Why is beech used for plane bodies

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

david weaver

I can offer some answers that only relate to my actual experience (and have little or no historical relevance).

I have made mortised planes from beech, birch, maple, cherry and cocobolo. Maybe something else that I can't remember. I have additionally made handles from macassar ebony, rosewood and apple.

Of all of those woods, the two nicest for tools for the maker, and for the resulting tool were apple and beech. The apple is exceedingly rare, but it worked nicer than the beech. Cherry was next, and macassar, ebony, maple and cocobolo were not as nice to work because they were much more chippy.

Beech is problematic for us to dry, but for someone who was sawing the wood in large quantities and air drying it, I don't think it'd be much of a problem. The only historical reference that I have is the WPINCA book stating that the chapin company started somewhere that a supply of dried beech was already established (which is interesting, that the wood would be there and waiting before a customer was known).

Anyway, beech is forgiving to mortising, rasping, carving, more so than maple, and the flatsawn side is probably more durable (it seems so on my planes). The planes have a better quality in use and in making (warren calls the wood "dead") and for about the same hardness as hard maple, beech works much more nicely and easily. It mortises smoothly, planes well and carves smoothly. Maple is very hard/harsh feeling for its level of hardness, and it takes detail less well and chips out around the mouth a lot easier and more severely.

there is just a whole set of subtle things that would make most users prefer something that works like beech (or apple, or some of the harder pear woods), and beech is the only one of those that's available in any significant amount.

(birch preceded beech in the US, but I don't find that as nice to work - at least not what was sold to me as yellow birch).

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

Chris Scholz

Hi Bill,

are you strictly talking about planes in the North America?

The Chinese woodworker would have used a piece of wood that he had left over from a project. Rosewood, huali, zitan (if you can get it). If it can't be fixed you simply make a new one.

One woodworker told me once that a plane lasts 70 years, did not elaborate why though.

Chris

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

Paul in NJ

Hi Bill,

A few comments from my experience and some theory:

1. It was a plentiful wood in the areas planes were made. Birch was also used for a while on early planes.

2. After working beech with hand tools, I see why plane makers used it. It cuts so smoothly with chisel, saw, plane, and rasp/file; this is not to be taken lightly. The fine grain holds detail. It would much more of a chore in hard maple.

3. There is truth in what Larry says. It loses moisture so rapidly after it is cut that you have to be so careful. It is a dance between molding and checking. I think this is one of the main reasons it is steamed, to kill mold spores. I read, maybe in Whelans book, the large 19th century plane manufacturers did this. I am not sure if done earlier.

I have air dried beech a few times. First time I lost a lot of the 16/4 to checking. It happened almost overnight in a breezy spot (winter time). I had a lot more success bringing it into my barn out of the extreme. With experience like anything else it is do able.

In short, I think it was a combination of availability, good working properties, stability once seasoned, and sufficient durability.

Regards,

Paul Dzioba

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

Warren in Lancaster, PA

I have made a plane from hard maple, but I don't hope to do it again. One thing that is very important is the way the wedge operates. With woods like hard maple the wedge does not grab as well or release as easily. What you want is something that is easily secured, easily loosened, easily adjusted both in and out to just where you want it. Here beech is superior. Wear is not really a factor; a beech plane can last a lifetime of heavy use.

I like beech for saw handles, chisel handles, and planes. It absorbs vibration and shock better than woods that are extremely hard.

Roubo (1769) recommends beech for benches and cormier (Sorbus domestica) for planes. I guess you could call cormier a fruit wood as it is in the rose family along with apple, cherry, pear. The French made planes from beech also as cormier was kind of rare. In Germany hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) has been a premium plane wood, along with beech. Apple and boxwood have also been premium plane woods.

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

Steve Voigt

Dave, Warren, and Paul have pretty much covered it. If someone makes a few planes from maple, then a few from beech, he will no longer ask "why beech?" The answer will be apparent. The workability is the main factor, but what Warren says is also true: the woods respond differently. Hitting a maple plane for adjustment is like ringing a bell; the wood is too "live," not sure if that makes sense if you haven't experienced it, but I've found it to be true.

Larry and Paul are also right about the drying and rate of moisture exchange. I don't have scientific evidence, but my belief is that beech is not check-prone because of the T/R ratio, but rather because moisture is exchanged so rapidly, which is due to the size of the rays. Consider: red oak is just about as check-prone as beech, while hard maple is much less so, yet all three woods have almost the same T/R ratio. What beech and oak share are the big, visible rays, which move moisture from the core to the surface like an expressway.

moisture moving and checks

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

I presume we are talking about surface checks, not end checks? They occur when the surface dries faster than the middle. Oak is bad because the rays provide weakness for fracture to propagate. A wood species that moved moisture from middle to surface faster would be less prone to checking , not more.

