Planing big beams - Options?

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

I have a customer order in hand (and a deposit in hand) for beams.
Most are 16' 6by10s.   There will be some 18' and 20' 8"X12" also.
One loner will be 28'. 
They want them planed all four sides. 

I have a Peterson swingblade, so there is an option of using a planer
circular blade on it.  I have a couple of planers, but they would not
have the drive power to pull the beams through.  One of them does
have a substantial enough frame for the weight, but I don't have a
system in place to handle the infeed/outfeed.

Comments?  Suggestions?

Phil L.

[Furby]

Use a light weight table top planer and set the beam on sawhorses.
A couple of folks are required to lift and swap places with the sawhorses as the planer pulls ITSELF along the beam, but it can be done.

[woodbowl]

I planed the beams in my house just as furby has described, only I did it by myself. I used two barrels located 1/3 and 2/3's of the way. Start the planer on one end, raise the beam so it can clear the first barrel or sawhorse, walk to the other end and raise the beam untill it clears the second, then rest it and get ready to catch the planer. Works like a charm. 

[metalspinner]

You guys are so clever.   Just make sure to use a long enough extention cord.

[Dave Shepard]

That's one way of course, but a 12" Makita might work a little better. I saw a beam planer with 40 foot carriage for sale a while ago, four heads, side heads adjustable for angle, 24"x36" capacity, would that work?


Dave

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

Dave,
As long as that thang will ship UPS, I'm ready for it.

Phil L.

[logwalker]

I used a 6" makita handheld to do batch of 4x10" beams a few years ago. It worked very well. I was so pleased with the results that I found a used one to purchase. I think the 12" would be the ticket if you don't need to do it all the time. But they aren't easy to find. Joe

[ARKANSAWYER]

  On the 8x12's you will find a problem with a small portable planer working.  I have rented a floor sander in the past to smooth beams down for projects.  You can get very rough belts to very smooth.  Large planers are expensive and you still have to handle the beams.  Look at renting a floor sander and save your back.

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

Furby and Woodbowl,
Now that was a novel approach that I had not considered A-TALL.  It makes sense.
I took it as far as doing sketches of a plan for one-man operation:
    Sending station to hold the planer;
    Catch station to keep me from having to catch it (and to be able to wheel it
            back to start again);
    A cam jack saw horse to do the repeated slight lift of beams to shuffle the other saw horse
            (or barrel) supports the many, many times required by this process

Then I looked into the planer disk idea which is available for my Peterson.
Advantages:     Can plane up to three beams (one side) at once;
                        Jointing is accomplished at the same time, removing twist, bow, crook;
                        Can handle three beams at the time with the ole Bobcat;
                        Totals up to about 1/3 the handling (plus no handling of a DeWalt planer);
                        Peterson could hog off any amount required, but shave as little as necessary.
                        It could be used for planing slabs up to the full 54" wide capacity of my saw
Disadvantages: I have a 12" DeWalt planer, but would have to pay big bucks for the Peterson disk.
                        Some beams with tolerable amounts of curvature or twist would still automatically
                             be jointed flat by the Peterson process.  That would reduce the overall dimensions
                             of that beam, even if you did not want to do so.

Big mystery, however:

Can not find anyone who has ever really used the Peterson planing disk, nor a video of its work.

Phil L.

[Furby]

If you already have the planer, try one and see how it goes.
Might make the decision easier.

[LOGDOG]

Phil,
 
    How many pieces do you need to do for this order? And when do you need to finish the job? Just curious before I make a recommendation.

LOGDOG

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

The customer wants to use the beams in Feb. 2008.
Total is about 70 pieces.   Quite a few are 4X4 and 4X8, but there are
a bunch of 16', 18', 20', 24' heavier beams, too.

[LOGDOG]

For 70 pieces I guess I'd have to reign in my personal spending on a new tool to address the task. If you see yourself doing more of it though maybe you could justify spending some money. PM DoubleCut. He makes a beam planer that is actually a planer and that could be used in a swingmill frame. He'd likely have to make it specific to your measurements but once you see it you'll see that it's meant to get the job done. Otherwise, ask him about the "special tooling" he has made to be used for the swingblade mills. I think you'll like what you see. 

LOGDOG

[DR_Buck]

Use a light weight table top planer and set the beam on sawhorses.
A couple of folks are required to lift and swap places with the sawhorses as the planer pulls ITSELF along the beam, but it can be done.

Wouldn't a small planer walking along the supported beam tend to follow any twist in the wood?   You would end up with a smooth beam, but it wouldn't be flat.

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

Buck,

That is true, since that planer would not serve the jointing function
which would be necessary to straighten.

Of course some people rough-cut oversize and resaw a year or two later,
then plane and use the beams.  I won't have this option on these beams.

Using a planing disk (mentioned already) is possible. Also, I found an interesting product by doing
a thread search:  D&L makes what they call the D&L Multi-head which is a
planer system capable of running on a swinger track or on other track systems.
It is designed as a stand-alone product, but they can adapt it to fit pre-existing
saw frames of many types.

