Planer / thicknesser - for small shop

[CONGER]

If money were no object (har, har!), which quality (commercial - 220V) 6" planer / 4" thicknesser would you buy... and why?

In my case... I have limited shop space available... and only a 'normal' (read 'small') shop vac. The T/P must be fuss free (simple knife installation), and reliable, and of course accurate / leave a good(?) finish. As a rule, the pieces I will be working will be small (under 1M).

TIA, -gerard-

 

[Freetochat]

I have the Hammer A331. Quick change blades, with no setting up. A little bigger than your spec. but fits in a small footprint. The finish is good as well.

 

[Scrit]

If money were no object (har, har!), which quality (commercial - 220V) 6" planer / 4" thicknesser would you buy... and why?

As far as I know when you start talking trade quality or the like you're into either 10in or 12in wide x 6 to 8in depth of cut. Peresonally I reckon the most bulletproof small P/T ever made was the Wadkin Bursgreem BAO/S 12 x 9in

especially the later ones which had a 3-cutter block. Frankly they make a lot of current small stuff look sad and inadequate - strong cast-iron body on a thick sheet metal base, rock solid construction, accurate, compact, durable, decent cast-iron fence, good quality guarding..... There's nothing coming out of China which is a patch on one of these babies. Nice thing is that, because so many were sold to schools and colleges, they turn up in good order and with single phase motors a lot of the time. Made well into the 1990s (I believe they disappeared from the range about 1996 or 1998). A Rolls-Royce amongst the Trabants and Ladas IMHO

Scrit

 

[Pecker]

If I could afford it eithert one of the Felder/Hammer ranges or an old Wadkin. At the moment I've got a smmal Metabo job Hc260 excellent, but not top notch.

One word of warning. I would strongly suggest you get your self a decent or at least better extractor. Even small thicknessers and planers kick out a LOT of chippings and a small vac will just not cope and get clogged up.

mark

 

[Scrit]

The T/P must be fuss free (simple knife installation)

That's just a matter of having a wedge-type cutterblock where the knives sit on springs and you have something like a set of Panhans magnetic setters. Tersa are OK, but you don't have the option of putting an auxilliary bevel on to handle burrs and the like and they cost the earth in comparison to conevtional thin resharpenable blades.

Scrit

 

[engineer one]

must say that although i do not give it a heavy work out every day,
the mafell ad160 has for me a lot of benefits, not least moveability.

two knives only and easy fixing. quite a nice finish if you do not
take too much off at anyone time.

first time i used it, was with pallet wood which was not too dry, but nice
finish and quick work too.

those of us with mafell tools do really value them

paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

I used to know a 2nd fix who had one of those. He reckoned it was a real time saver on site for thinning stuff when that was necessary.

Scrit

 

[engineer one]

well scrit he did ask for a small machine.
the knife changing is easy, and now i understand how to adjust
the table levels too. accurate.

i would guess if you are using it a lot, new knives would be
expensive, but am sure they can be honed a bit too.

in my experience the finish is ok. like all things, the small cut is
best.

two areas which seem to be odd. the blade cover on the
planer table gets a bit stiff, but some kind of wax will help
and the handle to wind up and down the thicknesser table is
plastic and canbreak. this might seem stupid, but think about
it a plastic handle is cheaper to replace than the four screws
that move it up and down. very pragmatic and very german.

however, i would suggest that you make a base for it so that you
do not need to move it by the tables, keeps them registered
more effectively

don't go for the cheaper one if you are intending more work
seems very plasticky, and not as long lasting as the mafell.
all the best

paul :wink:

 

[Jake]

Paul,
I
enjoy and learn
so much from
your posts
but please
just for me
do you
think
that it mignt
be possible
to write
in lines that are
a little
less abbreviated
because everything you say
is worth reading
but all
the extra carriage
returns
sometimes make
it a
little bit hard to
read in a
fluent way.

Jake

 

[engineer one]

sorry jake
but after all the comments from people about making photos small because they make the spaces wider otherwise, and also when i open up the forum i have to scan across to read so many posts, i thought
it might be easier that way :? :?

anyway thanks for a "compliment" :lol:

paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

Paul

Don't you find that the Mafell is a bit on the short side for planing from rough sawn? Also has it got the power to handle hardwoods? I'd always though of them as site backup machines and I don't know if I'd fancy having one as a primary shop machine unless all I was doing was model making. Not saying that size is everything, just that there is a minimum size below which it's not effective to go, depending on the task at hand.

Scrit

 

[Jake]

sorry jake
but after all the comments from people about making photos small because they make the spaces wider otherwise, and also when i open up the forum i have to scan across to read so many posts, i thought
it might be easier that way :? :?

Apologies, I had taken on a bit too much wine last night.

The text wraps automatically to fit the width, it is just photos that won't wrap and wreck the width of the screen. The extra carriage returns do act a bit like punctuation in the wrong place by breaking the reading rhythm, but ignore me, I've managed to read most of your posts in the past without moaning!

anyway thanks for a "compliment" :lol:

paul :wink:

That bit was sincere and I meant it!

