Ask two woodworkers how to face (flatten a face of a board) a rough sawn board using only hand tools and you're likely to get three different answers. There are almost as many opinions on how to perform this seemingly simple task as there are different types of hand planes. Inevitably, at least one of those answers will recommend the use of a scrub plane as the first plane of choice. There has even been a video made recommending just this procedure. The common (mis)conception, usually originating from someone who doesn't actually perform this task with hand planes, is that one needs to progress from scrub plane to jack plane to jointer plane to smooth plane.
When I first started working wood with hand tools, I bought into this theory as it was the common advice generally spouted fourth on the hand tool message boards (my only source of information at the time). So I went out and found myself a nice old Stanley #40 scrub plane, sharpened it up and had at a piece of rough sawn stuff. When I finished "scrubbing" the face of the board, I was horrified at what I saw. The board had deep, narrow troughs and gouges all across it. It certainly was no closer to being flat than when I started.
I had hope, however, that the advice I had received on the internet was good advice and so I forged on, switching to my handy Stanley #5 jack plane. I used the jack plane across and diagonal to the grain and the board began to look better. Soon, I had removed all the deep troughs left by the scrub plane and replaced them with shallow waves from the slightly cambered iron of the jack plane. Feeling more confident, I moved on to the jointer plane, planing diagonal to the grain and then with the grain, finally bringing the board face flat.
I was so proud of myself that I flipped the board over and went at the other side with the scrub plane, and repeated the whole process until that face was flat. When I was finished, I was sweaty, but proud that I had dressed a rough sawn board. The problem was that I had taken a 4/4 board (about 1+" thick) and turned it into a board that was just over 1/2" thick!
This got me thinking about the whole process I'd read about online. Did I do something wrong? No, I set up my planes like I had read and followed the process I had read. So was something wrong with the process? Maybe I'd better do some more research.
Fast forward to today, and I now know better than to touch the scrub plane. In fact, I sold it soon after that experience when I read some better information. The problem was in fact the use of the scrub plane. Most of my facing time and effort was spent removing the damage I had done to the board caused by the use of the scrub plane. Because it left such deep hollows, I had to spend a lot of time and remove a lot of material with the jack plane. This of course results in a much thinner board and a lot of unnecessary work.
There are a lot of theories about the intended use of the scrub plane. The modern scrub plane appears to be modeled after an older continental European plane commonly used to quickly remove a lot of stock from a board. Chris Schwarz wrote an article on his theory of the scrub plane's origination. It is a well thought out article with a lot of historical evidence to back it up. After reading it, and from my experience facing a lot of lumber with and without the scrub plane, I do agree with him that this plane was NOT designed for facing rough lumber. You can read Chris' article here.
When you look at historical texts on the craft, such as Joseph Moxon's 17th century text Mechanik Exercises, or Peter Nicholson's 1845 version The Mechanic's Companion, you see no mention of the scrub plane. In the traditional English system, there was no scrub plane. Reading these texts further reinforced what I had learned the hard way. The first plane used in the process of facing the stock is the fore plane (also called the jack plane in Nicholson's text). According to Moxon, the fore plane is so named because it is used be'fore' the other facing planes, which are the try (or jointer, more on this in another post) and smooth plane.
Now there are those who will criticize my use of the scrub saying that it is not meant to plane the entire face, only to remove the high spots, which would be identified with a straight edge. This is a weak arguement in my opinion. I've tried it that way as well and it takes a rediculous amount of time to constantly check for high spots and only plane those areas. The use of the fore plane, which is twice the length of the scrub plane, takes care of this problem. The fore plane's length is a major asset and it's secret to quickly bringing the face of a board to relative flatness.
Because the fore plane is 16" - 18" long, it rides over the low spots and only takes a shaving from the high spots, no checking necessary except to make sure the face has no wind (twist) with a pair of winding sticks. You do not, however, need to constantly check for high spots. When you take a full length shaving from end to end and edge to edge, your board face is flat. With a slightly cambered iron, the plane leaves shallow waves, easily removed with a few passes of the try plane. If the surface is acceptable after the try plane, you are done. If you need an ultra smooth surface, such as for a table top, you can follow the try plane with a few passes from the smoothing plane.
Stanley made two sizes of what may be considered a fore plane, the #5 and the #6 (or the #605 and #606 if you prefer the bedrock series). They also made several transitional planes in these sizes. The problem as I see it with these two planes has to do with their relative sizes & weights. The #5 size, which Stanley called a jack plane, is 14" long. In my opinion, this is a little short for a fore plane, but will do in a pinch. The weight of the #5 is good for a fore plane however, as it is not too heavy when using it for extended periods of time taking thick shavings (jack/fore planes should not be set up to take super fine shavings, as some would have you believe). I have used a #5 as my fore plane for years, however, I now prefer a wooden fore plane, for reasons I'll discuss in a second.
By contrast, the #6 size, which Stanley called a fore plane, is the perfect length for a fore plane at 18". The problem with the #6 is it's weight. At about 8 pounds, this plane is down right exhausting to use as a fore plane for any more than a dozen or so strokes. And anyone who says that the plane's weight is an asset has not used it for taking the thick shavings typical of a properly set fore plane for any length of time. I had a #6 and tried it out as a fore plane. I quickly reconfigured it to be a short try/jointer plane as it was simply too heavy to use as a fore plane.
Which brings me to what I now use, a traditional wooden fore plane. Mine is 17" long but weighs less than my #5. It has a thick tapered iron and is just a joy to use. I actually enjoy facing lumber with this plane, a task that previously was just a chore. If you like the idea of a longer lighter weight plane like this, but you are terrified by the thought of learning to set and adjust the iron on a traditional wedged plane like this (it's really not that hard), try a transitional. These are lighter than their full cast iron counterparts but still maintain the Bailey style adjustment and iron securing mechanism.
In a future post, I'll go through the facing of a board using the fore and try plane. However, in the mean time, if you have been using a scrub plane for this task, try it my way and see what you've been missing. I can now take a 12" wide by 36" long board and face it (one face) with my fore and try plane in about 5-10 minutes, a job that took 30-60 minutes before when I used the scrub plane.
RSS Feed