Replies

1. 
   philip | Nov 17, 2005 11:22am | #1

   Steve, the bevel up used in high angle mode does not require a chip breaker because it is scraping, or close to it. The fibres are sheared off rather than sliced, and this happens at or very close to the cutting edge, rather than further forward, which then requires the shaving to be forced up by the chip breaker to get it to break.

   Philip Marcou
2. 
   Midnight | Nov 18, 2005 04:50am | #2

   I'm probably over-generalising saying this, but by and large, bevel down planes tend to use a massivly thick blade when compared to bevel downs... 4.8mm v's 3.2mm... or thinner. Their low bed angle and thick blade render blade chatter all but impossible...

   Mike Wallace

   Stay safe....Have fun

3. 
   whiteoak590 | Nov 19, 2005 07:20pm | #3

   I thought I had a pretty good handle on the issue of plane bedding angle until I started using Japanese planes. These are typically 40-42 degree angles and are used for end grain or long grain. They are also bevel down. They are wonderful to use as smoothers. Thier plades are massive in thickness which is a decided advantage. They work slightly better than a well tuned norris I have used for several years which is a york pitch and a thick blade.

   I have two Clark Williams planes that I love and they are standard pitch, average size blade, and no chip breaker. Most older planes which is what the C/W's are patterned after did not use a chip breaker. The japanese also did not use chip breakers until fairly recently when westeners started using them. I have one without a chip breaker and it works wonderfully. I also have a couple of Steve Knight's woodies and they do not use chip breakers.

   The only common theme in all of this is I believe the Stanley style planes require a chip breaker and wooden planes do not eveen though some now use them because of habit. Most of us now start with the Stanley type and then migrate to the wooden planes in some cases while a hundred years ago everyone started with woodies and then went to Stanley types as they became available.

   this is all very confusing and I do not profess to have it figured out except to say after trying many types of planes some work much better than others. I keep using these and the others usually collect some dust. The ones I keep using are well made but of various styles.

   Dan