Thickness Planers - How Thin??

[Gofor]

My DeWalt 734 states a minimum thickness of 1/8". The thinnest I have done is 5/32 (without a sled and no mishap or snipe, but I crept up on the final thickness using 1/8 turns on the adjustment). With thin wood, if is has a bow, make sure that the leading edge is bowed down when feeding it in. This helps prevent it catching the blades.

However, after reading this, I think I will be using the sled technique also if I do any more thin stock.

Go

[Travis Porter]

Interesting. I have never (knock on wood) had a planer kick or throw a board in either direction and I have had 3 different planers including a lunch box Makita. The issues I have had are the infeed or outfeed rollers don't grab due to a valley in the board or that the board gets "stuck" and I have to wiggle it left/right to get it to move.

[DavidF]

Originally Posted by Travis Porter

Interesting. I have never (knock on wood) had a planer kick or throw a board in either direction and I have had 3 different planers including a lunch box Makita. The issues I have had are the infeed or outfeed rollers don't grab due to a valley in the board or that the board gets "stuck" and I have to wiggle it left/right to get it to move.

I think in my case it was a result of taking a avery light cut, so the feeder rollers were pressing only lightly on the piece and the end had curled up into the blade so the blade got a good hold on it. As I said, generally, my "sled" stays put and I just run the thin strips through as normal, not normally any problems either. Having the sled move thorugh seems to be not necessarily the easiest way, but horses for courses I guess? what ever works, is the best way!

[Alan in Little Washington]

The sled with stops can help the stock from being flung out and will eliminate the problems caused by bed rollers, but there are a couple of other issues with planing thin stock that depend on the design of the planer.

The blades being close to or actually striking the bed is a non-issue.

Cutterhead and blade design and sharpness are factors. It is easier to plane thin stock with a segmented head like a Byrd Shelix.

Bed and feed roller design, pressure, and spacing can cause flex in a thin piece which is the problem. The stock can be pulled up causing unever planing or even buckle and get caught in the cutter with any number of negative results.

I think you will find that folks who do a lot of work with thin stock, like luthiers, only use a planer to get close, then switch to a drum or wide belt sander to achieve final thickness (or should that be 'final thinness'? )

[DavidF]

You're right Alan, as soon as I got my 16-32 drum sander I stopped using the planer for thin stuff. Even for thicker stuff I now just get it close and then finish off in the sander - This really IS a tool I wouldn't give away now! Expensive, but worth it I would say.

[Travis Porter]

Originally Posted by Alan in Little Washington

The sled with stops can help the stock from being flung out and will eliminate the problems caused by bed rollers, but there are a couple of other issues with planing thin stock that depend on the design of the planer.

The blades being close to or actually striking the bed is a non-issue.

Cutterhead and blade design and sharpness are factors. It is easier to plane thin stock with a segmented head like a Byrd Shelix.

Bed and feed roller design, pressure, and spacing can cause flex in a thin piece which is the problem. The stock can be pulled up causing unever planing or even buckle and get caught in the cutter with any number of negative results.

I think you will find that folks who do a lot of work with thin stock, like luthiers, only use a planer to get close, then switch to a drum or wide belt sander to achieve final thickness (or should that be 'final thinness'? )

A shelix head would do better than a straight blade head? I'm not disagreeing, I just find that surprising. So, my next question is why? I would have thought all those little teeth would make it more risky for tearing on thin stuff.