# bevel-down planes... sell me!



## condeesteso (29 Jun 2011)

I do like to start a debate 
I have a few planes, and on balance more traditional than 'bevel-up'. But I have read and heard and experienced the arguments for bevel-up planes, but NEVER been convinced by any argument for a Bailey-style plane (I mean a bevel down).
I have noted that the 'chipbreaker' is called a variety of names (some rude).
Would anyone like to put forward a definitive case for the bevel-down plane?
Before you do that, please test your case against these points:

A bevel-up plane:
- gives you any choice of pitch at the switch of a blade (even toothed blades at a modest extra cost)
- has no 'chip-breaker' (a component of questionable merit)
- can adjust throat within seconds, without altering any blade setting

I honestly want to hear the case for the defence. I am biased at the moment (in favour of bevel-up of course) but ironically, most of the planes I use regularly are traditional.

(My plane arsenal is: Lie: Apron, block, No 3, No 62, Jointer; U.S. Stanley No 3, No 5; Record No 4, Veritas Medium Shoulder. I sure need more!!!)

Come on team, let's start a real argument!!


----------



## woodbloke (29 Jun 2011)

I'll start the ball rolling by saying that I'm a huge fan of BU planes for all the reasons that you mention. What's even more interesting is that one or two people hereabouts that used my LV BU jack were instantly converted even though they'd been hardcore BD users previously.
I think you actually have to use a BU plane to see the benefits...and my prior standard was a Norris A1 panel plane, now promised to Jimi if I ever sell it (which might happen soon) - Rob


----------



## Jacob (29 Jun 2011)

It's not bevel down alone which makes the Bailey pattern such a brilliant plane but its a starting point. 
NB there's no argument!
1 Thin blades are cheaper to make and quicker to sharpen. Very important when hand planing was a large proportion of the work in producing anything, and down-time was expensive. The Bailey pattern makes a thin blade viable.
2 Thin blade plus cap iron plus lever cap gives you the equivalent of a thick blade - the lever cap bears down on the cap iron, the end of which bears down on the thin blade just above the plane mouth holding it tight and solid, giving it the performance of a thicker blade.
3 The lever cap has a brilliant detail; the spring steel tongue under the lever. This apparently insignificant detail does two things; first a firm grip on the cap iron and blade, second it reduces friction enough for the the lever action (without other adjustment) and to enable lateral adjustment. This becomes obvious when you compare with cap irons which have screw instead of a lever - lateral adjustment is difficult to impossible.
4 Bevel down planes also have the long lateral adjustment lever which performs much better than the short norris type found on BU planes. It's just down to leverage, plus the spring steel lever-cap low friction detail above.
5 The combination of details makes the blade much easier to remove, replace and retain the original setting as compared to the BU. I base this on my own BU LV smoother - you can't release the blade until you have loosened the cap screw, and then the norris adjuster comes up with the blade instead of staying in situ, then it's more difficult to sharpen as it is A2 steel and thicker.

I've spent some time fiddling with LV and LN planes and to be honest have yet to find any significant advantage over the Record or older Stanley alternatives, but several disadvantages (see above) . And they cost a bomb! It's all marketing hype and willing fan base IMHO. They do look nice though.

The hype has persuaded people to have low expectations of the Bailey pattern. This tends to be self fulfilling. They are quite sophisticated compared to the simpler retro designs of the BU planes and slightly less easy to set up. But it doesn't take a lot to make them work brilliantly if you ignore the propaganda.

PS "chip-breaking" is an incidental detail - the cap iron's main function is to nip the blade tight down against the frog/mouth as near to the edge as possible.


----------



## matthewwh (29 Jun 2011)

A bevel-down plane:

- gives you any choice of pitch at the switch of a blade (even toothed blades at a modest extra cost) By using back bevelled blades for higher angles or skewing the plane to the work for lower if the timber and situation permits.

- has a 'chip-breaker' (a component of undoubtable merit). Even at 45 degrees a close set chipbreaker can often deliver the benefits of a steeper pitch whilst still retaining the lower resistance of common pitch. A well made cap iron also stiffens the blade assembly and reduces the flutter associated with thin irons. 

- can adjust throat within seconds, without altering any blade setting. ( bedrock pattern)

- is generally easier to adjust in use.

- has a broader spectrum for lateral adjustment.

- has seperate lateral and blade advance functions so you can tinker with one without upsetting the other. 

- is generally less expensive than bevel up planes (although that seems to have changed a bit recently - ahem!).

- is fine for the majority of shooting tasks with a sharp cutting iron and tend to have slightly higher sides giving greater stability.

- has a single piece sole which is easier to make flat and keep flat than one with an adjustable toe.

- is generally quicker and easier to adjust, remove / replace iron etc.

- requires less camber to eliminate track marks.

A bevel up plane:

- can plane at a low angle in a straight line.

- is often a better bet for people who only have one plane.

- doesn't need honing angles creating on both sides of the blade for high angle work.

- offers a broader spectrum of available pitches that can also be fine tuned as you work by skewing or using secondary bevels.

Horses for courses really, but if you are going for the full gamate of tools in your arsenal to tackle whatever nature may throw at you, 'both' would be the best option of all.

Edit: disagree with Jacob on thicker irons being more difficult to hone - granted this position is probably due to his preference for the rounded bevel as opposed to secondary bevels - if using secondary bevels honing time is identical, grinding time may be increased slightly but this is a comparatively rare occurrence and greatly outweighed by the stability in the cut of thicker irons.


----------



## Vann (30 Jun 2011)

Jacob":3p9pzj97 said:


> 1 Thin blades are cheaper to make and quicker to sharpen. Very important when hand planing was a large proportion of the work in producing anything, and down-time was expensive. The Bailey pattern makes a thin blade viable..