The difference between radial and tang. for beech is 6.4, one of the largest values tabulated. For maple, 5.1. This metric more effects warping and cupping during drying than anything else.

bell ringing

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

I made a plane from Ipe. It "rings" like a bell, well actually more like glass or stone.

I saw a lot of difference in maple from different sources. The maple we got from Canada was hard like you describe. I described it once as "brittle" though it didn't break. That from VA was much more mellow, a delight to plane. I never worked much of it beyond planing it and we planed a lot of it.

What confuses the picture is that both are about the same density, on average. Birch is much less but would not have been readily available in good trees south of about central NYS.

Re: bell ringing

david weaver

Cut a mortise 1.5x3 and two inches deep in beech and maple. Then work the mortise cut up the straws (on the diagonal rather than straight down). Beech mortises like a dream. Maple is more resistant to the tools for the same level of hardness, but it doesn't offer any increase in durability for it.

It does plane better on the flatsawn face than beech, but the rasping, carving and mortising is an even bigger difference.

George Wilson, who I have the utmost admiration for, likes maple for planes and has made some out of maple, but he can make anything out of anything and is much more used to getting the finest work out of everything and anything in front of him.

In my opinion, if someone is just looking to make a plane, no problem - anything of decent density is fine. If you start rasping and doing small carved elements and and scraping finished details onto a plane, then the workability is really important because something that splinters won't leave a crisp line.

Re: moisture moving and checks

david weaver

End checks are first, they can show up almost immediately (in my experience).

Surface checking takes a little more, but beech is bad for that, too - especially in heartwood.

End checks can be visible where they never were before within an hour of putting beech in a dry place. I don't know if anything as hard will readily drink moisture on the end grain, either - it's incredible how fast moisture travels end to end.

I'd imagine if you could keep it from checking, it could be ready to make a plane in a couple of months (but you can't keep it from checking), especially if you had a billet and were willing to make one plane after the other by just cutting off of the ends of billets.

Re: moisture moving and checks

Steve Voigt

Bill,

I'll believe you about rate of moisture exchange and surface checking--you know more about it than i do. And your explanation--that the rays provide a weak point for checks to start--actually jibes with what I've experienced in beech. Often I can't tell if I'm looking at a micro-check or a ray, and that's usually where the checks start.

I always assumed that the T/R ratio, rather than the absolute point difference, would be the more important metric, but maybe I'm wrong there too.

Incidentally, in Europe they've long made planes from pear, and I remember larry w. saying that pear and rosewood were the only species other than beech that he'd want to use. For pear, the T/R difference is over 7 points, and the T/R ratio is nearly 3. All of which suggests that T/R ratio is not really that important for planemaking.

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

Warren in Lancaster, PA

The evidence suggests that the rays do not transport water any any great rate. The rays are radial, going outward from the center. The evidence is that beech gets end checks. The evidence is that when we paint the end grain checking is lessened. These are related; water leaves much faster in the longitudinal direction than the radial direction, that is in the direction of the pores, not the rays.

There is a gradient of moisture content as one approaches the end of the billet. When beech gets end checks, it is because the end of the billet shrinks while the area just beyond the end remains swollen. This differential is what causes the checking.

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

Steve Voigt

Warren, as Bill suggested, I was referring to surface checking, not end checking. As you say, end checking is relatively easy to defeat: just coat the ends. Surface checking is a much more insidious and difficult problem, or at least it has been for me. With dry wood, I've been able to stop surface checking by buying a cheap hygrometer and using a household humidifier to keep RH between 40-45% as much as possible. Drying green wood is another matter. I bought 200 bdf of kiln dried 16/4 beech a few months ago. I'd guess that maybe 30% of it is good enough to make 3 1/8" squares for try planes. Another 20-30% will work for smaller planes (jacks and smoothers). The rest will be wedges and scrap for chisel handles, misc. tools, and firewood, lots of firewood.

Re: moisture moving and checks

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

"All of which suggests that T/R ratio is not really that important for planemaking." The quartered grain orientation largely mitigates this "deficiency". This property is way more important in furniture, which is why you don't see beech furniture in spite of the plentiful supply of timber.

Checking is all about moisture gradients. If the outside or end is shrinking faster then the interior stress will be induced. The stress may become locked in to show up later in "spring" as the wood is worked, or cracks right away.

BTW, once a crack forms, even a tiny one, it becomes a stress concentration point and it will propagate to relieve any stress in its neighborhood. . Studies done at VPI Forest Products lab showed that end coating lumber after a few days of drying did nothing to prevent end checking. It had to be done before any microcrack started.

