# Jointer planes

Page 2 of 2
• posted on July 6, 2004, 11:56 pm
Larry Blanchard wrote:

What you do to make the shooting board, or what I do anyway, is to take a long peice of very stable ply and use it as the base of the board. I then get a thin, 1/4" piece of luan ply and make a straight line along the length, assuming the edge isn't straight as it is. Lay the thin ply on the birch ply and slide it back from the edge far enough for the lane to lie on its side with its sole touching the edge of the thin ply and be supported entirely, or more by the birch ply. Like this on an end view.
___________________ |__________________|_______________ | | |__________________________________|
Glue the two peices of wood together and clamp them flat. When they're dry, take what ever plane you're going to be using as a jointer and run it along the edge of the upper board as though you were jointing a board sitting on the top. This will leave the ower edeg of the upper board as it was, but will cut a recess into the upper board as deep as the set of your plane blade. When you want to joint a couplke of boards, clamps them stacked on top of the upper board even with the unrecessed edge. Now when you use your jointer, it will remove the wood up to the point where it touches its sole on the unrecessed edge of the upper piece of ply. Once it gets to that point it'll stop cutting. Hopefully the boards will be jointed, but if there are still some hollows to be cut out, just advance the two boards a squidge further and do it again. The nice thing about this is that if the sole and blade aren't exactly 90 degrees, the dicrepancy will make upo for its when you put the two baoards together, they'll be complimentary angles.
It's harder to explain than to do, so if that didn't make sense, tell me what was murky and I'll try to make sense, no promises though.
Dave in Fairfax
--
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 7, 2004, 6:48 am

Good question but you've been distracted by the two differnt

Respecfully, I think you miswrote here.
Jointing is done to the side (edge to clear) of a board, or to the edges of two boards clamped together which are to be edge-joined to make a panel. This is sometimes done with a jointer fence attached to the plane, but so long as the boards are clamped together face-to-face or back-to-back the fence isn't needed as any beveling of the jonted edges will be suplimentary (e.g. match) to give a flat panel when edge glued. However a long plane is a big help so as to not crown the edges from end to end. A long straght edge used as a guide WOULD make it possible to joint with a short plane, a 4 1/2 for instance, but I have never seen that done or even heard of it.
Beveling can be done with a fence on a jointer plane and the combination of the #6 fore plane with the # 286 jointer fence (I think that is the right number) was popular among boatwrights. My guess is the shorter #6 (as oppesd to a #7 or #8 made it possible to bevel the edges of longish planks while also slightly crowning them to conform to the complex curvature of the side of a boat.
I admit to never having used a shooting board, but have seen them used and typically a shooting board is used to clean up a saw cut and trim to exactly the correct angle a crosscut of some ilk, such as a miter cut. Thus a shooting board typically is used to guide the plane while trimming the endgrain of the board. A shooting board may be used is used in place of a miter trimmer or a discsander with miter gague for doing the corners for picture flames and such.
I don't see how a shooting board could be used to edge joint a board, though I have heard jointing referred to as 'shooting the edge' of the board, by Roy Underhill.

No disagreement here.
--

FF

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 7, 2004, 1:45 pm
Interspersed comments for ease and clarity, I apologize for not bottom posting.
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

I guess I missed something, I thought that I'd said that the jointing was done to the sides of the board. As I've said in the past, I'm a turner trying to learn flatwork, so maybe I got the terms mixed up. I use mine to make boards suitable for gluing together to make wider boards and to clean up the ends of a board.

No argument there, That's why I pointed out that the length of the plane in respect to the length of the board is important. It's also why I said that the two boards jointed at the same time would mate up because the angles wouyld be complimentary. It's also why I said #5 or greater.

I mentioned using a long straight-edge to check the straightness of the upper piece of plywood. I wasn't suggesting using it as the reference surface for the plane, and certainly not for use with a #4.

I saw shooting boards used to square ends as well as trim angles.

If you take a look at the sketch I made, the board gets clamped to the upper board just barely hanging over its edge, and the plane is put on it's side on the lower board. The plane will remove the edge of the board up to the point where its sole contacts the edge of the upper board. At that time, hopefully, the edge of the board to be jointed will be flat and square. I got the idea from Jeff Gorman's website, http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/shootingboards/shootingindex.htm but it's possible that I misunderstood what he was saying. It works, which is what I was looking for.
It's possible that I've misused the shooting board by using it for edges on boards, but since I don't have a jointer, it'll have to do. %-)
Dave in Fairfax
--
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 7, 2004, 2:00 pm
dave in fairfax wrote:

It's certainly not a misuse, as can be seen on this picture from a German woodworking book (1954):
I'd say it's a good way to joint short boards. For long boards a jointer plane alone should do it.
Wolfgang
--
"Holzbearbeitung mit Handwerkzeugen": http://www.holzwerken.de
Forum Handwerkzeuge:
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 8, 2004, 4:13 am

No, no mix up. I just thought 'edge' was clearer than 'side'.
A flat rectangular board has 6 sides, two are faces, two are edges, two are ends. If you just say 'side' it is clear to me that you mean the edge, but that might not be clear to others, especially some of the feriners who read rec.nahrm, though most of them probably read and write English better than I do.

Here's nit, please don't be annoyed, but complimentary angles sum to 90 degrees, supplimentary angles sum to 180 degrees. You actually want supplimentary bevel angles when edge jointing boards.

I misunderstood.

Me too.

But now I do see is illustrated at a page on the website you mentioned:
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/rubjointing/rubjointing.htm
Live and learn.

Where do we find the sketch?

It looks to me like you got it right, and now I've been educated too.

Ah, but if you get a jointe, you'll love using it. A #7 or #8 is an impressive tool and when you're not truing boards you can whop pit bulls on the head with it.
--

FF

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 10, 2004, 6:57 am
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

OK, just so long as we're both singin' from the same page.

You're right, and that's what I was thinking of, a brain fart, I'm afraid.

I'ts a great website. Easy to go through and incredibly informative.

It was ASCII art in an earlier message. Which, of course, I now can't find.

Yup and it's good for correcting my daughter, too. %-)
Dave in Fairfax
--
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 7, 2004, 6:38 pm
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

Needs must. I used a production Stanley 220. Crispy joint. Then I bought a #4 and a #5...
--

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on July 11, 2004, 2:10 am
Just read tghis whole thread. Topic veered into Lee Valley vesus Lei-Nielson verus Chinese planes versus Anant planes from India. I suggests looking at the planes from Steve Knight at http://www.knight-toolworks.com/ .
Regarding the original question: "is there significance in flatness or speed of work between the three. Given that the different planes are made, there must be a reason why.......".. I thinks it's just a matter of accuracy. My feeling is that there's a significant difference between a #6 and #7 but much less between a #7 and #8.
For readers who might have an engineering abckground, these planes operate like low pass filters. If the length of the plane is L, then the plane has (approximately) a low pass response which is a sinc function whose first null is at 1/L.
So we compare 1/18 versus 1/22 versus 1/24: 0.0555 versus 0.04545 versus 0.04166. If you plotted the responses, you'd see the smaller number means more "dc" rejection. To a first order, we can directly compare these numbers: the 24" is about 9% better than the 22". the 22" is about 22% better than the 18".
Hope I did the arithmetic correctly....