So far the options which fit the job at hand include:
      1.  Peterson type planing disk which could handle many beams at a time,
            if I set up a precision bunk set of some sort;
      2.  Hand-held 12" Makita
      3.  The sawhorse/light weight table top planer trick described by Furby and Woodbowl

The big differences between the Peterson planing
disk and the D&L are these:  The Peterson uses four hogging teeth and four strobe type
finishing teeth - all eight brazed to the body.  D&L uses six (?) identical teeth of a removable
type - not like the claw design, but socketed in some way.  The strobes of the Peterson might
be more effective, but I don't know.  No one can show me an example or can comment on
the use of it so far.

If I am remembering correctly, D&L also makes a planer disk and some sanding disk
equipment to fit their own swingers.  My problem there would be that my arbor and bolt
spacing probably does not match the D&L pattern.

Of course, it is possible to use a floor sander as Arky describes. One advantage the Peterson disk would
have over that method is water!   These beams are all yellow pine.  If I used the disk, I have the option of
running my water to prevent pitch build-up.  As long as you pay attention, you won't really wet the wood
much at all, but PineSol and water sure keep my blades clean!

Thanks for all the input, gentlemen.  This discussion has been an eye-opener!
Just got to make up my mind (or maybe my pocket book will do that for me).

Phil L.

[Furby]

Buck, it really don't matter what planer you use, you'll have the same issue.
Either the planer will follow the beam, or on a bigger planer, the beam will follow the planer.

Phil,
I don't know if it's relevant to your question, but if you start reading here, there is a little info on the strobes.
http://www.forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=28431.msg411083#msg411083

[LOGDOG]

Phil,

   Did you get to talk to Lindsay from DoubleCut? I know it's the holidays so getting a hold of folks can be a stretch until tomorrow is over. Lindsay can provide you pictures of the planing items. I have them but don't want to post them until Lindsay gives me the go ahead.

   The big questions you have to ask yourself is "How much is this job going to pay me gross and what is it worth spending to accomplish it"?  Have you put a figure on that yet? Last time I checked both Peterson and Lucas wanted a big chunk of change for their planing disks.

LOGDOG

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

Happy New Year!


LogDog

Lindsay Flett of D&L was very helpful.  He still owes me the pics on the dog/bunk system
and the Multi-Head.

I know of a blade body maker near Atlanta Ga which can probably make a
body for a planer disk.  They do the laser/plasma cutting and body grinding and
rpm tensioning portion of the job.  A big circle saw shop outfit near me can do the
carbide brazing part. That would bring me in (I think; I hope) at about half the price. 

Since I tend toward the big or the weird wood,  having the disk (and at a "disc-ount")
would be ideal.  I would use the disk for slab surfacing and for the beams.
The cost of any kind of serious planer, of course, is many times the cost of the planer disk.

Phil L.                           P.S.  After reviewing some of the thread Furby noted,  I
                                            would add that the planer disk's use of what I called
                                            "strobes" or "smoothing teeth" is not comparable in a
                                            pure apples-to-apples sense with the use of strobes
                                            on rip blades or as fuzz-busters on swinger blades.  On
                                            the planer disk application they are used in a negative rake
                                            to really plane, not to enhance sawing.   I have
                                            stopped using strobed blades on my Peterson for sawing.

[LOGDOG]

I'm glad Lindsay could help you out. He definitely knows his stuff. If it comes down to needing a disk made I have a friend here who owns a saw shop and milling toolwork manufacturing company. I could easily have it made. Let me know if you need a hand.

LOGDOG

[Wudman]

Try this link to my solution.

http://www.forestryforum.com/board/index.php/topic,23672.0.html

Wudman

[Don_Papenburg]

Hey,, Wadubout  your Stanley No8

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

This link comes as a result of another thread by cypressman:

http://www.huntertimberframe.com/planer/default.htm


This power fed hand-held beam planer surely needs to come into this consideration:
 More money than getting a disk for the Peterson mill
or having one made. Even more money than the big Makita hand-held, but it is
another option in the $2000 range.

Phil L.

[Don P]

Kiln cart wheels riding on a pair of angle iron tracks. A carriage with a cutterhead in it riding above? Set the beam between the rails and push the roller skate down the rails over the beam. That would be capable of jointing, taper or angle. It would probably work best on something like a poured sidewalk. Just thinking out loud.

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

I forgot to comment, but Wudman's method (for which he provided
the thread link)  is an excellent solution.  It's close to what you are getting at, Don,
but just uses the tracks of the saw mill that one already owns.

I don't see any reason that I couldn't design something which would clamp
onto my Peterson frame which could serve as a carrier for a partly disassembled/
revamped planer.  I don't like the thought of drilling and bolting anything to the
aluminum carriage assembly, but a broad-faced clamping system would do the
trick without deforming anything.

Over time this thread has yielded a great variety of solutions, especially when
you check out links shown by Cypressman and Wudman. 

Thanks to all!

Phil L.

[woodhick]

Phil, if you are still looking for ideas I know of a timber framer that has a 4 sided planer and does plannning on the side.  I can pm you his contact info if you are interested.   If you are just doing one job it may better to go that route and as the methods you mention seem pretty time consuming to me.   Of course freight back and forth my drive the cost of subbing it out to high also.  Let me know.