 

[engineer one]

scrit, interesting comments, and lets see if i can put my perspective on them, :roll:

in principal i started from a different position than you, in that i am only
interested at this time in making items less than 1220 hig/long/wide.
often panelled. other wise solid bits like mdf. i am not as i have said in
the production business, but like everybody, hope that i can save some money by using fresh from the mill lumps. i guess that you have about
300mm on either side of the blades, so anything over maybe 1200 is a bit of a pain, however, isn't that why we have supports :twisted: ?
where i do think it falls down is on the thicknessing side under neath, in
that the infeed table is quite small as is the outfeed one. but then i suggest that we all hope to have sleds to feed the wood in, that way you get less snipe.

over the next couple of weeks, i will give it a good going over on some
oak, cherry, beech, cedar and maple, by which time i will know whether it works well or not i guess. i have found it gets a little hot in continued use, but
when i have used it to clean up pallets in the past it worked ok though.
since they were imported pallets they were all kinds of wood so???? :?

i frankly do not think that any p/t less than maybe 10x8 is going to be perfect, but for the small shop which makes smaller things, then to me the mafell is a good compromise, as long as you don't expect it to cut too deeply, then i do think it has a place in the small shop.

to me the great advantage is that once you have put it on a base plate, and a low cabinet, you do not have to move the top to use the thicknesser, which personally i think on some other machines causes losses in accuracy since by definition, a hinge will have wear in constant use.

also, since we (generically) build tables at home for SCMS, with wings to support longer lengths, then one could do the same for the mafell if using it in the smaller shop. hinged wings would work well for the plane, but
must think more about the thicknesser.

jake, thanks and when in vino veritas, enjoy and lose your inhibitions. :lol:

all the best
paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

I guess that you have about 300mm on either side of the blades, so anything over maybe 1200 is a bit of a pain, however, isn't that why we have supports :twisted: ?

Current thinking on this (at least since the late 1960s) seems to be that the infeed table on a planer should be longer than the outfeed table as a way to try to accommodate bowing as far as possible, hence the use of 1000 to 1200mm infeed tables (with 600 to 800mm outfeed tables) on more recent industrial machinery. BTW the same principle is also at work in the pre-straightener unit on a 4-sided through-feed moulder. I reckon that you need the longest tables you can get on a planer and that the shorter the tables the more difficult it is to get a straight edge. I'd tentatively suggest that you can only really straighten a piece between 2 and 3 times the combined length of your tables and that you'll never be able to get feed support rollers in the right place to extend the table. Getting the face and edge flat on the planer is the most critical step in dimensioning timber.

...you do not have to move the top to use the thicknesser, which personally I think on some other machines causes losses in accuracy since by definition, a hinge will have wear in constant use.

From experience hinge wear is less of a problem than is waste material getting trapped between the planer bed seating and the base of the machine.

Scrit

 

[engineer one]

as usual phil i bow to your knowledge and advice.

however you have to go with what you have at a given moment, and hope to provide for yourself a work round.

i would venture that part of the solution is your old one of cutting the edges on the table saw, but i do agree about the faces. i guess that next stage is to re acquaint my self with proper hand planing along the face :lol: :twisted:

i guess the major problem in any way is that when you buy planed wood you have little knowledge of the way in which it has been stored and treated whereas if you store some rough you have a little control.
however, this is where the whole fun of using wood comes from,
post machining movement :? :roll:

paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

Well the "correct" approach is to crosscut to the shortest length you can get away with then rip down again so that when you plane you're already working with the smallest piece you can. If that sort of procedure is followed and you rip straight and true then you could, no doubt, get away with a very small machine indeed for smaller pieces of furniture (or even bigger ones if you could live with veneered sheet materials and applied lippings.

Scrit

 

[engineer one]

now that advice is worth buckets of money and experience,
thanks mate.

i think that is a development of the way in which i intended to work.
in view of the lack of wide boards, one must i think consider veneered boards and lipping, in particular for the top and bottom since they are less often seen.

anyway, as said before i am restricting my building to smaller items that i can actually carry and make work. :roll:

finally i would suggest that i could also put wings on the infeed table and make that longer too. since i am making a moveable cabinet, this might well be the way to go.

however am i not right in thinking that a decent feather board and or power feed, would alleviate the problem?? i know though that that starts putting you back into big money.

paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

However am I not right in thinking that a decent feather board and or power feed, would alleviate the problem??

Apart from the dosh aspect, and the fact that a power feeder weighs quite a bit and so needs a substantial piece of kit to bolt it onto (my Steff feeders run out at a "healthy" 60 to 80kg with their stands, so I can't see you bolting that onto a Scheppach with a steel table somehow), the fact is that the feeder has to be over the outfeed table and does nothing to stabilise the initial infeed. In fact you don't want any downwards (flattening) pressure on the infeed as you are trying to take-out any bow/wind. So the longer that infeed support the less likely you are to end-up with a banana-faced board

Scrit

 

[engineer one]

as usual a proper and clear explanation.

amazing how manyof us think that pressure on the infeed side is the
right thing :?

paul