Ahem. I think you'll find the bedrock pattern has the same advantages. Maybe you should use the term 'bevel down' where the advantages apply to both Bailey and Bedrock patterns.



Jacob":3p9pzj97 said:


> 5 The combination of details makes the blade much easier to remove, replace and retain the original setting as compared to the BU. ..


I don't think so :!: The inability to retain the set of the iron has always been a bugbear (no relation) of hand planes. Hence Record faffing with the stay-set cap-iron and Veritas with set screws.



Jacob":3p9pzj97 said:


> ...then it's more difficult to sharpen as it is A2 steel...


 You should have bought one with an O1 iron Jacob. You can't blame your choice of steel on the Bevel-Up design.

And: item 6 - With Bailey/Bedrock pattern planes you're able to adjust the depth of cut 'on-the-fly' more easily as the depth adjuster wheel is at your fingertips (tut tut Jacob - how could you leave that one out).

Oh, and did you mention bevel-down looks more sexy....?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jun 2011)

Oh yes I forgot item 6! The ease and convenience of adjustment being a major feature of the Bailey pattern IMHO.

Retaining the set a problem? Not if you don't disturb the adjuster knob or the lever, though a minimal amount of trim will usually be needed when you drop the blade back in.

Yes thin blades irrelevant if you sharpen by powered machine, but you may wish to hand sharpen.

The main things about BU is simplicity and that they tend to be very well made. This makes them reliable and relatively silly person proof. The trade-offs being crude adjustment and high price.
Whereas Stanley and all the others are very variable in quality, and even a good one is not simple. In fact a highly sophisticated design needing just a bit more attention to get working properly. But when they are good they are very very good!


----------



## Richard T (30 Jun 2011)

Not all BDs are thin - ironed with a Bailey adjuster though ... what about all them old woodies? And the Spiers/ Norrises ? Very thick blades. 
I do agree with Jacob that the Bailey mech. beats the Norris hands down with its combined screw and lever and this can only be put behind an iron set up that is in a high enough position: ie, BD. 

In general, what I don't get, is that BD or BU, the angles of what's cutting are about the same. Yet BU will slice so much better. 
I guess understanding this comes down to losing the plane and just holding the iron - a chisel. Use it BD to chop, a mallet is needed. Use it BU to pare, mallet not needed.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jun 2011)

Richard T":fec3tpht said:


> Not all BDs are thin - ironed with a Bailey adjuster though ... what about all them old woodies? And the Spiers/ Norrises ? Very thick blades. ....


Yes. 
You can't have thin irons without cap irons, which effectively up grades them to thicker iron performance. 
You can have cap irons with BD thick irons (in old woodies) and I guess the function is the same i.e. to transmit downwards pressure (from the wedge in a woody) to closer to the edge, where it's needed.
You can't have cap irons with BU blades (too far from the edge), or could you?
You can't have BU blades in old woodies as the blade angle needed would make the sole too thin under the blade. Ditto with cast bodies i.e. too thin?

I imagine the thin iron was a major breakthrough in it's time - freeing users from expensive hand wrought thickies and making hand sharpening so much easier. Similar to the move from cut-throat razor (beautifully and expensively hand made) to thin Gillette blade (cheaply machine made) with a similar edge hold-down to the cap iron, and a much better shave.

Interesting this thread. A chance to gather all the arguments. Next time it comes up (as it will) I'll be able to blast the opposition out of the water with one quick copy/paste! :lol:


----------



## bugbear (30 Jun 2011)

Jacob":1zbiczjf said:


> This apparently insignificant detail does two things; first a firm grip on the cap iron and blade, second it reduces friction enough for the the lever action (without other adjustment) and to enable lateral adjustment.



Now that is clever - it both increases ("firm grip") AND reduces friction.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (30 Jun 2011)

bugbear":2hpq7nh4 said:


> Jacob":2hpq7nh4 said:
> 
> 
> > This apparently insignificant detail does two things; first a firm grip on the cap iron and blade, second it reduces friction enough for the the lever action (without other adjustment) and to enable lateral adjustment.
> ...


Yes you've (nearly) got it. The firm grip is perpendicular to the blade surface, pressing it down on to the frog. The reduced friction is sideways* - allowing the blade to tilt. A bit like squeezing a cherry stone.

Did Bailey squeeze a cherry stone for his eureka moment?

*PS and easing the movement of the lever cam, which without the spring steel would wear a hollow in the cap iron and knacker everything.


----------



## Richard T (30 Jun 2011)

Not that it has much to do with the topic but .... when thick blades lose their edge they stop cutting so well and you take them out and sharpen them. When a thin blade starts to lose its edge, no matter how solidly held it will almost immediately go "thrrrrrrrap!" - and have an edge so rounded that it takes an age longer to get back.

Sorry Jacob; I'll give you ammo on the Bailey but not the thinny.


----------



## marcus (30 Jun 2011)

With a BU you seem to be constantly adjusting the mouth to compensate for the fact that adjusting the blade depth changes the mouth opening size. Also the blade requires a bigger camber than a BD, which is more time consuming to do and harder to judge by eye (for me anyway). Also, as others have said, the lateral adjustment is more sensitive on a BD. I bought a BU smoother thinking it would be a good all rounder and loathe the thing on the whole, though it is useful for endgrain work I'll grant you.


----------



## matthewwh (30 Jun 2011)

Richard T":10ru7gdu said:


> In general, what I don't get, is that BD or BU, the angles of what's cutting are about the same. Yet BU will slice so much better.


I know it sounds odd but this and the 'thrrrapp' problem are both cap iron issues - if the blade takes and holds a good edge - install a retro fit cap iron and they will both disappear.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jun 2011)

marcus":1v8b4hrl said:


> .... I bought a BU smoother thinking it would be a good all rounder and loathe the thing on the whole, though it is useful for endgrain work I'll grant you.


