Planing technique

[Jarviser]

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

 

[ydb1md]

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

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

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

Which process might be more intimidating to the uninitiated?

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

Now, who wants a pint? ccasion5:

 

[Midnight]

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

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

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

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

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

nuff said..???

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

 

[Alf]

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

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

Cheers, Alf

 

[llangatwgnedd]

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

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

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

 

[MikeW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MikeW

 

[engineer one]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Alf]

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

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

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

Cheers, Alf

 

[MikeW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ike]

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

Ike

 

[Philly]

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

 

[MikeW]

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

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

 

[Alf]

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

Choking in the dust, Alf

 

[MikeW]

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

 

[engineer one]

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

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

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

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

 

[Pete W]

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

Consider my novice hand firmly down

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

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

 

[Frank D.]

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

 

[Anonymous]

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

Depends on type of adjustment that is needed.

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

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

 

[Midnight]

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

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

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

 

[MikeW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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