't have enough weight to lap one. I don't, and you probably don't weigh as much as I do (and that's not by any means boasting about weight - I should be 3/4ths of my weight, or close to 155 pounds than 205).

 

[D_W]

Without it being actually stuck down onto a hard surface there is a chance the paper will rise up into the mouth and defeat one of the main objects of the exercise, Stanley in the 70s used linashers which did exactly that, when I arrived at college all us young students planes were sent back to Stanley for surface grinding – doubt that would happen now ha ha

Wet and dry paper will move or become damaged at the edges if it's not adhered, and then you'll have the soft tearing edges to deal with. It's fine as jacob uses it (coarse work to make a plane to be used for coarse work - let's be honest jacob has never posted fine work or a well flattened plane sole, but he has posted a couple that were roughly scuffed up). The PSA roll eliminates the problem and eliminates the liquid needed as a lubricant - you just vacuum the dust off.

 

[D_W]

Hopefully the OP in this thread doesn't follow your advice, Jacob, and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Ttrees]

You wouldn't need blue stuff, straight edge or feeler gauges you can see where the high points are from the grind marks.
If in doubt use a coarser grit so you can see where you've been.
Hope that helps.

That's the problem you see Jacob, you cannot trust the wear marks as abrasion always favours the ends.
The toe and heel will always be partial to more removal if done on a large lap, and if done like so for long enough,
i.e having to remove a twist, hollow strip in center, or belly in the middle...
(more notably on say a no.5 plane, and worse as you get longer)
then one stands a very good chance of making a banana.

The only way you can trust your eyes and not use feeler gauges is by knowing what flat looks like.
To do so, one must understand the last bit above and use it to ones advantage.

Flat starts with targeted area of removal first, as I don't have an expensive straight edge
I use a lap and markers (couldn't find suitable glass)
Tip for the frugal, if Prussian blue is not deemed essential to me, it gets nice and runny when the plane warms up a few degrees whilst working.

Once the ink can be removed from the toe and heel only, on a large area lap,
with no more than two or three swipes, then you can do what you like after that.
If there's contact somewhere else, then you have to target areas.

Pic below is ink still remaining on the edges of the plane
i.e a slightly hollow, which will disappear with a single rub on the test section (larger area)

I destroyed planes in the past, by doing what you say, as it gets important is there's little meat to play with, adjustable mouth for example,
and there's plenty of job lots on the bay or wherever, that have been treated as such..
I had one of those
That's why one should always seek a plane that can be seen front and back, or as close to it as you can.

Tom

 

[Jacob]

That's the problem you see Jacob, you cannot trust the wear marks as abrasion always favours the ends.
......

The blue stuff would favour the ends too.
In the real world these finer details have very little bearing on the woodwork itself unless the thing is really bad. I had a new Stanley 7 which was unusable as it was distinctly concave but other than that most stuff is OK ish.
I'll do some snaps of the wet wet process.

 

[Ttrees]

I made my no.8 so bad, that I had to try scraping it flat, which wasn't a good idea.
Could write a list of all the times that thinking has gotten me into trouble.
Few planes went to the scrap parts bin, but managed to salvage my no.8 in the end.
some other non essential things still in the workshop to remind me when I knew less.

Most folks who don't believe this and use a big lap, probably have used an angle grinder and flap disc which done most of the work for them, so not noticed this happening.

 

[Jacob]

I made my no.8 so bad, that I had to try scraping it flat, which wasn't a good idea.

What, made it worse?

Could write a list of all the times that thinking has gotten me into trouble.
.....

It's not thinking: over-thinking is the problem! You've put your finger on it.

 

[D_W]

If you get anything that can scrape cast near a plane mouth, the results is usually a chipped mouth. Just cosmetic, but ugly.

In terms of whether or not "it's all just minutiae", I'd say two planes benefit (for the benefit of the user, not just entertainment) by being dead flat - jointer, smoother. Everything else can be just OK.

Going for less just makes more labor with the woodworking unless you want to make up for it with glue and checking a bunch of stuff that doesn't need to be checked. If a joint is match planed, it should be ready with through shavings off of the plane - done. No straight edges, no nothing. If the plane isn't up to doing that, then you'll be faffing with that stuff. A joint line on something like a guitar body made of quartered wood is also completely unacceptable - you can faff to fit all of that stuff and boast about it, but it's not for me.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I must admit I don't use Jacob's methodology with wet and dry paper for this task. My preference is to use aluminium oxide loaded abrasive rolls which you can get from almost anywhere, e.g., B&Q. They're about 100 mm wide by 5m long, and I start with 80 grit. I tear off a long strip, maybe a metre or so and tape it down with plenty of tape at either end on to a flat surface such as a surface planer table. I pull the paper as tight as possible to reduce the tendency to wrinkle and push up in waves ahead of the moving end of the plane - backwards or forwards. Then I go at it and just a few strokes is usually more than enough to identify the high spots and gives a clue as to how much work is required to get the sole acceptably flat.

