# Planing technique



## Anonymous (9 Aug 2005)

Have done a search but didnt find anything relevant, so apologies if this has been asked before.

I have very little experience in hand planing so was looking for some basic advice on how to set up and use. 

Also, should i use the plane with it in line with the work or at an angle to the work have heard of both methods but not sure which is the most appropriate.

Many thanks


----------



## Midnight (9 Aug 2005)

griggs..

not tryin to duck the question but set up n use depends on which plane we're talkin about here...


----------



## SlimShavings (10 Aug 2005)

Griggs
Try this http://www.jlatech.com/rob/Woodworking/ ... 20Base.htm
He has a database for all kinds of hand tool stuff.

i would make sure that you become familiar and have your plane sharp and "tuned up". Its the vital first techinique. Everything else is secondary. With a lot of practice you'll eventually have your own technique. Sometimes its straight on and some times its at an angle. Sometimes its all over the place.
Bench height and weight transfer are important. There is some discussions that bench heigth should be lower than what we accept these days. Generally from the floor to your palm held flat or slightly lower.

I'm sure if you search out the discussions on here there is quite a bit of info.

Dave


----------



## Alf (10 Aug 2005)

Welcome to the forum, griggs.

There's such scope for answers to this one it's hard to know where to start. Slim has provided the most comprehensive link, but I'd also suggest BugBear's guide and Jeff Gorman's. The most important thing is to have a sharp blade; everything else is secondary. Even the most ghastly, un-tuned plane in the world will work with a sharp blade (see Groz block plane review :lol: ) Maybe it'd help if we narrowed down the remit here. What type of plane d'you have? What are you wanting to use it on? Whereabouts in Devon are you? We might have a handy operative standing by; a minute's real world demonstration can beat any number of websites.

If I find myself at a loose end later today I may come back and try to tackle this one properly.  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (12 Aug 2005)

Thanks for the replies. 

Alf, I'm in Sidmouth, Devon. As for the plane make - not sure, its an old one that i inherited from my dad and i think that having read other posts on this site that, that could be part of the problem as my dad would never spend much money on tools so i think i shall look to buy a new plane to practice with.

With that in mind, i've been looking through my Axminster catalouge and to be honest not really sure what i should be looking for, a jack plane should be the first i should purchase i guess, but what, apart from price, is the main difference between say a Stanley #5, Clifton #5 and Lie-Nielson #5

Thanks again


----------



## Midnight (12 Aug 2005)

> a jack plane should be the first i should purchase i guess, but what, apart from price, is the main difference between say a Stanley #5, Clifton #5 and Lie-Nielson #5



straight outa the box a new Stanley is by and large a paperweight... it'll need replacement blade and chip-breaker, flattening and fettling and possibly replacement handles if you want to avoid raising blisters.. That said, if you put in the time and effort, their planes can be persuaded to yield half respectable results...

Clifton are a damn good manufacturer with a well earned rep for quality and customer care. Their planes should need little more than a quick tune, tickle the blade to hone it and you should be up n running... 

Lie Nielsen are arguably the best of the top 3 manufacturers; excellent goods, excellent after sales and customer care. Like the Clifton, their tools should require little more than a quick tune and tickle..

The primary difference between Lie Nielsen and Clifton is in their materials; a L-N will survive an accidental drop thanks to its ductile iron construction... best pray if you drop a Clifton...

If the likes of L-N and Clifton are within your budget it might be worth your while hunting around for Lee Valley tools too... these 3 make up the best of current tool manufacturers...


----------



## Alf (13 Aug 2005)

Stanley #5 - new ones are rather ghastly and not honestly worth the money. All the necessary tuning effort would be better spent on an old Stanley. Or better still, contacting Ray Iles and enquiring about one of his reconditioned ones. 

Clifton #5 - I don't have one 'cos my floor is concrete and I'd sooner have ductile iron.

Lie-Nielsen #5 - Heirloom quality, heirloom price. :wink: Damn fine planes, but also a little intimidating 'cos they're so jolly smart you may be afraid to use it. Or is that just me?  

Personally, and if I've said it once I'll bore you all to death by saying it a thousand times, I'd recommend a low angle/bevel up jack plane from either L-N or Veritas*. Well the latter actually, if I'm honest, but I may be accused of bias even though both are to be found _chez Alf_. But if money's too tight to mention, Ray Iles' and his reground Stanleys would get the nod. Sticking a few likely search terms into the search facility on this forum should yield more opinion than you can shake a big plank at too.  