I got one too, but I wouldn't say I loathe it, though I don't feel any urge to use it and am still waiting for it to prove it was worth the price.

End grain not a problem with any sharp plane IMHO - I hadn't even thought that BU might better.



Richard T":1v8b4hrl said:


> .... When a thin blade starts to lose its edge, no matter how solidly held it will almost immediately go "thrrrrrrrap!" - and have an edge so rounded that it takes an age longer to get back.....


Really? Mine don't do that! 
You haven't been a bit heavy handed with the bench grinder by any chance? Hollow ground and/or over-heated or something?
Or got the frog forwards? I know you are supposed to be able to close the mouth but I don't think it works as you end up with too much blade dangling unsupported. Needs to be nicely in contact with back of mouth IMHO.
Or tighten the cap screw, the whole thing being too loose?


----------



## bugbear (30 Jun 2011)

Jacob":1zn7oeea said:


> bugbear":1zn7oeea said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1zn7oeea said:
> ...



How (do you suggest) does the spring steel improve the pressure (which I assume is what you mean by the vague "grip") generated by the lever cap cam?

BugBear


----------



## Richard T (30 Jun 2011)

Bench grinder? Hollow ground??? How very dare you!  
You may have a point about it not being tight enough though - I never want to put too much strain on Bailey threads ... could be. 
And Matthew. A thicker cap iron would help, yes, but really, so would a thicker blade.


----------



## Jacob (30 Jun 2011)

Richard T":7hoj9dnf said:


> Bench grinder? Hollow ground??? How very dare you!


Ooops sorry!


> You may have a point about it not being tight enough though - I never want to put too much strain on Bailey threads ... could be.


Nowt wrong with bailey threads - they are all steel unlike LV or LN which are brass. The cap screw need to be tightened firmly enough so that the lever cam requires a bit of force to operate, within reason.


> And Matthew. A thicker cap iron would help, yes, but really, so would a thicker blade.


Try tightening first and you probably won't need either.
I tried a "Smoothcut" retro-fit blade on a #5 and it does seem to be good, holding a sharp edge longer than the standard blade, but it's a bit subjective; maybe I use it less than my 5 1/2.


----------



## marcus (30 Jun 2011)

> End grain not a problem with any sharp plane IMHO - I hadn't even thought that BU might better.



It's a lot better than a BD for endgrain if you use an iron ground to a relatively acute angle, as you get a lower working angle than a BD can give you. _Much_ easier to push and generally nicer when working the ends of thicker boards. Still, this use definitely comes under the heading of 'luxury', and I wouldn't have bought a BU if I had known it would end up being used just for that purpose....


----------



## Richard T (30 Jun 2011)

Well knots are end grain (usually) and my LV BU made a fantastic job of squaring up a piece of white pine 3" x 6" x 6' 9" with some huge, orange, resinous knots in it. I actually think it was easier to cut that with it than if it had been a nice, straight grain. It had something to bite into.
I can't imagine I'd ever choose BD over BU for tackling burr for instance.
Blade held in the paring position. Works for me.


----------



## jimi43 (30 Jun 2011)

Richard T":21yupaxx said:


> ......
> I can't imagine I'd ever choose BD over BU for tackling burr for instance.
> Blade held in the paring position. Works for me.



An infill smoother works rather well...

Jim


----------



## Peter Sefton (30 Jun 2011)

After all this BU hype I am keener than ever to give the 62 a good play and test at the” No 62 Bench Plane Battle”


----------



## condeesteso (1 Jul 2011)

Broad response, thank you! But not at all conclusive in my own opinion (certainly not conclusive enough to cut'n'paste next time). I think the stated positives of BD planes are almost all flawed, and issues regarding BU generally overstated.

Chip-breaker: acknowledged as a likely problem area by anyone being honest about them. Matthew even says so on the WH site. I accept they are essential with the old thin blades, but that is only because a thin blade is a bad engineering compromise in the first place. So you need a blade and chipbreaker in combination to actually get the assembly to work properly. Using the chipbreaker to create the effect a steeper angle of cut brings other issues with it: the throat clogs very easily, fragments trapped between chipbreaker and blade.

Lateral adjustment: BD generally have more lateral adjustment, but enough is enough and BU have enough plus some. If I ever grind a blade so off-square that I need all the adjustment a BD plane offers, then I deserve problems, and will get them with the chipbreaker again. So most of that lateral adjustment on a BD is of no value.

Mouth adjustment: massively quicker on a BU (I refer to my experiences with the Lie block and 62). On my Baileys I have to remove blade assembly, slacken the 2 lock screws, adjust, lock up, replace blade assembly... and do it all again til I get what I wanted. ON the BU you see what you are getting as you adjust. I do not accept that the 2-part sole creates any issues re flatness etc. The fact that a second part can move in relation to the first does not make it harder to produce flat or keep flat.

Blade setting: it is implied (stated even) that BU are better for beginners, easier to set-up and use. To me this has the whiff of plane snobbery about it. The LNs I refer to above have no mechanical lateral adjustment, you do it by hand and feel. There is an argument that in lateral adjustment, the BD is for the novice, not the other way round.

Repeatability: I don't think either wins - there is enough play in the location points for it to be near impossible to remove the blade or blade assembly, and have it go back exactly where it was. Neither is better or worse.

My view is that the BU is a more intelligent design solution - fewer parts, easier to adjust quickly and very accurately, blade-swapping gives versatility. But in fairness I am comparing premium BU planes, with more modestly-priced BD planes (assuming old Records and Stanleys were more modestly priced?) - but then my Lie No3 BD has all the chipbreaker issues of the old ones, and adjusting the mouth is a pain.

