Thread: Do I need to start with a #5 plane?

Originally Posted by 4speed

Hi, I am working on a t&g red oak floor that was damaged by water and is cupped. I don't won't to use a sander because of the dust in a lived in home. I have a #4 Stanley that is working, but it is going very slow. Using a hand plane is new to me. At first, I was working with the grain without much progress. I tried going across grain at about 20 degrees and it really took much more off. Thank you for your suggestions.

Yes, I think that you are right. A number 5 with a bigger mouth opening will be a big improvement over the small smoother number 4 or 3.
A number 6 would be even better and keep working at around that angle. Sounds like you have some real muscle building ahead of you from a very awkward level for planing - on the floor.
Here are some pics of different sized planes first - numbers 3 and 4 then a 5 and a 6.

Thanks for the reply. If I use the # 6, do I go with the grain following up with the 5? Thanks again.

Originally Posted by 4speed

Thanks for the reply. If I use the # 6, do I go with the grain following up with the 5? Thanks again.

No - go at 20 degrees as you have been doing with the number 6.
Once you have removed all the high spots then go with the grain using a number 5 or 4 set with the mouth finer and a fine cut.
Watch out for nail heads - they will ruin your day and the blade and mouth of your planes
Cheers
SG

Glad I've already got my #6, SG's driving the prices up again!

Agree totally though, I had cause to do something similar on a smaller scale last weekend and was very pleased with the results.

I would however be very cautious about doing damage to my back planning so much on the floor with a heavy beast like the #6. Any chance you can lift the boards, get them right and relay them?

SG- Thanks for the replies and the pics. The floor is stapled on the tongue side edge, so lucky for me I don't have to worry about the nails. I am going to Rockler tomorrow to buy a # 6. I would love to buy an old one but I can't wait for the shipping. Thanks again and I am look forward to learning from the forum.

Andrew- Thanks for the reply. I plane awhile and get up and walk awhile. So far, so good, on the back. The house has 3 thousand feet of wood floor, but only about 25 is damaged. Being t&g and the location of the damage won't allow me to take it up. I'll post some pics when I get this going right. Thanks.

4 speed,
Planes aside it may be time to ask why the boards cupped and has the water problem stabalised before you go any further. One reason is that one side dries out faster than the other side. Expansion and no room to move is the other reason. Is the space below the floor dry and ventlated. I would be sorting this out before I planed any more wood off that floor.
Regards
John

Originally Posted by orraloon

4 speed,
Planes aside it may be time to ask why the boards cupped and has the water problem stabalised before you go any further. One reason is that one side dries out faster than the other side. Expansion and no room to move is the other reason. Is the space below the floor dry and ventlated. I would be sorting this out before I planed any more wood off that floor.
Regards
John

Hi John, thanks for the reply. The floor consist of a slab, 3/4 ply, 30 lb. felt, and the oak. There was a plumbing leak from a bathroom. The leak was fixed a year ago. The boards cupped about 2 feet on the other side of the wall and have not cupped past that point since. Thanks again.

Originally Posted by Scribbly Gum

Here are some pics of different sized planes first - numbers 3 and 4 then a 5 and a 6.

I think you have one too many #3's and #4's in those pics so should send them to me

Originally Posted by andrewr79

I think you have one too many #3's and #4's in those pics so should send them to me

Hi Andrew,
there is only one number three and one number four, they are the same planes in pix 1 and 2 and these are my two Stanleys. The number 5 and number 6 are just images from google that I searched for to illustrate the length.
Interestingly the number 3 and number 4 are nearly the same length as you can see in the first two pix.
The real difference is in their width and even then there isn't much in it is there.
Just out of interest they are both type 18's (1946-1947)
Cheers
SG

Strange, I'd always expected the #3's to be shorter but the same width as the #4's, much like the #6 is to the #7.

Originally Posted by andrewr79

Strange, I'd always expected the #3's to be shorter but the same width as the #4's, much like the #6 is to the #7.

My Clifton No.3 is 242mm long, and I have a Record No.4 (No.04 actually) that's just 236mm long. Then again my Woden No.4 is 250mm long. Go figure

Oh, and the Clifton No.3 weighs 1850g while the Record No.4 weighs just 1550g.

Cheers, Vann.

ps Oh dear. Weighing planes now - how sad....

Shame nobody standardised completely, and from what I have seen even within the same company there are significant differences to models over the years. Though maybe trying to standardise would result in stagnation, while variation promotes better tools...