Now, who's handy to Sidmouth with a load of grease for the Slope, er, planes...? :twisted:

Cheers, Alf

*BriMarc can fill the void left by Axminster's bizarre refusal to stock 'em


----------



## Anonymous (13 Aug 2005)

Thanks for that Midnight.

Exscuse the ignorance, but im new to this, are Lee Valley the same as Veritas as sold on the Brimarc site?

Thanks again


----------



## Alf (13 Aug 2005)

griggs":1h8x64et said:


> Exscuse the ignorance, but im new to this, are Lee Valley the same as Veritas as sold on the Brimarc site?


Yep


----------



## Anonymous (13 Aug 2005)

OK thanks Alf, I'll have a good look at the Brimarc site


----------



## Midnight (14 Aug 2005)

> Lie-Nielsen #5 - Heirloom quality, heirloom price. Damn fine planes, but also a little intimidating 'cos they're so jolly smart you may be afraid to use it. Or is that just me?



If it's heirloom quality yer lookin for... they do them too.... Ltd editions cast in white bronze... certs of authenticity yadda yadda... all kosher stuff fer collectors... but I took the question to imply that we're talkin planes for use here not polishin... hense my answer... anything you see on their site or aAxminsters catalogue will work as good n hard as it looks... we're nae talkin planes fer pussies here....

As for the BUPP's or whatever yer callin em... with all the hassle you're having honing their blades, are you sure they're ideal as a first plane for a novice...?? Me... I'd go for bevel downs.... far easier learning curve...

But then... I'm a user.... not a collector....


----------



## MikeW (14 Aug 2005)

Ooh, think I'll stay out of this one...

Naw, I don't have the self-control.

You'll do great with any of the Big Three. Heck, with some tuning up, you'd do fine with a Groz.

But if I were new to handplanes, I would look for either a good used one as sold by Iles as suggested, buy a used one and learn (ask here) how to make it a good usable plane, or buy one of the Veritas (bevel up or down) in order to spend as little as possible to see if you even like hand work with a plane. 

Some here believe the bevel up are more versatile (I'm one) and some do not. Most do not have difficulties in the finer points of honing (camber is what we're talking about being difficult). But then, bevel up or down, you will have some getting use to using and sharpening a blade straight across before you'll be putting a good usable camber on the blade anyway.

MikeW


----------



## Alf (14 Aug 2005)

Midnight":1w5fbmlv said:


> If it's heirloom quality yer lookin for... they do them too....


Mike, it's L-N's own slogan. For the *whole range*... :roll:



Midnight":1w5fbmlv said:


> As for the BUPP's or whatever yer callin em... with all the hassle you're having honing their blades, are you sure they're ideal as a first plane for a novice...??


Yes. Because a novice will be more likely to be using a honing guide for sharpening anyway.



Midnight":1w5fbmlv said:


> Me... I'd go for bevel downs.... far easier learning curve...


Depends to a certain extent on which bevel down you're comparing to which bevel up. But even so I would suggest the adjustments for depth and particularly mouth size are more instinctive on a bevel up for the genuine novice.



Midnight":1w5fbmlv said:


> But then... I'm a user.... not a collector....


We only have your word for that, Mike... 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## DaveL (14 Aug 2005)

Alf":f6nh530t said:


> Midnight":f6nh530t said:
> 
> 
> > But then... I'm a user.... not a collector....
> ...



LOL


----------



## Alf (14 Aug 2005)

Mmm, sorry. That was a bit cheeky... 8-[


----------



## Jaco (14 Aug 2005)

Hand planing????? :roll: :roll: :roll: 
Wots' that ???

My humblest apologies, since getting a TP, my poor Stanley is withering ....
  
8) 8) 
My EB is flourishing thoungh.


----------



## Midnight (14 Aug 2005)

> We only have your word for that, Mike...



meaning what.... precisely....???????


----------



## Alf (14 Aug 2005)

Midnight":33sa16a6 said:


> > We only have your word for that, Mike...
> 
> 
> 
> meaning what.... precisely....???????


Meaning I have pictures to prove I'm not a collector, so sticks and stones... :wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Midnight (14 Aug 2005)

> Meaning I have pictures to prove I'm not a collector, so sticks and stones...