Well set-up BD planes are great... but however hard I try I will not make any of them actually better than a BU equivalent, and they will always be the first to offer up problems, mainly in the mouth / chipbreaker area.

But for some reason, I really like having both! And yes Jim, infills can be extremely good and one day I may have an S&S, but £££!!


----------



## Jacob (1 Jul 2011)

condeesteso":3jcg1ozo said:


> .....
> Chip-breaker: acknowledged as a likely problem area by anyone being honest about them. ...


No, honestly! Problems could be due to not having things screwed down tight enough, or bad fit between cap iron and blade - both easy to fix.


> .... the throat clogs very easily, fragments trapped between chipbreaker and blade.


Not for me (except the odd occasion when I've tried an impossible cut i.e. forgot to set the blade). Trapped fragments means bad or loose fit


> Lateral adjustment: BD generally have more lateral adjustment, but enough is enough and BU have enough plus some. If I ever grind a blade so off-square that I need all the adjustment a BD plane offers, then I deserve problems, and will get them with the chipbreaker again. So most of that lateral adjustment on a BD is of no value.


BU have _no lateral adjustment at all_ IME (unless you loosen the lever cap first but even then the adjustment is crude with too little leverage) but it's not the end of the world - what else are pin hammers for? But if you do have a good tilt mechanism then it does get used a lot, specially with cambered blades and/or board edge joinery


> Mouth adjustment: .....


Not worth the bother on a BD, don't even try it! Then you don't miss it either.


> Blade setting: it is implied (stated even) that BU are better for beginners, easier to set-up and use. To me this has the whiff of plane snobbery about it. The LNs I refer to above have no mechanical lateral adjustment, you do it by hand and feel. There is an argument that in lateral adjustment, the BD is for the novice, not the other way round.


No snobbery - I'm all for making life easier but these planes all have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm more often accused of reverse snobbery so I can't win either way. LN are at least honest in recognising that a short norris adjuster is pointless (for tilting)


> Repeatability: I don't think either wins - there is enough play in the location points for it to be near impossible to remove the blade or blade assembly, and have it go back exactly where it was. Neither is better or worse.


My BU is definitely worse - the norris adjuster is such a finely engineered good fit that it come out with the blade and I have to fiddle about getting it back in. Perhaps it'll be better when it has worn in a bit.


> My view is that the BU is a more intelligent design solution


Yebbut frinstance the norris adjuster _looks_ like a more intelligent solution _but it doesn't work!_ Intelligence is more than skin deep.


> ......
> Well set-up BD planes are great... but however hard I try I will not make any of them actually better than a BU equivalent, and they will always be the first to offer up problems, mainly in the mouth / chipbreaker area....


I'd recommend paying a bit more attention to this mouth/chipbreaker problem as it is an easy fix. Same as RichardT's "thrrrrrrrap!" :lol: 
I've got both and sometimes one seems to be working better than the other and vice versa. I think the BU has the edge sometimes but only with very difficult grain where it's touch or go anyway, and scraper or sandpaper is the next step. But the BD has the edge on usability and convenience, once you have cured the "thrrrrrrraps", and hand sharpening is a lot easier
And they are so much cheaper - we live in a post hand-tool era where the market is awash with excellent old hand tools at very low prices.

PS re. cap iron prob above, it might help to back off the blade contact edge of the cap iron a touch, to make it a closed tighter fit at the sharp end so that shavings can't get in. And ditto with the top edge so that shavings will lift over - and polishing helps here. I've had cap irons which were just cut off square at the end so shavings would just jam up against the edge straightaway.
PPS it might also be due to having the frog forwards, the less supported blade can then "thrrrrrrrap" and allow the sharp end of a shaving under the cap iron.


----------



## bugbear (1 Jul 2011)

Jacob":1qdtwxcz said:


> condeesteso":1qdtwxcz said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



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

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (1 Jul 2011)

bugbear":3sxr6pq1 said:


> ....
> 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.


----------



## bugbear (1 Jul 2011)

Jacob":2f8k475u said:


> Would the LN 5 1/2 have chipbreaker problems? I wouldn't know.



I wouldn't expect it to behave any differently to the chipbreaker in a LN 4 1/2, which you already know about.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (1 Jul 2011)

bugbear":3ckk57c9 said:


> Jacob":3ckk57c9 said:
> 
> 
> > Would the LN 5 1/2 have chipbreaker problems? I wouldn't know.
> ...


Oh yes I borrowed Brian's some years ago. :shock: 
Remind me what I said about it BB, I've completely forgotten. :roll:


----------



## bugbear (1 Jul 2011)

Jacob":nl6lcyy2 said:


> Remind me what I said about it BB, I've completely forgotten. :roll:



Must be an age thing... :lol: :lol: :lol: 

BugBear


----------



## Richard T (1 Jul 2011)

S'right ... so far we have just been comparing BU to BD , any old make. We need a level playing field. 

Let's not go comparing 







With 







You were wanting a good rebate a while back Jacob. What do you think? (Might be a tad pricey though...AND you wouldn't like the adjuster  )


----------



## Jacob (1 Jul 2011)

Richard T":hi829jes said:


> ...
> You were wanting a good rebate a while back Jacob. What do you think? (Might be a tad pricey though...AND you wouldn't like the adjuster  )


What is that weird looking item? Some sort of fag lighter?


----------



## Peter T (1 Jul 2011)

Jacob":1ll1ji2w said:


> Would the LN 5 1/2 have chipbreaker problems? I wouldn't know.



Mine doesn't!

It's a fully machined, properly engineered piece of equipment as opposed to a bent piece of sheet metal.


----------



## Richard T (1 Jul 2011)

I think you fill it up through the brass thing on top. Dunno where the flint goes though ...

