>So does everyone find it more difficult in preparing long stock? I'm trying to prep a 4 by 4 white pine timber that's 8 feet long and I had a heck of a time trying to get two sides flat - square to each other - and free of wind. I developed a pretty nice gradual dip in the center of it;s length as I was trying to flatten it. Didn;t find it until I took a string line to it.
Is long stock just harder to work with?
Does it help to have a really long plane? I was using a #7 cause taht's what I have - would it be easier if I had a 30 inch try plane or jointer?
>Well it is a bit like working on a piece that is 2 feet long and one inch in diameter, probably with some grain imperfections, in the sense that the material is flexible and maybe a little springy.
Also it is aways harder to work on stuff when you don't have a proper bench. in this case do you have a long enough surface to work and hold it on. I have 4 8 foot or longer planing beams (something out of wack there).
When you plane stuff there are certain instances where you are transfering the "mold" of the plane to the wood. And situations where you are kinda hewing away at it. By the time you get a piece that is 8' long, I tend to start moving back to smaller planes that take a cut, so I can get the job done. The longer plane may help you but it is also a lot heavier, and not that likely to tranfer it's shape. To get it to do that you would probably end up taking some pretty fine shavings, so you are better off getting it real close before messing around like that. Beam palnes tend to be wide, but not that long.
>I think it is a great mistake to assume that the long plane is going to make a flat surface on its own. A slightly longer plane would give only marginally better results. It is much better to use a straightedge (even one that is shorter than your stock) to check your progress and winding sticks and remove material only from the high areas, not always taking full lenght shavings.
>I'm assuming you really needed an 8 ft. long piece. Otherwise, it's much easier to cut it up to approximate length and square the individual pieces. Hope I'm not stating the obvious.
I should have said that it isn't likely the shape you want. The hollow it can automatically create with accuracy will be the kind of eror you are probably hoping to remove. Get some winding sticks (whatever you have on hand, and I like a chalk line on longer work, then you can set up some lines and cut to those with whatever tools make the most sense.
Chalk lines will often lay down a slight bow, or for that mater you can shoot a big one if you like. The bow might be in the order 1/16" over 20 feet. You can check that with a dry line stretched over the chalk line. But it seems to be easier to straighten the layout from a slightly bent line than to lay down perfect ticks off a dry line in the first instance.
>Hi fellas. Thanks for the responses and suggestions.
I do need the timber 8 feet long. I'm building a door frame and I have two of these to true up so I can build the frame from them and tie them into the framing of the house.
I have a robou style bench that's about 7 feet long so I was planing the stock one way and then flipping it to plane the last little bit off the other end. I tried the next one by clamping it against the face of the bench with the leg vise in front and the other end resting on the board jack. That worked ok, but was only marginally better than just flipping it end to end and usingg the planing stop.
I just wondered if there was a trick to working with long stock cause I was surprised that I managed to plane a sag into the timber - although I guess it;s not that surprising since the plane is only about 22 inches long vs the timber's 96 inch dimension.
What was surprising was that the straightedge didn;t pick it up either since it was so gradual- even though the straightedge I was using was 3 feet long. I finally noticed it when I checked by just sighting down the timber. Then I got smart and got the string line out. That worked better. For some reason though, I was having a tough time accepting that I was straightening it using a small plane and checking and rechecking with the string. It just seemed to go against the principals of working from coarse to fine to dimension the wood.
I also had a heck of a time squaring one face against another. I think for the next one I'm going to flatten one side and then make the opposite side parallel before trying to square it up. Seems easier than chasing square around the timber.
>It is harder to get a large piece flat. If you plane a slight hollow on the board that is an arc with a 50 foot radius there will be only a .01 depression in a 2 foot length. The same arc on a 8 foot length will give a .16 inch depression, sixteen times as much. If it is awkward to hold the timber and straightedge up to the light, you can get you can get a feel for whether it is hollow or not by wiggling the straightedge as it sits on the timber. A slight crown on the board and the straightedge will swivel in the middle, a slight hollow and the straightedge will be tight at the ends and loose in the middle.
Ususally when we prepare a square timber we plane one side flat, plane a flat perpendicular side, and then use a marking gauge to layout the other two sides. It is awkward to work all the way around with the try square.
>Warren, good tip about wiggling the straightedge around.
I did flatten one side, square the face adjacent and then guage a parallel side from one of those two to get the third, but chasing even one side with the square was TEDIOUS!
i was thinking it may be quicker to get one side flat and free of wind, then square only the ENDS of the adjacent side, and guage the remainder with the winding sticks instead of checkinwith the square along it;s whole length. Seemed like it may be a bit quicker.
>I've worked some slightly shorter stuff, 3-5 ft, but I only worked one face. I'd wonder, even if this is for a door, is perfectly straight and square on 2 sides absolutely necessary. You may want to determine how straight and true you need the board. If you couldn't see the slight hollow with a 3ft straight edge, you probably can't see it by eye. You may want to determine where you joints will go and make sure those areas are straight and square while not worrying too much about the other areas. Just get the close enough to not be visible.
Adam has talked about his in his PWW articles - only go straight and square where you need it.
If you have to do two sides straight and square along the whole length, then I agree that you start with on side flat and free of wind, then do the opposite side, then an adjacent side. Trying to get an adjacent side that long flat and square is probably an exercise in frustration.
>When starting on a long piece, particularly if thin or if any flex is present, it is useful to shim the hollows underneath so that it cannot flex when the plane goes by.
I use paper, card or wedges to get the beam solidly supported on the bench surface.
Yes, winding sticks can be very useful, and need using in several places say from the centre of the length as the reference.
>Yeah, after agonizing over it for far longer than I should have, the idea of getting it flat for flat's sake lost it's luster and I just called it good enough.
It's not like I won't just plane the edges of the door to get it to fit the opening anyway.
Besides, every other door frame in the house is 215 years old and is visibly taller in one corner than the other so why the heck should I worry about this one. If I make it too good, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb!
Adam's advice on just making it work without worrying about acheiving machinist precision in every piece has resulted in the biggest leap forward that my woodworking has ever taken. It is great advice.
>As the conversation progressed, and you mentioned that it was a doorframe, I found myself wondering whether it was an older house - and indeed, it is.
There's a reason that joiners went toward a distinction between the framing and the trim - a long 4x4, even if you get it flat and straight, won't necessarily stay that way for too awfully long. I betcha, 215 years ago, doors leaked around the edges more than we consider acceptable now - heck, 50 years ago, they leaked around the edges more than we now accept. If you're being historically correct in installing a 4x4 that is also the door trim, you may need to accept that you're going to have to fit the door to the trim instead of making each one straight and having them match.
Bill, who may be generalizing from his experiences with a house that's a mere 120 years old.