[Brad_bb]

Although the original posters timeframe is nearly past, I've noticed a few key things lacking in this discussion.  No one has asked why the customer wants planed 4 sides.  It is important to know if they just want a smooth surface, or if they intend to use Mill rule timber framing layout.  If using mill rule, they need the sides smooth and square to each other , and fairly straight within a known tolerance.  If using snap line square rule timber frame layout, being square and straight isn't so critical.  In that case you can use rough saw the timbers and sand or plane afterwards.  There are two types of planing - planing to get it straight, and planing to get it smooth.  A large mill with an industrial beam planer can get it straight.  This will require either fixing the beam and moving the planer head past the beam in a consistent fashion or the reverse of that.  If your infeed and outfeed table are too short, your planer (like a hand power planer) will follow the curvature of the beam, but will make a smooth surface. Consider trying to run a warped board through a jointer where the board is 2 or 2.5 times the length of the jointer table.  Good luck getting it trued.  Chalk snap lines can be used inconjunction with hand power planers to plane the high spots off of a beam and get it much closer to straight, especially in the areas that will recieve joinery.  This is more focused work and I wouldn't want to do this on a production basis in a mill.   In square rule layout, joints are typically housed also, which hides any minor gaps in mating surfaces like a tennon shoulder and beam face.    So what i'm saying is that you have to know the intent of the customer before accepting a job like that.  If the customer is using square rule, you have the freedom of rough sawing the beams and then sanding them or hand power planing for smoothness, not being true.  If the customer intends to use mill rule, the timbers need to be much closer to true and square.
    Additionally, I recently became aware of a self driven beam planer that walks itself along a beam, creating a smooth surface.  Again, It can only reduce any curvature in a beam by the length of the infeed and outfeed tables, but it looks like it would do a good job of creating a smooth surface.  If you go to the link, check out the "see it in action" link.  The video doesn't load quickly, but it if very interesting to watch.
http://huntertimberframe.com/planer/default.htm

Lastly, Someone mentioned sanding beams using a floor sander.  I've had that idea for the last 6 months, but haven't gotten around to renting one to try it.  You'd have to pay for sand paper, but may be a neat solution to rough sawn timbers or reclaim that you want to smooth or refresh.  I'd make sure to use a metal detector, but it wouldn't be as detrimental to a sander hitting a nail as it would be to a planer.

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

Just an update:   We did use the Peterson for this round of contract sawing.  Here's the gist of it.

Yes, I know.  Pics!   Maybe later.  I have been busting my rear these last couple of weeks!

We cut them, then set them aside, then later followed up the surfacing with the Peterson.
The first part of the job was fine tuning the bunks with some added 2X3s spaced into
rough position with shims.  These added-on 2X3s were screwed to our main bunks with
Torx 3" screws deeply countersunk to avoid contact with expensive carbide. The built-up
bunks were roughly set with the shims, but machined exactly true by running a fresh 
ten-tooth blade on the saw and "milling" them all flat and parallel with the tracks.  We
were then able to reset each beam on these precision bunks and "plane" them true
and smooth by skimming a little off each surface. They are jointed as well as planed.

The resulting beams are dead straight.   Since they will be used in a cross-hatch trellis type
design, I only fussed on the vertical dimension of each beam.  In other words, all the
8X12s are dead on 11-1/2 inch, after the machining, but may be 7-3/4 to 8-1/16
in width, because that is not critical to this project.

Phil L.                                     P. S.  I went with $1.20/bd. ft. on the 18' length and
                                                      $1.40/bd. ft. on the 24' length.   I earned every
                                                       penny IMO.

[Brad_bb]

So what was their intended use -timberframe?  If so what layout technique.  Or was their use entirely different?

[fencerowphil (Phil L.)]

I suppose, c) : "entirely different."

Don't know the details, but the idea is a grid type trellis:
8X12s crossed above at 90deg. by 6X8s, crossed atop that by full 4X4s. 
Each level capped with flashing?  Dunno.  Hope so. 

[Greg Cook]

I was thinking about Wudman's beam plane rig, and wondered if you couldn't do something similar with the Peterson. It may be easier to make/order another set of cross-rails and mount the planer to that.

Greg

[pineywoods]

I was thinking about Wudman's beam plane rig, and wondered if you couldn't do something similar with the Peterson. It may be easier to make/order another set of cross-rails and mount the planer to that.

Greg

Looking at mounting a planer head on a WM in place of the de-barker. Just one more project I may never get around to

[Ironwood]

One solution is an Oliver 261 planer, which is 30" width and can plane to 12" deep, most only go to 8". Additionally, an American B8 30" planer can be modified by installing riser blocks to get an infinite hieght.

 FYI/ IMHO.

 Ironwood

[logwalker]

Reid, what do you think about the B-8 Yates? I am put off a little by all the plain bushings. Of course the cutterhead is BB.  Joe

[Ironwood]

Lightly built but GOOD machine. Smallest foot print of a 30". Ironwood