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

It is not without reason that the KD manuals tell us that beech is "difficult to dry" and is prone to surface checking as bad as oak.

These species deal a double whammy. Moisture transport within the wood is slow relative to most other species. This fact makes them prone to establishing moisture gradients. Moisture gradients induce stress. Rays provide "cleavage planes" to relieve it. In contrast moisture moves quick in poplar and it can be dried in a few days right off the saw.

We received 2000 bdft once of highly surface checked oak. Didn't show up until planing. Any cupped board split from the infeed roll pressure where the surface crack had weakened the board. Fortunately the supplier provided relief.

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

TomD

I had very little difficulty drying Beech. It air dried faster than any other wood I have dried, and I only lost wood in two situations. A few sticks in a shed, and I forget what went wrong, probably too much heat. The other situation I already reported.

I think that what you are asking is why should we imagine they used beech in the past. Unless someone can come up with an unimpeachable source, there are too many ways that we differ today for us to say. Including how different second and third growth wood often is from old growth wood. But by no means limited to that. We have very different attitudes to economic maters today; we have a different attitude to working with planes; Any of you ever seen that carving where 3D rendered game birds are hanging from a thong of leather, all carved in a single piece of wood? Do we really believe they worried about how difficult it was for a sub-apprentice to chop a mortise? One thing I remember about my grandfathers house in Belfast is how much woodwork there was around. Take that into consideration in your calculations? It might well be irrelevant, but it goes to show how different the world is even today.

I have built a lot of planes out of maple, it was the best general wood I could get until I cut my stack of beech. I used white oak for the japanese planes. I think maple is prettier, it is a very pretty wood, even without going to the crazy things like tiger. It is more difficult to handle, but if you have floats you shouldn't complain too much. It is just woodworking.

Wear wise, it takes lot of planing to wear out a plane, I have only worn out one, and it took fiberglass and plywood to hasten the process and less than 30 minutes to set it right. In the past they used inserts to armor delicate bottoms. And even inset maple is much much more durable than a plane made of a single piece. Using something like boxwood pretty much settles the question.

We tend to be obsessed with finishing planes. It might be the defining characteristic is found in some other planes, like molding planes. I doubt it, but it is at least possible.

There are two important characteristics where beech shines that have only been touched on. One is that it is more plastic than maple, and wedges hold better in it, particularly self wedges. With wedged planes that is a significant factor. The other is split resistance which is a characteristic most woodworkers do not pay much attention to, except maybe when driving screws. Japanese planes have the wedge really heavily set. I find the slight give of beech, and the apparent split resistance is a good feature.

Re: Ease of Mortising

david weaver

Ease of mortising would be an economic consideration, and not one of whether or not it was good for an apprentice.

The split resistance of beech would add up to better detail on the handles and fewer planes that made their way into the fire.

As far as floats go, the more planes we make, the less the floats do.

Re: Ease of Mortising

TomD

That is good to hear on the floats, because I don't have them. I have a few things I use instead, now and again. Not real floats. I guess with that I am not buying them, so thanks.

I agree easier is an eco consideration. I have seen two Japanese pros make planes and they can core the block in very little time. One of the guys used a sledge, which I copied. The other one used a more modest chisel and hammer, but he had back in Japan, one of those contraptions that scoops out the blocks in seconds, so he may have been used to just using his gear for finish cuts. I just don't think the time thing was a big deal to these guys. The second guy set aside a morning to make a 6 inch wide beam plane, and he had it mostly done in about 45 minutes I think. There are others here who were there. I know it was fast, but not sure the exact time. I just don't think they are turning out a product based on saving a few seconds. That is a modern thing, when you can do large numbers. 6 planes a day is already a lot for a one man deal. but a minute or two either way doesn't get you a Porsche at the end of the year, while loosing your reputation is pretty final.

The bench is a tree stump.

Re: Ease of Mortising

david weaver

I recognize Hisao in that picture. I don't know where I read it, but I recall that his short handled hammer has a 6 pound head. Not something the average guy is going to swing many times. On the planes with no ledge, I can imagine hisao and other guys could do a dozen a day. Someone relayed on here at one point that Inomoto said that the total time to do a nice finished dai (presumably with a ledge) is closer to two hours. There's not a whole lot going on in an unledged dai, though. The wear is very short, there's no diagnosing to do and the mortise is shallow. I'll bet the makers like white oak better than red, for the same reason western makers prefer beech over maple.

We'll never get to see a western toolmaker working by hand the same way we can see current daimakers working. It's probably not even historically accurate (to do all of that roughing work by hand) if we don't go way way back.

