Buying a smoothing plane, low-angle?
I want to buy a smoothing plane and I’ve come up with a fundamental question that I do not understand. The question is whether to buy a traditional bevel down smoother or a “low-angle” bevel up smoother.
It seems to me that arguably bevel up is always the way to go because you can change the cutting angle by simply changing the bevel of the blade. You could have a low angle smoother, a standard smoother (45 degrees) and a York pitch smoother just by buying one plane and a couple of extra irons. Then, I started to wonder, why do traditional bench planes have the bevel facing down? It seems to eliminate one tune-ability factor altother (I know you can add a back bevel to increase the effective cutting angle). Is there some big advantage to a plane with a downward facing bevel?
If to took a low angle smoother with a 12 degree bed angle and put a 33 degree bevel on your blade, would it cut the same as a traditional smoother with a 45 degree bed?
Because, with the exception of block planes, planes were traditionally built with blades bevel down, I tend to think there must be some advantage to this approach. On the other hand, buying a bevel up smoother and a couple of extra blades is tempting because it seems you can buy a smoother for all wood types, changing blades to suit the wood.
Matt
Replies
Matt,
I'll start by saying that if you work a lot of wood with hand planes....you'll want both bench and bevel-up planes.
But I am quite convinced that the Veritas movement to push bevel up planes is on target. Won't work for every single situation...but you'll never find anything that can do everything. If just starting...I think going the bevel up route is a good choice. You can get away with 3 (block, smoother and jack or jointer) planes and 2 irons for each to cover 99% of your needs. Lie Nielsen will also concur that going bevel up is a very good alternative to tranditional bench planes.
One other thing....woodies are still the best smoothers out there...not including those astronomically priced infills....
On the neverending quest for wood.
Thanks for your reply. I am also thinking about the ECE Primus smoother. My principal concern about going with wood is the lower weight. Once you get a big heavy cast iron plane moving it seems to have a lot of momentum, helping you get through the rest of the cut.
All of my existing planes are cast iron, so I'd need a chance to get a sense of how the different handle set-up on the plane works (I'm headed to Toronto this week so I should get a chance to talk a look at ####few of the planes I'm considering at Lee Valley (the Primus, a low angle #4 and a traditional #4).
Matt
I believe the traditional theory is that you need a higher cutting angle for many woods to avoid tearout.
However, Lie-Neilsen then introduced its low angle jack plane and this tool seems to have started a low-angle revolution. It works on just about any wood and seems to have convinced the world of plane users that the traditional theory requires tweaking. So now you get L-N and others making low-angle jointers and low-angle smoothers.
I have both the L-N traditional #4 smoother and the L-N low-angle jack. Using them this past weekend (on the same wood, obviously), both seemed about equally prone to tearout, although this is far from a scientific evaluation.
I'm a fan of low-angle planes because they're so much simpler. But when I spring for the L-N jointer, it's still going to be a traditional setup.
I have the same planes - LA jack and the #4. The high angle frog makes a big difference, especially in combination with the A-2 cryo blade and new chipbreaker. Even with the LA blade ground/honed to give a 52 degree cutting angle, the #4 is my preferred tool for final smoothing on really tough-to-plane woods like QS oak and maple.
That said, LN does recommend their LA planes for finishing, and I think this might be a combination of several things:
1. The LA is easier to tune for the novice, with fewer parts and much quicker mouth adjustments - the only variables are blade depth, skew, and mouth opening, while a Stanley or LN plane adds chip breaker placement and fitting plus frog skew to the mix.
2. The LA planes will handle smoothing tasks on figured woods with an extra blade or two
3. LA planes have got to be less expensive and complex to manufacture than the Bedrocks
I think the LV LA tools are well regarded too - easier on the wallet/harder on the eyes.
Why is it that the pretty ones are always more expensive?
Thanks for the thoughts. I bit the bullet and bought a "regular" Lie-Nielsen 4 1/2. I like the Veritas handle better (it seemed to fit in my big hands better), but, I liked the adjustment of the Lie-Nielsen better. It seemed like it would be easier to make finer adjustments. Hopefully, a little honing some time over the holiday weekend and off to the races.
Matt
Matt,
Just for fun (and a little thought provocation) read what Karl Holtey has to say about the smoother he designed from scratch. I think the low angle smoother has some distinct advantages, including a typically thick blade, which is supported right down to the mouth opening. These two features work together to enhance stability and reduce/eliminate chatter, depending on the timber. Simplicity is also an advantage, as is the flexibility of changing the pitch by altering the sharpening angle.
http://www.holteyplanes.com/no98.htm
Cheers,
Greg
Greg,
Thanks for the link. Maybe I should have gone low angle (I probably will get one at some point in any event). The article makes me wonder even more why traditional bench planes are bevel down. The only explanation I can think of at this point is that traditionally, when sharpening people didn't use honing guides for their plane blades and their was quite a bit of variation in the bevels on the blades so, if you wanted a consistent cutting angle, you would put the bevel down, so that the bed angle would be equal to the cutting angle regardless of how you sharpened.
Matt
I would guess another factor for the bevel down is that they stem from woodies...
Having a low angle bed in a woody is near impossible. To get enough friction would probably require you to hammer the wedge in so tight you would either crack the plane or never be able to adjust the iron again.
Given that woodies with 40 - 60 degrees performed well in nearly any situation, there was likely little pressure to develop bevel up planes when bodies started to be made from cast iron rather than wood.Tim
On the neverending quest for wood.
tsproul,
That explanation makes sense. If bevel down worked well in woodies, why change to bevel up with the transition to cast iron. Thanks for the input.
Matt
Matt
I have a L-N 164 LA Smoother and it is a very fine tool.
_________________________________
Michael in San Jose
"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted." Bertrand Russell
Edited 5/31/2004 9:04 pm ET by MICHAELP
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled