bevel-down planes... sell me!

[Jacob]

Just had a quicky with a difficult piece of sycamore - standard planes tear out the grain.
LV LAS performs better. And even better with a 45º edge and does it perfectly.
Sufficient reason for keeping it, in spite of the expense?

Hang on a bit - I applied a back bevel to the blade in an old Acorn #4 to give a similar effective planing angle and it did the job just as well as the LV! :shock:
Except it doesn't keep an edge for very long at all, just 2 passes down the board edge, making it quite impractical. But it demonstrates that quality of steel, a sharp edge, the bevel angle, are far more important than the plane behind?

So what about doing the same with an A2 or similar tough steel blade in an ordinary plane? I've got a "smoothcut" but it's laminated so a back bevel could take you too near the soft backing. But another blade might do it.
If so I can put the LV LAS on ebay and get my money back.

 

[bugbear]

Hang on a bit - I applied a back bevel to the blade in an old Acorn #4 to give a similar effective planing angle and it did the job just as well as the LV! :shock:
Except it doesn't keep an edge for very long at all, just 2 passes down the board edge, making it quite impractical. But it demonstrates that quality of steel, a sharp edge, the bevel angle, are far more important than the plane behind?

It also demonstrates that some low end tools have cheese for blades.

BugBear

 

[Peter T]

Hang on a bit - I applied a back bevel to the blade in an old Acorn #4 to give a similar effective planing angle and it did the job just as well as the LV! :shock:
Except it doesn't keep an edge for very long at all, just 2 passes down the board edge, making it quite impractical. But it demonstrates that quality of steel, a sharp edge, the bevel angle, are far more important than the plane behind?

It also demonstrates that some low end tools have cheese for blades.

BugBear

Hear Hear!!

Just done the same thing with my Record 5 1/2 with the Record Iron. I back-bevelled it to see what sort of results I could get. It lasted for about 5 minutes before needing sharpening!!

 

[Richard T]

So if two planes of equal merit were pitched against each other say ... the veritas BU smoother and say the LN or Clifton#4? Or even Veritas #4 for that matter ... Could they both do an equal job as each other on a variety of different grains?

 

[jimi43]

I think we are trying to compare apples with oranges here.

Clearly each has advantages over the other for certain jobs.

The infill being an orangle of course! :mrgreen:

Jim

 

[Karl]

So what about doing the same with an A2 or similar tough steel blade in an ordinary plane? I've got a "smoothcut" but it's laminated so a back bevel could take you too near the soft backing. But another blade might do it.
If so I can put the LV LAS on ebay and get my money back.

Jacob - the carbon steel blades from Ron Hock are very good. 2.4mm thick (so no faffing with your plane) and take a nice edge. Cheaper than the Smoothcut blades too - Linky.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Jacob]

So what about doing the same with an A2 or similar tough steel blade in an ordinary plane? I've got a "smoothcut" but it's laminated so a back bevel could take you too near the soft backing. But another blade might do it.
If so I can put the LV LAS on ebay and get my money back.

Jacob - the carbon steel blades from Ron Hock are very good. 2.4mm thick (so no faffing with your plane) and take a nice edge. Cheaper than the Smoothcut blades too - Linky.

Cheers

Karl

Righto cheers Karl I might have a go.

 

[condeesteso]

....
These BD planes do sound complicated... ;-)

BugBear

Can be if you get a dud.
Most of them are OK though, and cheap, easy enough to fix (not rocket science!) very nice to use and with strengths of their own.

I've been comparing Record BD with LN/LV BU.
What about posh end BD as compared to ditto BU? Would you have a LN 5 1/2 or a LN 62? Would the LN 5 1/2 have chipbreaker problems? I wouldn't know.