Ahhhh... so.... because I spend my shop time gettin on with it rather than shootin pics... I'm a collector huh...??

NP... jus so we got that straightened out....


----------



## Alf (15 Aug 2005)

Give over, Mike. I simply mean I don't worry about insinuations that I know diddly squat about using tools; e.g. that I'm "only a collector". I'm fully aware of when I don't know diddly without any help. :roll:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Jarviser (15 Aug 2005)

Just thought I would throw in the old argument. There are surely three factors in any plane edge. The back, the bevel and the honing angle. Assuming the blade is thick and well anchored, surely its just the angle between the wood and the nearest face that gives the real cutting angle. Why go to all the trouble if having a low angle blade and then put the darn thing in upside down? :wink:


----------



## ydb1md (15 Aug 2005)

Midnight":3od3plrr said:


> As for the BUPP's or whatever yer callin em... with all the hassle you're having honing their blades, are you sure they're ideal as a first plane for a novice...?? Me... I'd go for bevel downs.... far easier learning curve...



How do bevel downs have an easier learning curve? Look at the work associated with tweaking the cut? You have the frog, the chipbreaker and the blade. If you want to change the cutting depth of the blade, that's pretty easy. But wait, if you change the cutting depth too much, you have to adjust the mouth, which entails taking off the blade/chipbreaker assembly, moving the frog, making sure the cutting depth looks good . . . oops, wait . . . I moved the frog too much, pull the blade/chipbreaker back off, mess with the frog some more. All this to change the cutting depth . . . 

With the bevel up: loosen the lever cap, turn the adjuster. I need to open the mouth a bit so, loosen the toe, slide it forward, tighten the knob. Now we're good to go.

Which process might be more intimidating to the uninitiated?

As for slinging arrows, come on, leave it outside. All Griggs asked for was some advise on hand planes, not a debate between the bevel ups and the bevel downs . . . 

Now, who wants a pint? ccasion5:


----------



## Midnight (15 Aug 2005)

> How do bevel downs have an easier learning curve? Look at the work associated with tweaking the cut?



Simply put... experience...
I can't speak for the quality of instructions supplied with a new Clifton bench plane, but having read a few of Lee Valley's and receiving quite a few instruction sets from Lie Nielsen I can vouch for their clarity... The variables you mention are explained quite clearly, and once set can by and large be forgotten about; seldom a need to adjust them once the plane's been tuned... Hell.. even the instructions with a new Stanley make it plain that tuning isn't exactly rocket science...

I'd need to refer to Alf's reviews of the Lee Valley planes, but the Bedrock design used by both Clifton and Lie Nielsen negate the need to remove the blade to adjust the frog; an aspect that makes dialing in the wrong state of tune virtually impossible... whatchya see is whatchya get... 3 screws to adjust... how hard is that..??????

Re blade adjustment... from experience I know it's impossible to crash your carefully honed blade into the front of the throat when adjusting the blade depth; experimenting with depth of cut will either produce a useable cut or it won't... no potential for damage either way... I know from similar experience that you can't say the same for all bevel up planes... 

Tune up aside, the main factor behind my recommendation was the assumption that a novice woodworker would be just about as inexperienced with sharpening as they are with using planes... As Alf has said frequently, bevel down blades don't need to be honed at precise angles to work perfectly acceptably; the angle of attack being determined by the frog, not the secondary bevel...

nuff said..???

edited......cos even with speel check.....I still canna spell.....


----------



## Alf (15 Aug 2005)

I don't know if anyone else is brave enough to step into this discussion, but can I make a plea for any other folks who find bevel down planes easier to adjust than bevel up ones to raise their hands? I would genuinely like to know if my assumptions are so far off the mark.

As regards sharpening bevel-ups; yes, it's a "drawback". But no more of a drawback to a novice than trying to sharpen any other blade. Sure, _I've_ had difficulties, but they're not likely to trouble a novice. Firstly, as I consider my trial of the bevel-up planes to be on-going, I'm trying to retain precise bevel angles so I know what results I'm getting from what situation. Most users wouldn't feel the need to give a second thought to a degree here or there. Secondly I'm using a honing guide to achieve that, whereas I'm more inclined to freehand hone normally, and I just don't get on with them at all. Prior to this I was freehand honing the bevels without worrying about the precise angles and they still worked just fine. So while it's only fair to point out this con against all the pros, which is why I mention it, I would caution anyone against looking at the con with a magnifying glass and the pros through the wrong end of a telescope.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## llangatwgnedd (15 Aug 2005)

I am a proud owner of a Veritas low angle jack and a Cilco Clifton try plane and I mainly use these two for hanging doors.
Out of the two I will say I prefer the Veritas LA for ease and speed of adjustment ( don't need a screwdriver for opening and closing mouth) and planing the horns on doors, justs excels on cross grain.

