Actually how useful do you find a bevel up bench plane?

[Mr Ed]

I daresay most people have an opinion on this, so here's mine.

I own a Lie-Nielsen 5½, which is the plane I use for most things. I also have a Veritas Low Angle Jack, which I use a lot less. In the majority of cases I will reach for the LN as it feels right to me, mainly because I use it a lot and so I have grown comfortable with it. I didn’t actually buy the Veritas, I won it, so in a way it chose me whereas the plane I actively chose was the LN.

I quite often pick up the Veritas when I’m working on something in an effort to convince myself that I like it, but its just not happening for me and I think these are the reasons why;

1. The grip doesn’t feel right – with the LN I like to rest my index finger on the side of the frog; on the Veritas its fresh air.
2. I find the adjuster awkward in comparison to the LN
3. Even with both blades sharp and similar effective pitches (42 deg on the Veritas and 45 deg on the LN) I frequently find the Veritas will tear out where the LN will not – happened on some QS oak today. (NB – this is with the mouth closed very fine on the Veritas)

Now don’t get me wrong, I can get the Veritas planing nice shavings and working perfectly well I just don’t think it has the performance or versatility of the LN with its bevel down configuration. The thing I do find the Veritas works well at is shooting, but then the LN does this fine also.

I’d be interested to hear comments on the bevel up Vs bevel down for general bench work discussion.

NB – I exclude block planes from this as I think they are in a different category (I have a LN 60 ½ LA block plane which is obviously bevel up and would not be without it)

Cheers, Ed.

 

[Karl]

Hi Ed

Couldn't agree more. I couldn't get the LA Jack to work (for me) - so I sold it. I know it is highly praised by a number of peeps on this site. I couldn't get it to work as well as my Clifton. Or should I say that it didn't feel as good as the Clifton?

That is not to dismiss BU planes altogther. I took advantage of Axminsters recent 10% discount and bought a LN 7 1/2 jointer, which I think is fabulous.

No doubt the BU brigade will be along soon to condemn us!

Cheers

Karl

 

[dchenard]

Now, where's my lightning rod? :shock: :roll: :lol:

How a plane feels in the hand and works for someone is indeed an important criterion. This said, some don't like the Veritas BU planes because they "handle" differently from the Stanley "standard", especially when these people have used these types of planes all their life (or so it seeems).

I basically started to become involved with handplanes when I purchased my Veritas LAJ. To this day, it is still my favourite plane, and has never let me down. The handle shape never bothered me, and it planes as well or better than anything else I've tried since.

The comparison made is a bit unfair, that three degree difference can be enough to induce tearout. Case in point, many resort to using York pitch when tearout occurs with regular angle planes, that's only a five degree difference. To top it up, if the edges, while sharpened as evenly as possible, are not truly sharp, the difference between effective angles will be amplified. It would be interesting to do the test again, this time with both planes at 45 degree effective angle.

DC-C

Still on jet lag

 

[pam niedermayer]

I bought the LN LA Jack when I couldn't get any of that old Stanley junk to work; so I found it very useful, particularly since it was the first metal bench plane that worked for me. Very shortly after I was seduced by wooden planes, Japanese in particular, and now use metal specialty planes only, like the 043/044 and a couple or three LN block planes. However, I still use the LN from time to time, and when it's needed it's the only plane that will do the job for me. Note that the LV planes didn't exist at this time, and I"ve heard many say they love their LV's.

Pam

 

[Philly]

Ed
Interesting - what appealed to me about the BU planes was the ability to alter the pitch for the work in hand. I use a lot of exotics and a 45 degree plane is not a lot of use - grinding a blade up beyond 50 degrees was a lifesaver for me.
As for the grip - there's no doubt it feels different to a Bailey pattern plane. The index finger just points away in mid air :lol: But it doesn't take much to get used to - I'm sure its all in the mind. And I particularly like the feel of the LAJ - it has a very low centre of gravity and "sits" well.
I find the lack of frog, etc, to be a good thing - opens ones eyes about how a plane can be made. The look is very modern and this is a Veritas trademark - innovation! Personally, I prefer the traditional look of the L-N's but what are we buying tools for? Using or collecting? :wink: O.k.-I'll step quickly away from that one....... :lol:
The only thing I don't really understand is why they offer the planes as "low angle" - pretty much everyone I know who has one uses the plane with higher than standard pitch so why sell the things with the low angle blade (which is pretty useless if you want a tear-out free surface!!)
To sum up - I found the BU planes to be enormous value for money for the level of performance they provide.
Hope this helps
Philly

 

[Paul Chapman]

I think we are very fortunate today in the range and choice of planes available from Veritas, Lie Nielsen and Clifton. I've concluded that they are all superb and, if set up and used properly, will all produce excellent results.