Re: Ease of Mortising

TomD

Cool data. If you think of the v-cut, that the crazy machines pop out. How long do you figure it would take to pop that out? For one of us weekend warriors. 2 minutes, 5 minutes. I can't remember. Must run a test at some point. One thing that is easy to do without the ledge is run a mortise through, then the chips just pop out.

What does the ledge do, can't think of anything, it does look more finished, and I have the chisel.

As you know those hammers have very short handles, almost no handles. The swing weight is not all that bad, though just having it in the hand is more tiring. They sure punch in. When I went to that other seminar, I took this huge mallet I have, like something Bam Bam would use. It got a few laughs. Not really practical. I just bought a year or so back, a temple type hammer that weighs 27 ounces. I intend to fix it up for my plane work, of which there isn't really that much any more. But it is one of those things I couldn't get when I really wanted to.

Re: Ease of Mortising

david weaver

The one thing that sticks out to me watching inomoto and others is that they are extremely accurate with the bevel side of the chisel. I think it was inomoto...not sure...but I recall seeing a sequence where the escapement side was cut bevel side down and I didn't see a seam in the middle of the escapement between the two cuts. It takes a lot of practice to do that.

Mark Hennebury put a mahogany masterpieces video up here with hisao mortising macassar ebony. I'd bet he took four times as much out in one shot as I can, but he's got a whole system of stuff optimized for it. I tried to use a tataki nomi with a 4 pound sledge (choked up) and found two things out quickly. The chisel couldn't handle it, and neither could my shoulder. His bevel has probably been made steeper a little bit, and I'll bet he has gone through a few chisels before finding the one that tolerates that the best.

As far as the ledge, it certainly gets in the way of the tool bevel if it's not fitted properly. Functionally, it's just a guarantee that the dai was made by hand, as the cheeks of a dai are more than strong enough to keep the body stiff.

Re: Why is beech used for plane bodies

AlanWS

Clark and Williams answer here:

http://www.planemaker.com/articles_beech.html

Data doesn't match the claims

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

There is data in the discussion that is inconsistent with data I have in a publication on wood properties from the USDA Forest Products Lab and data from VPI Forest Products Lab on drying. I might add that their discussions on metallurgy, for example adhesive wear, are not consistent with technical sources on the topic.

For example "Beech, relative to density, is one of the more stable dense woods in it's radial or quarter-sawn dimension."

Beech 5.5. Maple 4.8, oak 4.4, etc. It is actually the least stable of the dense woods. Birch, a lighter wood reported to be an alternative plane wood to beech is 7.3

Beech is difficult to dry and keep straight and flat because of the large difference in radial and tangential shrinkage, a property of little relevance to drying plane billets. However, like oak, it is subject to surface checking during drying. Surface checks result from moisture gradients that are easier to establish in slow to dry dense species. Unlike in maple, beech and oak have rays that provide weak fracture propagation paths. If the drying rate of beech was faster it would be LESS prone to checking because it would be less prone to developing moisture gradients. Poplar transports water quickly and it can be dried at least 4 times as fast as oak without checking.

Re: Data doesn't match the claims

david weaver

Just my opinion, but sometimes I think Larry stretches a little too far into "big words" when all you have to say about the wood is that when it's sawn well, it works well for the maker and it makes a nice plane. It may move a little more than oak or maple would've, but if the plane is from a properly sawn billet, we'll never know that it moves because we won't perceive any effect from it in work.

Re: Data doesn't match the claims

AlanWS

I don't have a dog in this fight, and think that workability of beech may well explain its common use, though I have not worked it. The planes I've made have been mostly maple, but also walnut and even oak.

However, I think Clark and Williams are saying something more subtle than these responses assume. When they refer to its stability, they are assuming design that allows certain types of movement: expanding and contracting without distortion that would compromise the plane's function. According to them, the problem is while it is changing, not once it has stabilized at a new dimension. Of course they are aware of the large differential between radial and tangential expansion. Quoted from the link above "For many woodworking applications a great difference in radial and tangential stability can cause problems. It can, however, be used to advantage."

Checking during early stages of drying when moisture differential between various locations is quite large need not be relevant to behavior of a finished plane that accepts and releases small amounts of water with seasonal movement without approaching the high moisture content that causes problems. They even attribute face checking problems to properties that are valuable later on "This property of beech also creates problems. It is difficult to dry without degrade (sic) because the tangential surfaces give off moisture so easily."

I'm not claiming they are right. It's difficult to discuss these things succinctly, so my and others's comments may not have clearly made the intended points. But obvious statements that most moisture travels along the grain, and that beech exhibits a large differential in tangential and radial expansion do not refute the argument.