I will be purchasing the veritas *Bus* as I am hooked on veritas LA planes

Nobody has answered the original question that was asked ?
Yes I use a plane on a skew I find that it cuts better.


----------



## MikeW (15 Aug 2005)

Alf":1lzlq3k5 said:


> I don't know if anyone else is brave enough to step into this discussion, but can I make a plea for any other folks who find bevel down planes easier to adjust than bevel up ones to raise their hands?...
> ...Snip...
> Cheers, Alf


In my case I don't know if brave has anything to do with it :lol: !

I find that bevel down planes, as Mike has said, are pretty much once set, they're set. But at a price. The amount of fiddling around on the newer planes is minimal, as on vintage Stanley Bedrocks--_*but only if one has a few bevel down planes to have set for a variety of work*_.

This morning I was using my LN #4 1/2 on some Mahogany and found I needed to open the mouth. Now, on the Maple I was also using it on it was finely set and worked just fine. But the Mahogany was causing it to choke. Grab a screw driver, loosen the two retaining bolts a smidge, adjust the frog further back, tighten the retaining screws and readjust the blade. Maybe 1 but certainly less than 2 minutes (included getting my screewdriver, putting it back and testing the cut on some scrap).

Certainly less time than I often waste thinking about what to do next on the project. But the same task on a non-Big Three plane makers' planes, such as an old Stanely/Record/Groz, and 5 minutes will pass, if one has a little experience.

The same task on a Lee Valley / Veritas Bevel Up plane takes mere seconds to adjust the mouth, and no resetting of the blade and taking test cuts. For that matter, LV bevel down planes also do not need the blade readjusted after moving the frog.

But after all this discussion on BD / BU planes and which will be easier for a novice user, we are still left with peoples' preferences, likes / dislikes. Which is one reason why there will always be both style planes.

To the OP (Griggs), which ever plane you choose, you will find they all cut wood, you will skew sometimes and at others you will push it straight. You may even pull it towards you at times.

Each type of plane needs sharpened and neither style is any harder than the other, just different. 

MikeW


----------



## engineer one (16 Aug 2005)

since i seem to cause havoc wherever i appear on a forum, thought id try my latest experience.
i find power planes difficult to use, not least the starting and finishing snipe. must be practice i know but. since i switched recently to "proper" hand planes i find it easier to get a good surface with little snipe.
however having over one weekend, sharpened two LN, a62 and 164, a clifton no 5, and a LV 4 1/2, i can pass the following comments in the bevel argument.
whilst the idea of a split cap iron on the clifton is nice, getting to all the screws on the frog is a bore, hence my comment elsewhere about a special tool. once set up the clifton is nice, but setting is more difficult and complicated than either the LV 4 1/2 or the LN's.

however even with the 164, there is a problem, the metal plate which moves the blade in and out does not seem to allow for very much metal removal on the blade before you have no adjustment with this mechanism.
or is me??

how do they cut, well sharpened and honed and polished on a tormek 2006, they cut nice thin shavings and give a smooth surface, now i have to start building again to show off the finish.

Since sharpening is the main problem i think the bevel question is more easily addressed by talking about the ease of adjusting the blade when using. most people tend to plane one material at a time, and so the initial set up time must be where it counts.
the mouth's on the LN and LV are easy to adjust for thickness, and the chip breakers work well, so for the rest of it, bevel up generally seems to be the quickest way to get cutting from brand new out of box to laying on wood. 

but then hell if we were worried about time, would we be using hand planes anyway???

well back to the drawings on the computer to cause problems for some other people.
paul :lol:


----------



## Alf (16 Aug 2005)

engineer one":3up2xg65 said:


> however even with the 164, there is a problem, the metal plate which moves the blade in and out does not seem to allow for very much metal removal on the blade before you have no adjustment with this mechanism.
> or is me??


