Planing big beams - Options?

[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