It's a "copy" (re - working) by Konrad wassiname of that one - off Norris that made the most money ever.
I must say though, I'd _quite_ like one. 
I'm making do with a Zippo at the moment.


----------



## Jacob (1 Jul 2011)

bugbear":3dr2slkf said:


> Jacob":3dr2slkf said:
> 
> 
> > Remind me what I said about it BB, I've completely forgotten. :roll:
> ...


What you too? Come on pull yourself together!


----------



## woodbloke (1 Jul 2011)

Perhaps the very best thing about BU planes is that you don't have to consider that hideous, ghastly 2 part chipbreaker that _some_ BD planes seem to sport - Rob... :mrgreen: outa here by the fastest means possible!


----------



## bugbear (1 Jul 2011)

Richard T":3bpn2pti said:


> You were wanting a good rebate a while back Jacob. What do you think? (Might be a tad pricey though...AND you wouldn't like the adjuster  )



Ah - I think that's a (rather fine) replica of the Record Price setting Norris I was trying to recall recently. I think quite a few of the modern infill makers did replicas in the end, both out of interest and because of market demand.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (1 Jul 2011)

Peter T":3nafileq said:


> Jacob":3nafileq said:
> 
> 
> > Would the LN 5 1/2 have chipbreaker problems? I wouldn't know.
> ...


Mine don't either, though they are all tatty old bits of bent metal!


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Jul 2011)

woodbloke":35le70yx said:


> Perhaps the very best thing about BU planes is that you don't have to consider that hideous, ghastly 2 part chipbreaker that _some_ BD planes seem to sport - Rob... :mrgreen: outa here by the fastest means possible!



I heard that........... :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Richard T (1 Jul 2011)

Yup BB it's by Konrad (Sauer or Steiner?). Don't like what he's done with the back handle though - the Norris moved properly side to side on a rounded block: this one just pivots at the front.
The one pictured is (I think) his prototype, the commission he got was for Ebony infill. Maybe I shouldn't blame Konrad for the design, rather the commissioner.


----------



## woodbloke (1 Jul 2011)

Paul Chapman":3uamrdax said:


> woodbloke":3uamrdax said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the very best thing about BU planes is that you don't have to consider that hideous, ghastly 2 part chipbreaker that _some_ BD planes seem to sport - Rob... :mrgreen: outa here by the fastest means possible!
> ...


 :lol: :lol: - Rob


----------



## jimi43 (1 Jul 2011)

I sharpened my Record SS No.7 this morning....and strangely...I forgot to drop the bit on my toe again.

I guess I don't have the skill to appreciate it as it was intended..... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

Complete waste of money those steel toe-cap boots! :roll: 

:-" 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (1 Jul 2011)

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 (1 Jul 2011)

Jacob":2jj4c82b said:


> 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 (1 Jul 2011)

bugbear":2ofojdr3 said:


> Jacob":2ofojdr3 said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



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 (1 Jul 2011)

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 (1 Jul 2011)

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 (1 Jul 2011)

Jacob":auelthta said:


> 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 (1 Jul 2011)

Karl":3oiv2cao said:


> Jacob":3oiv2cao said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Righto cheers Karl I might have a go.


----------



## condeesteso (3 Jul 2011)

Jacob":1smx9q1x said:


> bugbear":1smx9q1x said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



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 (3 Jul 2011)

condeesteso":1jgesggt said:


> .....
> 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 (3 Jul 2011)

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 (4 Jul 2011)

Jacob":3sibjpmz said:


> 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 (4 Jul 2011)

bugbear":1vqyu8rg said:


> Jacob":1vqyu8rg said:
> 
> 
> > Make sure that the lever cap bears evenly on to the cap iron and isn't twisted in any way (unlikely).
> ...




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 (10 Aug 2011)

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 (10 Aug 2011)

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 (10 Aug 2011)

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 (10 Aug 2011)

xy mosian":1rbdyfyh said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (10 Aug 2011)

condeesteso":1ezq4u3t said:


> 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.



benchwayze":1ezq4u3t said:


> ...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 (10 Aug 2011)

Vann":1rzvwdm3 said:


> ......
> 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 (10 Aug 2011)

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 (11 Aug 2011)

_"- 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?


----------



## custard (11 Aug 2011)

I was hoping David Charlesworth would contribute to this thread. I get the impression he's less impressed with BU irons _in smoothing planes_, but I've never read why?


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2011)

condeesteso":31et710g said:


> ... whichever way it is looked at the BD Bailey design has issues I think. .....


They are all a compromise with good and bad points but by and large I think the Bailey design is utterly brilliant - an inspiration followed by many years of detailed refinement.


----------



## bugbear (11 Aug 2011)

condeesteso":1mef0gih said:


> 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.



Have you seen the Bedrock design?



> 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.



http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.a ... 1182,48944

BugBear


----------



## Alf (11 Aug 2011)

xy mosian":68x0wef9 said:


> 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"


No shooting here, I've long held this view. Although a method for making it adjustable was something of an afterthought, at least for Stanley - not until the type 10, I think? 1907 or thereabouts? So they didn't truly cotton on to the "advantage" sales point 'til quite late on. And after they'd explored it more fully with the Bedrocks.



Benchwayze":68x0wef9 said:


> 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.


Bevel up, I assume? Just clarifying, 'cos this gets confusing enough as it is.  

I dunno, I don't think I'll ever really grasp the debate of _either/or_ for any class of tools. What's wrong with having both? :| :wink:


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2011)

Alf":2clkkyo0 said:


> xy mosian":2clkkyo0 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm prepared to be shot down here ... so take aim.
> ...


Agree.