If you meant the metal plate on the blade that the depth adjuster registers in, it's partly the plane and partly you. The idea is you move the plate to the right distance from the edge each time you remove some material from the edge. It's the one serious drawback to the #164 and technically gives the lie to the idea that _all_ bevel up planes are easier to adjust. On the other hand it isn't referred to as "bevel up" or marketed with a view to versatility so it doesn't count, right? :wink: :lol: 

'Fraid my skewing answer is the same as others; it depends. :roll: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MikeW (16 Aug 2005)

Alf":2voazxaw said:


> 'Fraid my skewing answer is the same as others; it depends. :roll:
> Cheers, Alf


Yep. Part of the problem I find for myself in giving advice about plane usage is I forget about all the things I do "naturally."

For instance, tonight I was planing a table top. The top was without wind, but had intermittent valleys roughly in the middle. I began planing at a very blunt V shape (a few places actually straight across the grain), from the middle out to both sides. Once done, I did the same thing but kept making the V shape more and more steeply with each pass, until the final passes were straight down the top.

It just seemed the easiest way to accomplish flattening the top. And it works fine. But for the life of me, when I go to answer a question like the OP's, it doesn't "come out."

And btw, I discovered that a couple #8s placed at either end of a table top with their soles laid the same direction (toward me) make a couple really good winding sticks. Especially with the corrugated one at the far end. The lines of the corrugations make a good visual.

Well, back to work...have a great day.


----------



## ike (16 Aug 2005)

I would just like to add my thoughts to the discussion. The essence of good design for any artifact is simplicity. Putting my faith in (Alfs) reviews, I purchased the LV bevel up planes. They are simply beautifully made and made beautifully simple, both to setup and use. I personally wouldn't ever buy another conventional pattern plane. I agree with Alf - don't start looking through a microscope at these tools, LN or LV they'll all do a grand job, except the LV's won't hurt your bank balance quite so much!

Ike


----------



## Philly (16 Aug 2005)

Mike
That (the #8 winding sticks) was the most devious Gloat I've seen for weeks! :lol: Keep up the good work!! :wink: 
Philly


----------



## MikeW (16 Aug 2005)

Yeah, but does it really count if I've had them for years?

Now the #5 1/4 I was just given...


----------



## Alf (16 Aug 2005)

Enough, Mike! For the love of Norm, enough! ](*,) :lol: 

Choking in the dust, Alf


----------



## MikeW (16 Aug 2005)

That's ok...wait until you see it after I file open the mouth and make a heavier scrub out of it :lol:


----------



## engineer one (17 Aug 2005)

couple more thoughts to explain some of the comments people make about planing.
as an engineer (once!!!!) one of my early jobs was to file squares of 
metal into cubes. you would think that a small file would be easier for that
but we were shown that by using a long file, it was easier to control the flatness of the filing, because you could see it move up and down.
the corollary is that a long plane will initially only bit the high points, before making a longer more smooth surface overall. if you start with a short plane it will take a special skill to flatten a piece of wood say 24-48 inches long with a 10 in plane, makes sense i think.

as for the angle to approach, i find and think that the throat width and blade depth are important. particularly if you are starting anew, and have little previous experience or if like me it was long ago, then the modern planes allow you to set minimum depth of cut and thin shavings with the throat adjustment. thus when you start on a new piece of wood, you will with the fine adjustments find out quickly, how easily you can cut the wood.

also when starting out this is probably more accurate than taking big shavings.

so alf you will be pleased to know i have moved from a collector to an amateur user.
=D> 
paul


----------



## Pete W (17 Aug 2005)

Alf":2cgj5ias said:


> I don't know if anyone else is brave enough to step into this discussion, but can I make a plea for any other folks who find bevel down planes easier to adjust than bevel up ones to raise their hands?



Consider my novice hand firmly down 

I've come late to the debate, but as someone who started with a new Stanley jack (and, yes, I know that isn't comparable to a LN or Clifton bevel-down plane) it was a revelation when I got my hands on my first LV bevel-up smoother.

I'm sure old hands like Midnight Mike can setup and adjust bevel-down planes in seconds, in the dark. And perhaps with a lot of practice I could have achieved such Jedi mastery. But I'm firmly sold on the bevel-up advantages now - plans to buy a jointer have been shelved until Rob Lee unleashes the LV BUJ.


