bevel-down planes... sell me!

[custard]

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]

... 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]

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]

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.

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]

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......

Agree.

 

[condeesteso]

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]

....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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[David C]

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]

Cured with a Stanley 80.

 

[xy mosian]

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

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......

Agree.

Crikey, and I half thought I was joking.

xy

 

[bugbear]

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

BugBear

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

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]

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]

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]

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