----------



## condeesteso (11 Aug 2011)

Re bedrock, yes, I have a LN no3 and their bedrock is a traditional one I think (like the Stanleys, maybe tighter tolerances and of course a thicker blade). But finding old Bedrocks seems difficult. In the fight against tear-out my bevel-ups with steep angle and tight mouth get closest. I don't own a precision infill but I understand they deal with tricky grain very well. I suspect the best solution with a Bailey is to fit a thicker blade, effectively closing the mouth down, and tune it for fine smoothing only, i.e. a permanent tight mouth. Align frog to sole exactly for support, and if necessary remove as little as possible from the leading edge of mouth to give say 5 thou clearance.
I am also experimenting with steeper primary on original blades (on a Record 4 1/2 at the moment, currently 30/35 and smoothing very well indeed but on well-behaved grain). Has anyone ever gone really close the the clearance angle?? - say a 37 primary and a 42 secondary polish? That would leave a lot more blade material to support the tip of the edge. Also why is 'standard' 25 degrees, with a 30 secondary, when there is 45 degrees to play with (even more on a York)? Questions, questions... :?


----------



## Jacob (11 Aug 2011)

condeesteso":1lrb5fxj said:


> ....But finding old Bedrocks seems difficult.


They didn't catch on. This mouth adjustment thing is a bit of a red herring


> .... I suspect the best solution with a Bailey is to fit a thicker blade, effectively closing the mouth down, and tune it for fine smoothing only, i.e. a permanent tight mouth. Align frog to sole exactly for support, and if necessary remove as little as possible from the leading edge of mouth to give say 5 thou clearance.


Yes - with just the one plane perhaps a 4. You only need one uber smoother. The others all need to be normal configuration for normal use.


----------



## Mike Wingate (11 Aug 2011)

I have just spent a disapointing morning. Nothing toolwise at the market, apart from a Stanley Victor Compass plane at £90, that I don't need now, and passed up on one 20 years ago for £50. Took some rust off the sides of my Record No.7 and undercoated the inside prior to repainting. I had already used paintstripper. I had bought some Bubinga on holiday, nowhere exotic, just John Boddy's. And with my Rob Cosman equipped, highly tuned no 5, was ready to plane it smooth and flat, prior to making some plane handle/totes. I planed with the grain, diagonally, reverse, It still tore up, even though it is a very sharp and stiff blade, minimal mouth, good contact with the frog, etc. A poor finish. If only for these occasions and a bit of shooting, I may purchase a Quangsheng LA 62.


----------



## custard (11 Aug 2011)

Mike Wingate":3gcfuzx2 said:


> I planed with the grain, diagonally, reverse, It still tore up, even though it is a very sharp and stiff blade, minimal mouth, good contact with the frog, etc. A poor finish. If only for these occasions and a bit of shooting, I may purchase a Quangsheng LA 62.



Have you tried scraping? I prefer scraping with a scraper plane for a larger workpiece and to assist the blades entry onto the board, but I basically plane unless I hit tearout when I'll switch to a scraper plane, it never fails. 

To put this in context, I actually plane with a LN 5 1/2 with a standard frog, if I hit tearout I reduce the cut and sharpen the iron, if it's still tearing out I switch to a LN 4 1/2 with a 55 degree frog, if that doesn't fix it _then_ I use the scraping plane.

I experimented with substituting the 4 1/2 and 55 degree frog stage with a LN LA Jack, using increasingly higher honing angles. Yes, that was better than the 5 1/2 with a 45 degree frog, but it still doesn't guarantee freedom from tear out, where as I've never (or at least not yet!) been defeated by tear out with a well-set scraping plane.

Moral of the story...if tearout's the problem then maybe try a scraper plane before resorting to a low angle plane.


----------



## bugbear (11 Aug 2011)

custard":13fzkgtt said:


> Moral of the story...if tearout's the problem then maybe try a scraper plane before resorting to a low angle plane.



There have been many reports that planing gives a better finish than scraping if (of course) you can plane without tearout.

BugBear


----------



## Alf (11 Aug 2011)

Or try a back bevel. If I didn't have one or two BU planes available, I'd certainly use a back beveled iron in a BD more often, in lieu of a steeper pitched plane. Best to have an additional iron dedicated to that though, obviously, or you're going to waste a lot of steel swapping twixt and tween.


----------



## Doug B (11 Aug 2011)

bugbear":38tozhrs said:


> There have been many reports that planing gives a better finish than scraping if (of course) you can plane without tearout.




That`s certainly what i`ve found,


----------



## custard (11 Aug 2011)

bugbear":xkz4oc3j said:


> custard":xkz4oc3j said:
> 
> 
> > Moral of the story...if tearout's the problem then maybe try a scraper plane before resorting to a low angle plane.
> ...



When it comes to wild and interlocked grain then that's a mighty big "if"!


----------



## David C (11 Aug 2011)

It's relatively easy to plane difficult stuff without tearout, using thin shavings and a tiny back bevel in a regular plane. Selecting a suitable bb angle is the only issue. I use 25 degree bb giving 70 degree EP for exotics and 15 degree bb giving 60 degree EP for homegrown.

Having used regular planes for forty years I am more familiar with them than bevel up, so I don't have such strong feelings. The only possible snag I can see is that modern BU planes have less clearance angle. I have felt for a long time that 20 degrees would be a better bedding angle. Karl Holtey's 98 is close to this.

I also like the way that Bailey separated the lateral and depth of cut functions.

best wishes,
David


----------



## Mike Wingate (11 Aug 2011)

Cured with a Stanley 80.


----------



## xy mosian (11 Aug 2011)

Jacob":2wvslkcg said:


> Alf":2wvslkcg said:
> 
> 
> > xy mosian":2wvslkcg said:
> ...