I've found this method adequate for all plane sole flattening from smoothing planes to longer try planes. I suppose it could be argued that this type of abrasive, simply taped as it is to a flat surface isn't likely to produce perfect results because of the paper's tendency to lift and wrinkle as it's used. However, so far, in over forty years of using this rather basic technique I've found it pretty reliable. I suspect the end result is that plane soles sometimes, or perhaps often ends up ever so slightly convex, but if that's the case I can't say I've ever really been able to detect convexity, but I only use rules and straight edges to check for flatness, and I'd hardly call those tools the sort of things capable of precise engineering measurement. On the other hand, a slightly convex soled bench plane will work well for just about any task, perhaps even better than a perfectly flat soled plane (no proof for that on my part, just a guess), but a concave soled plane is pretty much useless.

However, the end results work, and I can't recall ever spending more than about fifteen minutes even on a longer try plane (about 22") to get the sole acceptably flat enough, even if it is coarsely striated at that 80 grit. By acceptably flat enough, I mean that at minimum coarse striations are apparent all around the perimeter of the plane's sole and that similar striations surround the plane's mouth; in other words a figure of eight pattern of coarse striations. Of course, a bit more work will increase the area of the coarse striations and gradually fill the holes in the figure of eight pattern, but it's my experience that this isn't strictly necessary to get a plane to work well.

If this sole flattening is a quick and dirty job, basic flattening with 80 grit a-lox to at least the figure of eight pattern already described I've found is adequate. Those sharp edged ridges left by the 80 grit smooth over pretty quickly with use, and it's always possible to get rid of the figure of eight pattern entirely with the 80 grit if desired, and to follow up by working through finer grits to get a more polished appearance if that's important to the plane's owner or user. I'm not one to bother much with ultimate smoothness and shininess in plane soles, although having said that most of my plane soles seem to have either come with or have developed quite a smooth and a dulled shine appearance over time with use. Slainte.

 

[D_W]

A slight convexity to lapping is definitely a favorable bias if one is going to shoot for something reliable without having an expensive starrett rule and feelers. I can't say I've ever had a non-twisted convex plane that was a problem, but 2 thousandths of hollow is a royal pain, and it leads to all kinds of internet cognitive traps ("I can suspend the plane between two blocks and bend it more than that!!" ...sure, you can. Where do you put the blocks when the plane is going off of the end of a board? They always plane the ends off an obnoxious small amount - if a plane is a bit too convex and you joint a board slightly hollow, there's nothing but the tips to knock down a little).

I also never found a great reason to go finer than 80 grit as far as flatness or finish goes. The premium planes with more finely machined soles have a lot of grip, and that's not a good thing. 220 held loose or on something with cushion is fine to remove some of the snag from the 80 grit for the impatient.

I flatten wooden plane soles (new and old) the same way - just on the lap. I've been told that people with skill wouldn't do that, but would rather get winding sticks out and plane the sole to flatness...I get a chuckle out of that). It's only the large metal planes that really demand spot removal (I suppose if someone was 450 pounds, they could get enough over a long metal plane to lap quickly). One of the treats of the woodies is that with some fresh paper and a little bit of wax, the sole is trued in minutes.

The Al-ox lap is also excellent for initial flattening of ratty irons or chisels. Far better than stones (and absolutely filthy, as you say). A zillion other uses to lap and make other little bits if someone is working metal or even small wooden parts.

 

[Jacob]

I must admit I don't use Jacob's methodology with wet and dry paper for this task. My preference is to use aluminium oxide loaded abrasive rolls which you can get from almost anywhere, e.g., B&Q. They're about 100 mm wide by 5m long, and I start with 80 grit. I tear off a long strip, maybe a metre or so and tape it down with plenty of tape at either end on to a flat surface such as a surface planer table. I pull the paper as tight as possible to reduce the tendency to wrinkle and push up in waves ahead of the moving end of the plane - backwards or forwards. Then I go at it and just a few strokes is usually more than enough to identify the high spots and gives a clue as to how much work is required to get the sole acceptably flat.

I've found this method adequate for all plane sole flattening from smoothing planes to longer try planes. I suppose it could be argued that this type of abrasive, simply taped as it is to a flat surface isn't likely to produce perfect results because of the paper's tendency to lift and wrinkle as it's used. However, so far, in over forty years of using this rather basic technique I've found it pretty reliable. I suspect the end result is that plane soles sometimes, or perhaps often ends up ever so slightly convex, but if that's the case I can't say I've ever really been able to detect convexity, but I only use rules and straight edges to check for flatness, and I'd hardly call those tools the sort of things capable of precise engineering measurement. On the other hand, a slightly convex soled bench plane will work well for just about any task, perhaps even better than a perfectly flat soled plane (no proof for that on my part, just a guess), but a concave soled plane is pretty much useless.

However, the end results work, and I can't recall ever spending more than about fifteen minutes even on a longer try plane (about 22") to get the sole acceptably flat enough, even if it is coarsely striated at that 80 grit. By acceptably flat enough, I mean that at minimum coarse striations are apparent all around the perimeter of the plane's sole and that similar striations surround the plane's mouth; in other words a figure of eight pattern of coarse striations. Of course, a bit more work will increase the area of the coarse striations and gradually fill the holes in the figure of eight pattern, but it's my experience that this isn't strictly necessary to get a plane to work well.

If this sole flattening is a quick and dirty job, basic flattening with 80 grit a-lox to at least the figure of eight pattern already described I've found is adequate. Those sharp edged ridges left by the 80 grit smooth over pretty quickly with use, and it's always possible to get rid of the figure of eight pattern entirely with the 80 grit if desired, and to follow up by working through finer grits to get a more polished appearance if that's important to the plane's owner or user. I'm not one to bother much with ultimate smoothness and shininess in plane soles, although having said that most of my plane soles seem to have either come with or have developed quite a smooth and a dulled shine appearance over time with use. Slainte.

Much the same really. The key essential is a flat surface, also smooth and impermeable if doing it the wet way.
IMHO the wet method has the edge as it lies flatter, paper is thinner cheap and easily available, swarf is washed off, faster, and the paper lasts longer. 2 sheets end to end will do a no.8. If it's concave the sheets can be separate and just work the ends
I don't do a figure of eight - just to and fro but moving along to use the whole area of the paper, with a straight edge scrap of board as a fence to keep the grinding parallel - not essential just looks neater!
80 grit is faster, haven't tried 40 might have a go.
Come to think I haven't needed to flatten one for years but do it as a demo occasionally, or just to tidy up a sole.

 

[D_W]

Sounds like you're positing a lot of 'coulda.

Do a pair of 8s to actual flatness and get back to us. I can tell you haven't because I started with what you're saying and it was no good. Literally two Stanley 8s made it clear that lapping wouldn't work for anything but the lightest correction. I suspect you've rubbed a few 4s and 5s and you think because they're easy to lap, you can just conceptualize the idea larger.

There's no give to adhesive roll on glass, it's not hook and loop.

 

[Adam W.]

Blimey, do you lot ever get any woodwork done?

All this waffle over a nearly flat and good enough plane.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I flatten wooden plane soles (new and old) the same way - just on the lap. I've been told that people with skill wouldn't do that, but would rather get winding sticks out and plane the sole to flatness...

It's interesting you mention that about wooden planes. In another forum I said to you that I might dig out my old beech try plane, tickle it up and use it for the first time in perhaps twenty years. I can't remember what the subject was in the other forum. Anyway, I did dig out that old try plane. It was manky looking, covered in dust and the iron was a bit rusticated though lack of attention, love and care on my part. Anyway, about 30 minutes of light sanding of the wood, application of some linseed oil made it pretty again (sort of), and fifteen to twenty minutes cleaning up the iron, sharpening it, and tiddling with the cap iron got that fitting nice and tight. Got all set up and went at a lump of rough oak, and it wouldn't work worth a spit.

So a bit of examining the plane's sole using those highly unsophisticated rules I mentioned earlier indicated the sole was concave. To correct it I used my no 7 Stanley and a few strokes took the high spot off at either end. This was followed by a few strokes with a sanding block and a bit 180 grit and a dollop of wax well rubbed in, and the old beech job worked a treat. I think I ought to give that old beech thing a bit more love and attention in the future now that I've resurrected it, ha, ha. Slainte.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I don't do a figure of eight - just to and fro but moving along to use the whole area of the paper ...

I didn't say I use a figure of eight motion on the paper; like you I just work the plane backwards and forwards. The figure of eight pattern I described related specifically to an at minimum desirable pattern of striations created on the plane's sole after some flattening. Slainte.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Blimey, do you lot ever get any woodwork done?
All this waffle ...

Ha, ha. I'd actually been wondering the same thing about you. After all, you've only been contributing here for just over four months, and you're nearly up to half the post count I've managed in my near seventeen years of verbal flatulence in these hallowed surroundings. (It's a joke and no snippiness intended.) Slainte.

 

[Ttrees]

Blimey, do you lot ever get any woodwork done?

All this waffle over a nearly flat and good enough plane.

Just as long as folks understand that the bigger lap will do nothing but copy the existing profile
of the plane, if the OP decides to keep at it.
Better to know what to look out for, instead of being convinced the opposite.

 

[Adam W.]

Ha, ha. I'd actually been wondering the same thing about you. After all, you've only been contributing here for just over four months, and you're nearly up to half the post count I've managed in my near seventeen years of verbal flatulence in these hallowed surroundings. (It's a joke and no snippiness intended.) Slainte.

I know, but I've been bored and I thought that people might be interested in something different. More than happy to stop if you want.

I do ask on a regular basis if people think I'm going on too much, so there is at least some self awareness there.