My LN No3 BD with their earlier chipbreaker (traditional style) is no better than the Stanleys or Record I have in this respect.
I have tuned chipbreakers many times to get a tight fit full-width across the blade, and I do still get problems sometimes on wild grain. When I tune the chipbreaker I am looking for one line of contact right at the leading edge of the breaker. I don't know what else to do!
I've realised now that it's very unlikely indeed I will ever buy a new premium BD plane again. I love the old Stanleys and the Record I have, and at say £50 or less, then maybe another £50 for a blade and chipbreaker, that is a fine plane for sensible money.
I would certainly buy a LN BU No4 though, and a spare blade.
I also plan to try a Quangsheng blade and breaker in my Stanley No5 - even if it needs a bit of tweaking sounds like a bargain...??
One last thought on the smoother-size BD planes I have - my r/h knuckle often fouls the adjuster even on the No4. No such problems with a BU style.

 

[Jacob]

.....
My LN No3 BD with their earlier chipbreaker (traditional style) is no better than the Stanleys or Record I have in this respect.
I have tuned chipbreakers many times to get a tight fit full-width across the blade, and I do still get problems sometimes on wild grain. When I tune the chipbreaker I am looking for one line of contact right at the leading edge of the breaker. I don't know what else to do!.....

I'd also:
Make sure the frog is well in line (even a gnat's behind) the mouth so that the back of the blade gets maximum support and isn't going to flip back (pivot on frog bottom edge) or vibrate. Forget mouth adjustment it's a waste of time.
Look at the front top edge of the breaker and make sure it is backed off a bit so that your shaving hits the bottom of a reasonable incline (60º max?), not a vertical wall, and also polish it a bit (remove rust at least). Both these help shavings slip up, over and past, more easily.
Tighten everything down well so that the lever cam is quite stiff to operate and transmits a lot of pressure on to the chip breaker.
Make sure that the lever cap bears evenly on to the cap iron and isn't twisted in any way (unlikely).

IMHO these chipbreaker problems are an easy fix and once fixed are gone forever.

PS A heavier and/or "engineered" chipbreaker might defeat the object i.e. to transfer maximum pressure to the blade near the edge and nip it tight against frog and back of mouth. A bent piece of springy sheet metal might do it better? I certainly can't see any reason for replacing any of mine.
I'm into tool fiddling at the moment (not forever, must do some woodwork) so I'm not averse to having a go with the various things on offer, but an alternative chipbreaker is not likely even to make it onto the list!

 

[condeesteso]

Hi Jacob, yes, that all makes sense - most of what you mention I feel I have done on the Lie breaker (attack angle, polished etc) but was close to abandoning the notion of a tight mouth reducing tear out anyway. I will back the frog to get full support, and leave mouth wider. I recall various tests with mega-money infills with wide mouths working very well indeed on wild grain anyway.
For some reason I am now recalling the joke about the wide mouthed frog... "Oooh, you don't see many of those about do you".

 

[bugbear]

Make sure that the lever cap bears evenly on to the cap iron and isn't twisted in any way (unlikely).

Since the force is applied at a single point, and the pivot is a single point, twisting is (if you think about it) not merely unlikely, but impossible.

BugBear

 

[GazPal]

Make sure that the lever cap bears evenly on to the cap iron and isn't twisted in any way (unlikely).

Since the force is applied at a single point, and the pivot is a single point, twisting is (if you think about it) not merely unlikely, but impossible.

BugBear

Methink's Jacob meant it's best the leading edge of the lever cap is set squarely to the cutting edge, although it is possible for a cap to rest unevenly (Even if set square to the cutting edge) if the underside of it's out of wind with it's intended plain.

 

[condeesteso]

No such thing as a cold thread... ask Sherlock.
Now then - there is a basic design problem with B/D planes is there not?
The frog has one position where it works - just the one. That is when the frog is perfectly aligned to the sole support. Only then do we get true and complete blade support.
Therefore, I could argue that the frog is an irrelevance, or at very best a poor solution to an obvious requirement. I say that because it is designed to move forward and back, but only REALLY works in one single position.
It would be smart to adjust blade thickness to close the mouth, in that case. Or make the mouth adjustable independent of the blade and support assembly.
Beginning to sound quite like a low angle B/U to me.