----------



## Frank D. (18 Aug 2005)

Lately the biggest difference that I notice is the time it takes to fuss with a chipbreaker (including maintenance, finding the screwdriver, etc), but I like the Bailey-type adjustment on a bevel-down plane better, the feel and the fact you can adjust depth on the fly (more quickly). The Norris adjuster on BU planes works though.


----------



## Anonymous (18 Aug 2005)

Alf":2b622kql said:


> I don't know if anyone else is brave enough to step into this discussion, but can I make a plea for any other folks who find bevel down planes easier to adjust than bevel up ones to raise their hands? I would genuinely like to know if my assumptions are so far off the mark.
> Cheers, Alf



Depends on type of adjustment that is needed.

I use LN and LV bevel ups and Clifton and LN bevel downs. I find that for mouth adjustment (VERY rarely do I adjust the mouth), the bevel up are considerably faster but for blade adjustment (depth and squareness) I find the bevel downs much faster and easier.

I agree with mike on the bevel down mouth adjustment, 1 minute maximum on my LNs which is nothing in real terms.


----------



## Midnight (18 Aug 2005)

> I agree with mike on the bevel down mouth adjustment, 1 minute maximum on my LNs which is nothing in real terms.



I think we've skipped over 2 other strengths inherent in the bevel downs... lateral adjustment takes less time to do than it does to think about, and can be done on the fly...

For me, their greatest strength is commonality of parts; #'s 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 & 7 share common frogs, blades chip breakers and lever caps. A high angle frog or re-profiled blade can be fitted to any one of them at any time rather than needing a spare frog or blade each.


----------



## MikeW (19 Aug 2005)

Midnight":1do4w2ev said:


> I think we've skipped over 2 other strengths inherent in the bevel downs... lateral adjustment takes less time to do than it does to think about, and can be done on the fly...


With the LV bevel up planes this is also true, so I don't personally think this is an issue of difference. If anything, it could be argued the LV BU mechanism is better and inherently smoother and provides more gradual lateral adjustment.



Midnight":1do4w2ev said:


> For me, their greatest strength is commonality of parts; #'s 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 & 7 share common frogs, blades chip breakers and lever caps. A high angle frog or re-profiled blade can be fitted to any one of them at any time rather than needing a spare frog or blade each.


This is true, and with the advent of the new series of LV's BU planes is also true. Except the differences, of course :roll: .

No frogs to mess with at all on the LV BU planes. High angle frogs for the LN planes are virtually a waste of money unless one purchases it at the time of buying the plane (one can effect the same HA via a back bevel).

I think I know what you mean, but the last sentance above makes no sense.

Overall, I like each of my planes and use them all, regardless of BU / BD. I have a different sense of enjoyment with each, but the work can get done with either. BD planes have been used for centuries. They obviously work and work well.

For a person starting out, the 3 new BU planes by LV is capable of a greater range of work for less overall expenditure. I have experienced it in classes I've recently taught. It is by and large easier for a novice to get the hang of using a LV BU plane, to remove and replace the blade, and get consistent planing results from the get go.


----------



## bugbear (19 Aug 2005)

> It is by and large easier for a novice to get the hang of using a LV BU plane, to remove and replace the blade, and get consistent planing results from the get go.



Do you attribute this to excellence of design, manufcature, or a happy conflation of the two?

BugBear


----------



## Anonymous (19 Aug 2005)

MikeW":2as2t9tw said:


> If anything, it could be argued the LV BU mechanism is better and inherently smoother and provides more gradual lateral adjustment.



Sorry to say that I completely disagree with you there Mike. On my LV BU plane, the lateral adjustment is the worst feature by far. I cannot obtain fine adjutment of lateral adjustment at all by hand and usually resort to small taps on the adjuster with a wooden mallet. I think that the adjuster need to be longer to allow more leverage and mechanical advantage to allow fine adjustment of lateral position.
All of my BD planes provide very smooth and easy lateral adjustment without even changing my grip on the plane (I think I already said this in the post that Mike replied to)

Having said all of that, it is a pre-production model althought the adjuster is the same as on other LV BU


----------



## Alf (19 Aug 2005)

Midnight":2qirxlgo said:


> ...lateral adjustment takes less time to do than it does to think about, and can be done on the fly...