Recently, Rob (Woodbloke), Pete (Newt) and I have experimented with some difficult wood and tried different planes (and scrapers) to get good, tear-free result. At shows I've spoken to people like David Charlesworth, Mike Hudson from Clifton, Denib Puchalske from Lie Nielsen, and various people from Veritas, tried their planes and watched them tackle some difficult pieces of wood. It has been interesting that they have all been capable of producing good results with difficult woods, using different planes, some bevel-up, some bevel-down, some with curved blades, some with straight blades, some with back bevels others honed normally.

The conclusion I've come to is try them all and settle on the planes that feel right in your hands. They are all very different and it comes down to personal preference. Once you've settled on the planes you like, experiment with how they are set up and on your techniques.

All three major manufacturers produce excellent planes - far better than were available years ago. Any problems are, I think, down to how they are set up and used rather than with the planes.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

Paul's quite correct, there is now a huge variety of superb planes to choose from, far more than there was in the early70's when I got into this game so it's relatively easy...though it could be a trifling expensive :shock: to sort out a style of plane that suits.
I'm a low angle convert, period. I used to use a Norris A1 panel plane and Record Calvert-Stevens smoother (fitted with a LN A2 blade) which is even heavier than it's LN equivalent... then I won a Veritas LA jack, same as Ed. The rear tote is 'different', but I got used to it in about 2 minutes, so for me the point that it's strange don't hold water. It's easy to close the mouth right up and the adjuster, whilst not as precise as the Norris or CS is quite good, again it's just getting used to it. A BU blade can be almost instantly transformed into any effective pitch required just by honing a suitable micro-bevel. I have mine at 38deg which when combined with the bed angle gives a York pitch of 50deg. I'm so impressed with the Veritas LA planes that I've got the BU smoother and jointer as well, the smoother is so good as to leave the CS way behind.
What is interesting for me is that when I gave Denab P the 'Wood from ****' at West Dean and asked him to sort it, out of all the thousands of LN planes on his bench, he went straight for the LN LA jack to do it...now that told me something :wink: - Rob

 

[Mr Ed]

I agree with the comments on the look and feel of the Veritas - I really like the appearance of it and I'm in no way a traditionalist, so I want to enjoy the differences from the traditional planes, I just haven't yet.

I think DChenard makes a fair point about the effective pitch and the significance of the 3 degrees difference. I wonder if I should be going for 50 degrees effective pitch (i.e. hone at 38 degrees) to see how it works for me then.

Paul - I agree with your comments on the general quality of the planes available and its true that the performance from the LAJ I have achieved so far is still streets ahead from the untuned Stanley planes I first used. I'm also sure you're right that as with most things this is a case of personal preference and there is definitely not a one size fits all here - if there was I'm sure the 'unwanted' plane models would just drop off the market.

Rob - its partly the comments about your 'wood from ****' and the plane he chose that got me thinking about this and the thought that I should be enjoying this plane and finding it more useful.

I think I will regrind to give me 50 degrees and see what happens - I'll let you know.

Cheers, Ed.

 

[woodbloke]

I think I will regrind to give me 50 degrees and see what happens - I'll let you know.

Cheers, Ed.

Ed - no need to regrind, just hone a micro-bevel at 38deg (takes about 5 mins to set up) on your finest stone, use MrC's ruler trick on the back, set up a very fine mouth...you may be impressed with the difference :wink: - Rob

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

First off, if you are working "the wood from ****", don't stop at 38 degrees - a 50 degree angle of attack is not much different from 45 degrees - go straight to a 50 degree bevel (for a cutting angle of 62 degres)! I warrantee that you will not look at planes the same way again!!

Like Alf, I have had access to all the BU LV/Veritas planes since they were released. I have been an enthusiast of the BU range since Day Dot. Plane-for-plane, they offer superlative value-for-money and can hold their own with the best performing planes available. I work almost exclusively with some of the hardest and most interlinked of timbers that can be found, and most other planes just do not keep up.

Does this mean that I only use BU planes? No - I probably use BD planes just as much. Most of these have high bedding angles, such as the HNT Gordon range. I also enjoy using a LN Anniversary (bronze) #4 1/2 and I have lower angled woodies, which are great with softer woods. I enjoy making and using my own handplanes, both BU and BD.

These days the LV LA Jack is primarily used with just a 25 degree bevel - one straight for the shooting board, and another cambered for cross grain plaining (soooo helpful when leveling wide boards). I have other planes for with-the-grain planing.