(just been tuning a Record SS 4 1/2, so it's a fresh topic here)

 

[Benchwayze]

There was a time when the only bevel down planes generally available were the small block planes. very useful of course, but not my ideal choice for 'planing' stock to square.

So I use both. Most of the top end makers make both anyhow, so maybe it's horses for the proverbial.
Talking of horses, comparing BU with BD is like comparing National Hunt racing with Flat racing. They each have their attractions, and for me no drawbacks except that in the Winter I don't go to meetings anymore!

 

[xy mosian]

I'm prepared to be shot down here ... so take aim.
How about a possible plane designers conference topic from the mists of time? "We cannot easily grind the bed of a frog when cast in one piece with the body of the plane. Therefore we'll make it separate. To make it look like an advantage, for selling, let's provide a method of making it adjustable"

All said with tongue firmly in cheek.

xy

 

[Benchwayze]

I'm prepared to be shot down here ... so take aim.
How about a possible plane designers conference topic from the mists of time? "We cannot easily grind the bed of a frog when cast in one piece with the body of the plane. Therefore we'll make it separate. To make it look like an advantage, for selling, let's provide a method of making it adjustable"

All said with tongue firmly in cheek.

xy

Better still, why can't all Bailey pattern planes have an adjustable mouth? (At least the smaller ones we use for finish work.) :mrgreen:

 

[Vann]

The frog has one position where it works - just the one. That is when the frog is perfectly aligned to the sole support. Only then do we get true and complete blade support.

The thicker the iron the longer the bevel (for a set bevel angle). So with a good meaty iron with a long bevel - does the iron even touch the rear of the sole? Surely the first point of contact is up on the frog anyway, whether or not the frog is in line with the rear of the mouth :?:

I'm guessing here. One day I'll draw it up on CAD, just to see if I'm right (or talking dung).
Then of course the thickness of the sole will vary, just to add another variable to the mix.

...why can't all Bailey pattern planes have an adjustable mouth?.

IIRC the new Stanley 'Sweethart' No.4 has an adjustable mouth, 'though it's not actually a 'Bailey pattern', but it is bevel-down. And the frog is fixed in that 'one' position condeesteso mentions - being cast in one piece. Shame about having a 'Norris' adjuster.

Cheers, Vann

 

[Jacob]

......
I'm guessing here. One day I'll draw it up on CAD, just to see if I'm right (or talking pineapple)......

No need to guess - just look at a plane. :roll:
You will see that the back of the blade projects beyond the frog so that when the frog aligns with the mouth the back of the blade touches the mouth. IMHO the frog should be a tiny bit behind the lip so that the blade is firmly nipped tight onto the mouth, as near to the edge as possible.
I guess the separate frog/body design is easier to manufacture than in one piece.

 

[condeesteso]

Fair points all, but whichever way it is looked at the BD Bailey design has issues I think. re Vann's geometry, that depends on thickness of blade and I think the premise of the early Baileys was thin blade mass-production, so an after-market thick A2 is like cheating. And it does make so much more sense to make the mouth adjustable.
I do love those Baileys... I just don't always like 'em.

 

[lwilliams]

"- gives you any choice of pitch at the switch of a blade (even toothed blades at a modest extra cost)"

Versatility over a very narrow range? Is every plane a smooth plane? The two workhorse bench planes are the fore plane and the trying plane. I don't know of a bevel up that works well as a fore plane or a trying plane. The smooth plane introduces imperfection of local areas to deal with any problems left by the trying plane. A relatively narrow and small smooth plane gives the best control for this.

'- has no 'chip-breaker' (a component of questionable merit)"

The best bevel down bench planes are single iron.

"- can adjust throat within seconds, without altering any blade setting"

Is this something you find yourself doing often? Are you using your planes in a traditional trade manner?