Okay, what am I missing now? Why do I never feel the need to adjust laterally "on the fly"? :-k



Tony":2qirxlgo said:


> On my LV BU plane, the lateral adjustment is the worst feature by far. I cannot obtain fine adjutment of lateral adjustment at all by hand and usually resort to small taps on the adjuster with a wooden mallet.


Must be a small mallet. :shock: Lateral adjustment does feel different on the BU's, yep. Possibly 'cos all the movent is actually doing what you want and not going into sideways movement. Have you got your set screws set right?



Tony":2qirxlgo said:


> I think that the adjuster need to be longer to allow more leverage and mechanical advantage to allow fine adjustment of lateral position.


No dice, 'cos of the room needed round the handle for the big-fisted folk.



Tony":2qirxlgo said:


> All of my BD planes provide very smooth and easy lateral adjustment without even changing my grip on the plane


Yikes, another one! What am I missing here? Depth adjustment, sure, I understand that, but lateral? And depth adjustment I can do "on the fly" on both types, so no issue there.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MikeW (19 Aug 2005)

bugbear":3lv6z9a8 said:


> > It is by and large easier for a novice to get the hang of using a LV BU plane, to remove and replace the blade, and get consistent planing results from the get go.
> 
> 
> Do you attribute this to excellence of design, manufcature, or a happy conflation of the two?
> BugBear


I think the Norris-style adjuster is mostly to attribute. That it is well made is part as well.

But to provide a "balanced" view here, my LNs and Cliftons work as nicely. It is two factors I think that make it easier for consistent, easy results for the newer users.

1) The low angle. This makes both forward and lateral adjustment (in combination of the LV design for such adj.) is slower. Takes more turns and or sideways movement (on the LV LA). This is both a mechanical difference (more TPI) and geometry (lower angle).

The biggest problem I have seen in easy adjustments, both blade projection and lateral movement is excessive tightening of the cap. Doesn't take too much to hold the blade firmly and yet provide easy adjustment.

2) No cap iron to adjust when oneremoves the blade to hone. Which means there's not one to put back on, which means it is less likely one has to fiddle much with blade projection just because they honed the blade.

My classes at that level attempt to make no judgement concerning BU / BD, vintage vs. new planes. The planes people bring in range from garage sale finds of great old planes to new Stanleys, from a Groz to a Norris. And about everything in between.

The people who bring in the LV planes, and in particular the LV bevel up planes, do less cursing. They also usually exclaim how easy it is...

Take care, Mike


----------



## MikeW (19 Aug 2005)

Tony":2wydoisl said:


> MikeW":2wydoisl said:
> 
> 
> > If anything, it could be argued the LV BU mechanism is better and inherently smoother and provides more gradual lateral adjustment.
> ...


Sounds like perhaps something is wrong with your particular plane, Tony. There shouldn't be that much resistance if the cap knob isn't tightened down too tight.


----------



## Midnight (19 Aug 2005)

> I think I know what you mean, but the last sentance above makes no sense.



maybe I summarised it a bit too much... what I was trying to say is that with minimum expenditure on spares (i.e. with a single extra blade or single hi-angle frog) I've enhansed the capabilities of not just one but all 4 of the planes that share the common blade width..

I take your point that a back bevel can serve as a substitute for the hi-angle frog, but what do you do to the blade when you no longer require the york pitch....??? Personally I prefer not to bother with honing in / grinding out back bevels; the blades last longer that way...

each to their own I guess....


----------



## Alf (20 Aug 2005)

I was watching Kingshott on Bench Planes the other day, and noticed he mentioned using a shim under the rear of the frog on a standard Bailey if you need a higher pitch. Anyone tried that?

And genuinely, I want to know, why the lateral adjustment "on the fly"? I'm sure I must be missing something obvious that'll result in a D'oh! But I'd still like to know.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## ydb1md (20 Aug 2005)

Alf":32ctkhwv said:


> And genuinely, I want to know, why the lateral adjustment "on the fly"?



It's a way for the bevel-down folks to rationalize having some sort of advantage over bevel up planes. :lol:

But realize that because the bevel down blade is at a steeper angle of attack relative to the wood (45 degrees vs 12 degrees), every adjustment laterally has a much larger effect, compared to BU planes. 

I think that if bevel downs had set screws to lock the blade in place at the mouth, lateral adjustment wouldn't be such a necessary feature or perceived benefit. :roll:


----------



## DaveL (20 Aug 2005)

ydb1md":17qg2iiz said:


> I think that if bevel downs had set screws to lock the blade in place at the mouth,



Do you mean just like the LV planes come with?