Crikey, and I half thought I was joking.  

xy


----------



## bugbear (12 Aug 2011)

custard":2m7kyzqb said:


> bugbear":2m7kyzqb said:
> 
> 
> > There have been many reports that planing gives a better finish than scraping if (of course) you can plane without tearout.
> ...



Agreed. The obvious (*) cure is higher effective pitch, which is conveniently available in a BU plane, but can also be achieved with a back bevel on the blade in a common bailey, or (most simply, but quite rarely) a high bedding angle in a BD plane.

BugBear

(*) depending on the circles you move in


----------



## Mike Wingate (16 Aug 2011)

I have received My Quangsheng No.62 plane, from Matthew at Workshop Heaven. He said it would come today and it did. The packaging was exemplary. The wooden case was nice. I wiped the plane clean, there was a light coating of oil protecting it. Took off the stainless steel cap iron and blade, gave that a clean. Went to the workshop and within a few minutes on the 8000 ceramic stone and lapping paste on MDF, got a mirror shine on the back of the blade. Jigged the blade in the Eclipse honing jig at 25mm protruding, and honed the blade, backed off the wire edge and stropped the front and back of the blade. Reassembled and adjusted the blade, and tried it out. End grain very good, side grain good, then the face grain. It planed. I am very pleased with it’s cutting action. The adjustment is fine, the front knob is a little small, I will have to bend the brass, throat lever down as it catches my hand. Then I closed the mouth. Finer shavings and the wild grain Bubinga was so smooooooth. Even better. 2 more blades to play with.


----------



## Mike Wingate (16 Aug 2011)

A couple of pictures to show the packaging and product.
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010814.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010815.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010816.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010817.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010818.jpg


----------



## pedder (16 Aug 2011)

Hi Mike, 

that is a beautiful plane and well presented. Could you show pice of the mouth? A major problem with the low angle plane is to get the iron bed correct. even little mistakes can be seen in the plane.

Cheers Pedder


----------



## Mike Wingate (16 Aug 2011)

Pedder, I hope the following photos can offer you the info needed. The machining is very clean, and the adjustable mouth is level with the sole of the plane along it's travel I was warned that this are may need some internal work, but mine seems fine. Do you know if I am supposed to put a bevel on the 50 degree blade?
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010819.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010820.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010821.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010822.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010823.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010824.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010825.jpg


----------



## condeesteso (16 Aug 2011)

Hi Mike - that's a vote for B/U planes then... ?
I have the Lie 62 (equivalent I think) and it is an absolute cracker.
re 50 degrees, puzzled. the bed is 12 degrees I think. The blade primary will be 30 I think. So polish a 5 degree secondary fine ribbon onto that and you have a good start point. Also with the QS, I would have a second blade with a steeper secondary on it, say 46. For the tricky stuff. Then I'd have one more as a scrub. They are good, those BU planes, yes?

(Hold on there, not losing faith - just re-tuned my Sweetheart No3 with its original blade. Not called a sweetheart for nothing.)


----------



## Mike Wingate (16 Aug 2011)

The primary bevels are 25, 38 and 50 degrees. I am happy with the plane and mouth, not the front handle yet, too small, nor the brass throat adjuster, but they can be sorted or got used to. I was planing on a high bench today, so the angles and hand position were not my usual. I put a secondary bevel on the 25 degree blade and am happy with it's performance, a little more polishing, a play with the throat and more experience with it, can only get better. I need more advice on the other 2 blades. 100 people have this model plane, so there shoud be some opinions about. I shall make a hotdog handle and that should improve the shooting aspect. More practice tomorrow. The best Chinese made tool I have ever bought. This has changed my opinion of Chinese tools.


----------



## condeesteso (16 Aug 2011)

sorry but i didn't see anywhere re 3 blades primaried at 25 / 38 / 50. You know what to do.
Back to my Lie Nielsens.


----------



## Mike Wingate (17 Aug 2011)

Must make a Bubinga Hotdog. 3 piece laminate, with off centre slot and an Allen key grub/set screw to hold it firm.


----------



## Vann (17 Aug 2011)

Mike Wingate":3pe6okdo said:


> Do you know if I am supposed to put a bevel on the 50 degree blade?


Interesting. People seem to have a hang-up with 25, 38 and 50 degrees with their bevel-up irons. These are just the manufacturers angles. You set the Effective Pitch to whatever suits the wood you're planing. 

So, for example, if you are getting tearout with the 50 degree iron (EP=62deg.) put a 5deg. micro-bevel on it (=67deg.). If that doesn't tame the tearout put a 10deg. micro-bevel on (=72deg.).

And, if you prefer a single bevel, stick with the 50degs. If you prefer a micro-bevel add a 2 deg. micro-bevel as your starting point. If that doesn't cure tearout add another 5 degrees...

The minimum EP that doesn't tearout (in ~5 degree increments) is the correct EP for that particular piece of wood (as I understand it).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## pedder (17 Aug 2011)

Mike Wingate":82ihnsk5 said:


> Pedder, I hope the following photos can offer you the info needed.



Yes, Mike, thanks a lot!

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## AndyT (17 Aug 2011)

While I agree with Mike that the QS is a really nice plane and well worth the price, I do have one minor gripe/surprise. The rear handle is a bit small for my hands (which are large but not exceptionally large). So instead of an ordinary grip with all four fingers wrapped around the handle, this one needs the index finger curled across the top in order to give the other three enough room. 

Not a big thing, and it will get resolved - either by learning to hold this plane differently, or making another handle.


----------



## Mike Wingate (17 Aug 2011)

I agree with you on the rear handle/tote Andy. The top has too much curve and does not offer enough grip for the index finger. New handles all round. Matthew from WH told me to polish the brass throat adjuster for improved action, and not to worry about a secondary bevel on the 50 degree scraping blade.