The point is that BU planes are terrific when you only have a few planes and want to do many things or want to deal with many different wood types. When you have a number of planes, planes that are set up for specialist tasks, then the LA Jack becomes a specialist plane as well. If it is then used out of it is "specialness" (either as a low angle or a high angle plane) and principally used in the standard range (45 degrees), then you may as well be using any plane - then use a plane that feels most comfortable. If a BD plane feels more comfortable, then that is the better plane. But you are missing the point of the BU planes by making such a comparison (that is, if you limit the BU plane to this narrow range).

In summary, the strength of the BU planes is in (1) planing at extreme angles, either very low or very high, and (2) being able to do so with two blades used in the same plane. If you want to plane at standard angles, then they have no particular strength over other BD planes of the same cutting angle.

Regards from Perth

Derek (sorry for running on there! :roll: )

 

[Mr Ed]

Derek

Thanks for some useful comments, which have got me thinking a bit more (incidentally I didn't think you ran on!)

I think part of my issue may be trying to make the LA jack do what my LN 5 1/2 already does, when in reality there is no point in doing that. I suppose I saw that as a starting point in a way. Don't ask me how I arrived at that logic, as I don't expect any of my other specialist planes to prove themselves as a 'standard' bench plane first - funny how the mind works sometimes!

I am going to experiment with some higher angles and see what results I get. It should be useful to have the LA Jack setup for problem grain (high angle, fine mouth) so I'll see how I get on.

Cheers, Ed

 

[newt]

If I had to have just one plane it would without question be the LV LA jack, it can do almost any planing task. I have an LN no4 bronze which is great but I pick up the jack most often. It is also IMO incredible value for money.

 

[bugbear]

I am going to experiment with some higher angles and see what results I get. It should be useful to have the LA Jack setup for problem grain (high angle, fine mouth) so I'll see how I get on.

Cheers, Ed

Don't forget low angles, "primo" for end grain. That's why BU plane are considered versatile. They're trivially "multi EP planes", at the low cost of extra blade (and the overhead of blade swapping)

BugBear

 

[Mr Ed]

OK, continuing on my Bevel Up rehabilitation, I have had a bit of a lunchtime experiment;

Resharpened the LV LA Jack at 43 deg, giving 55 deg EP.

On Oak both the LN 5 1/2 and the LV LA Jack seem to have fairly comparable performance. With the higher angle on the LV the tear out was not an issue and surface finish seemed to be equal from both.

On a piece of unknown tropical hardwood (dont know what it is, but my best guess is Padauk) which has always caused me problems in the past. I had the following results;

LN

Disappointing shavings

Notable tearout

LV

Better Shavings

No tear out

The best performance on this occasion was definitely the LV LA Jack, due I am sure to the higher EP. The LV also felt the nicer to plane with on this occasion as the shavings exited so much better, as you can see from the pics. Food for thought I think.

Cheers, Ed.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Ed

You can take the LV at least 10 degrees HIGHER on tricky grain! I recall David Charlesworth reporting sometimes using a cutting angle of 70 degrees on his LA Jack. That is a bevel angle of 58 degrees.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Mr Ed]

Derek

I did nearly go straight for your suggested 50 degree bevel, but decided to work my way there gradually. I only have the 1 blade at present, so if I went too far and wanted to go back to a shallower angle I'd have to take off quite a bit of metal. Plus being British I wouldn't want to rush into anything too radical!

Cheers, Ed.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Ed

That extra 5 degrees on the LV will change your life!

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Philly]

Ed
Looks like Bubinga to me. Glad you're getting results with your plane.
Cheers
Philly

 

[jonbikebod]

On an intellectual level I believe the LV BU jack to be the most versatile plane yet made. Shooting end grain and dealing with any difficult or interlocked grain it has no equal. But as others have said, I first reach for my conventional bevel down 5 !/2 .
I now think I know why.
When I pick up a conventional bench plane, my forefinger automatically reaches forward and rests in the edge of the blade; just as it ‘points’ in the direction I am about to saw when I pick up my hand saw.
With and bevel up bench plane I therefore feel there is a vital element of familiarity and control missing.
This is rather like the intellectual argument for the thin blade and kerf of a Japanese pull saw are compelling but I simply feel more at home with a western ‘push’ saw; my hands fit and seem to know what to do.
Jon.

 

[bobscarle]

The original discussion, as I remember, was not so much about which plane worked better but which plane felt better. I have an LN BU Jack which produces excellent results but does not feel as nice (natural) to use as my Record No. 5. The Record does not perform anywhere near as well as the LN but the point is it feels better in the hand. I also have a Clifton Smoother which is wonderful and feels just right.

Don't get me wrong, the LN is a gorgeous plane, exceptionally well made and finished. It is simply, like I believe Ed was saying in the first place, that I feel a little awkward using it. I can see it being relegated to the back of the drawer, shame really.

Bob