----------



## ydb1md (20 Aug 2005)

DaveL":2nrylip1 said:


> ydb1md":2nrylip1 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that if bevel downs had set screws to lock the blade in place at the mouth,
> ...



Yeah, exactly. I should have been more specific.


----------



## MikeW (20 Aug 2005)

The shim works fine as long as you do not try to go above a certain pitch. It also doesn't work (if I remember correctly) on certain of the 'Types' of Bailey's. I have a note somewhere which ones. It is due to the frog design--how it mates to the portion of the main casting.

It also doesn't work on any of the Bedrock models (except a couple of the early ones). But I'm working off of memory here and it was past yesterday that I "learned" this.

A "better" way (in the sense of how securely the two mate) is just to regrind the frog so it changes the angle the frog strikes the casting. I've done that. At least on older planes, one can usually find planes with broken castings but the frogs are fine and get them either for free with other purchase or of minimal cost. The you too can have a HAF.

Mike


----------



## Anonymous (20 Aug 2005)

MikeW":3jq8zjye said:


> Tony":3jq8zjye said:
> 
> 
> > MikeW":3jq8zjye said:
> ...



Could be right there mike, it is a pre-production jointer 8) (and an awesome plane :shock: )


----------



## Anonymous (20 Aug 2005)

Alf":jaf6skl8 said:


> And genuinely, I want to know, why the lateral adjustment "on the fly"? I'm sure I must be missing something obvious that'll result in a D'oh! But I'd still like to know.
> 
> Cheers, Alf



I would guess that this really refers to how one sets up the cut across the blade after re-fitting. 
I persoanlly set the blade for depth by eye (or a small hand-held blcok rubbed along the sole) in the first instance, and then run the plane across some scrap wood adjusting the lateral lever as I go until is cuts full width on larger planes and dead centre on planes with a radius hooned on to the edge


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (20 Aug 2005)

Alf asked:


> I was watching Kingshott on Bench Planes the other day, and noticed he mentioned using a shim under the rear of the frog on a standard Bailey if you need a higher pitch. Anyone tried that?



Yes, I used steel washers cut into semi-circles. These were a good fit for a #4. The final frog angle was 55 degrees (from memory). I recall it was stable and worked well. The only reason I did not keep it this way was that I used the casting to build an infill (this was some years ago).

One useful extra, when you raise up the frog angle, is that you are able to use a thicker blade. In fact, you can use blades even thicker than 1/8". 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Midnight (20 Aug 2005)

> And genuinely, I want to know, why the lateral adjustment "on the fly"? I'm sure I must be missing something obvious that'll result in a D'oh! But I'd still like to know.



fair comment... see if I can do a half decent job on it...

If you're honing a radius into the blade, latteral adjustment isn't anywhere near as important, the curve being far more forgiving re blade position... however... lately I've been leaning towards keeping the edge full width (cept for the clipped corners) and honed dead square. The idea I'm playing with is to see if using the max width blade has any speed advantages over the radiused one... 
The square edge is far more sensitive to errors in latteral position, so the first few strokes after re-sharpening are used to tune the adjustment... watch the bias of the shaving and tweak the adjuster till it's dead centre..

I've no need to do this with my #62 because it's been honed to an aggressive curve, but with the 2 3/8 planes, that tweak on the fly saves a bunch of time.... once set, ferget it... it's good till the next time the blade's removed...

If I ever get back to having time and energy at the same time... maybe, just maybe I'll get back in the shop long enough to see if the square edge theory has any wings..... work can be a royal PITA sometimes..


----------



## Alf (21 Aug 2005)

Hmm, thanks for the explanation, chaps. So are you also sighting down the sole to initially set the blade laterally and for depth?

Mike, Derek, I might have guessed you'd have both tried it with those challenging woods you both use.  Yet another thing on the To Try list sometime. Ta.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## bugbear (22 Aug 2005)

> I take your point that a back bevel can serve as a substitute for the hi-angle frog, but what do you do to the blade when you no longer require the york pitch....???



If you mean you will NEVER AGAIN want York Pitch, you regrind.

If, OTOH, you wish to chop and change, once simply has mutliple blades, just the BU afficionados.

BugBear


----------

