Planing technique

[bugbear]

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

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

BugBear

 

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

 

[Alf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, Alf

 

[MikeW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take care, Mike

 

[MikeW]

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

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

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

 

[Midnight]

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

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

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

each to their own I guess....

 

[Alf]

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

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

Cheers, Alf

 

[ydb1md]

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

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

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

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

 

[DaveL]

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

Do you mean just like the LV planes come with?

 

[ydb1md]

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

Do you mean just like the LV planes come with?

Yeah, exactly. I should have been more specific.

 

[MikeW]

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

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

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

Mike

 

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

 

[Anonymous]

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

Cheers, Alf

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

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Alf asked:

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

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

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

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Midnight]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Alf]

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

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

Cheers, Alf

 

[bugbear]

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

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

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

BugBear