----------



## custard (17 Aug 2011)

Congratulations on the new plane, it looks very, very nice. My job takes me to China regularly and although a lot of Chinese manufacturers are locked into who can make the cheapest pair of flip-flops, many are fast realising that with growing wage costs they've got to climb the value chain and produce higher quality goods. Besides which there's thousands of years of Chinese tradition in producing unbelievably high quality items. I visted the National Museum in Taiwan and the craftsmanship on display was amazing. There was a series of "fretwork" ivory balls one contained inside the other, about nine in total. It took a family of craftsmen three generations to carve this one thing as a gift for the emperor!

At the risk of sounding personal, are you a straight iron or a cambered iron sort of guy? And if "cambered" what's your planes for cambering BU irons?

I camber my LN low angle jack, using the Derek Cohen template system, but I've just got a Jet camber jig for the Tormek so when I find some time I'll have a go at grinding a camber on a BU iron.


----------



## David C (17 Aug 2011)

I have that Jet camber jig. It was a pipper to set up but does the job. What strange language the spellchecker uses... I wrote *reggub* but you have to read it backwards to catch my drift.
David


----------



## woodbloke (17 Aug 2011)

Vann":wywuw0r5 said:


> Mike Wingate":wywuw0r5 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know if I am supposed to put a bevel on the 50 degree blade?
> ...


Exactly. To me, this is the correct way to use a BU plane as it's so easy to adjust the EP of the iron to suit the conditions - Rob


----------



## Mike Wingate (17 Aug 2011)

I have polished the brass adjuster and lapped the steel area that it sits on. There were 2 small bits of flash that flicked off the casting edge, so that is all nice. Might put some grease on the steel, lithium paste or some moly to ease the movement and to give a bit of slip, not sure? I think the blades are terrific. I honed the 50 degree blade and polished the back, but no secondary bevel. planes really well as a scraper plane. Shavings. Smoothed out the Bubinga, some swirly mahogany and a pippy piece of oak so far. I have bent the brass adjuster a little, and that is now out of the way. The 38 degree blade planed some oak nicely without any sharpening, polishing or secondary bevel, will sort that one out. A coupe of hours at my normal bench and the handles are now fine. The tool is great, with the 25 degree blade and a closed mouth all the wood is smooth. Planed some end grain, excellent. I am really pleased, and heartily reccomend both the plane and Matthew at Workshop Heaven. Hotdog to make next, first a template then some planing.


----------



## Mike Wingate (17 Aug 2011)

No camber for me yet, I just take off the corners.


----------



## Benchwayze (17 Aug 2011)

I am a camber honer. For ALL my bench planes. 

Rebate, block and shoulder planes I hone square. 

For some reason I can't seem to plane edges square, with a square ground Bench plane iron. Strange isn't it? :wink: 

Mike, if you 'dub' the corners, how do you avoid scuff marks? I tried it, but never could avoid the scuff marks. Not as bad as tramlines i know, but they still need extra work to remove. 


John


----------



## barkwindjammer (17 Aug 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcCHRW8G9yY


----------



## Mike Wingate (18 Aug 2011)

Initially I do, then I wind the blade in for finer cuts and the lines are no longer cut. I used to camber blades, but it did not lead to the finish I wanted. I edge join plenty of wood for laminated work, e.g. guitar necks and bodied, so I went for a flat blade to get the required finish. Tony Hart's Gallery music?


----------



## condeesteso (18 Aug 2011)

Mike - I do put a very slight camber on most blades, but each to our own I think - question is in what way is the finish different with or without camber (apart from the obvious slight concave from a camber... and I'm thinking maybe a thou at most)?


----------



## Mike Wingate (18 Aug 2011)

I camber guitar and bass fingerboards. A flat blade works best. I have a Ryobi thickness planer that often gets some use. That has flat blades also. I may camber a few blades, as I have spares. Have you seen the FineWoodworking video on cambering?


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Aug 2011)

Mike Wingate":2qpo0o5q said:


> Tony Hart's Gallery music?



I forget the chord progression! :mrgreen: 

I dunno why, we used to get loadsa requests for that! 
John


----------



## condeesteso (19 Aug 2011)

Mike - any chance of a link to the fine woodworking... can't track it down, ta, D


----------



## Mike Wingate (19 Aug 2011)

2nd hit on Google for Cambering pla
http://www.finewoodworking.com/SkillsAn ... x?id=29711


----------



## Paul Chapman (19 Aug 2011)

Mike Wingate":4k85iwmk said:


> 2nd hit on Google for Cambering pla
> http://www.finewoodworking.com/SkillsAn ... x?id=29711



Thanks for posting that link, Mike - it's always interesting to see how other people do things.

I see that he puts the camber on with a grinder before honing. While I use a grinder for cambering scrub plane blades, I find that for other bench planes I can get a sufficient camber by simply putting a bit more pressure on the edges of the blade while honing and this works well even when using a honing guide with a wide wheel.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Mike Wingate (5 Oct 2011)

I have been doing plenty of work with the QS 62 and have come to dislike the rear handle/tote. No problem, just make a new one. Perfect, a full hand grip, bigger radii. Comfort for me.
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010872.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p244 ... 010873.jpg


----------



## AndyT (5 Oct 2011)

Nice one! A bespoke fit to your own hand must always be the best choice.


----------



## bugbear (6 Oct 2011)

Mike Wingate":72metvrb said:


> I have been doing plenty of work with the QS 62 and have come to dislike the rear handle/tote. No problem, just make a new one. Perfect, a full hand grip, bigger radii. Comfort for me.



(quoted/edited to show images inline)

BugBear


----------



## condeesteso (6 Oct 2011)

That looks mighty fine BB. Tactile and less shiny too - I prefer rather matt surfaces on totes etc. One day I'll get to try a QS and I expect I'll be impressed.


----------

