I am going to purchase a smoothing plane. I have a Primus and do not care for it. Mainly it does not have enough mass and I find it unhandy to use. It will do a decent job but I am going to get either a Veritas or a L-N. I can only buy one. My question is would one get more bang for the buck by getting a 4 1/2, which is the York pitch, or the regular 4? Then there is the bevel up vs down. I do work with gnarly wood a fair amount. I have saved my pennies and I could go with an L-N but I am not wanting to buy a tool that is a “bragger” for the sake of having it.
Thank you
Replies
Hi Bonka,
I do not own any LV planes, but I do own some LNs (including the 25th anniversary 4-1/2) they will do the job for you.
Some will no doubt advise you to save some money and buy a round half dozen old planes with the same money and fettle them. This is a good idea if you would rather be working on planes than on wood. Either way has merit.
I've heard great things about the LVs, I just don't like the way they look. (Hows that for a dumb reason not to buy a plane).
Either way you can't go wrong.
David C
haha...i happen to own a number of leevalley planes, and don't mind how they look.the LN are beautiful, and i plan on owning some in the near future. not liking the look is as good a reason as any not to buy/use them. as far as performance goes, as long as they work well, the wood doesn't care (or does it?..oh no.. i may have started the silliest debate yet! i can see it now..."pretty planes plane better! we interview 10 top woods!) anyways...as long as i am making sweet shavings , i'm happy! good luck to you all
Have you given any thought to a Japanese plane? I admit they are a little work to set up but after that there is nothing else like them. A 45deg or 48deg 60mm would be a good choice. The smaller plane in this photo is a 48deg 60mm and works beautifull even on tricky grain.
Dale
I have a LN #4 with both frogs and I think it is a great tool if I am careful and keep the blade very sharp I can get shavings the width of the blade that you can just about see trough. Not bragging about my skill at all just saying that this is a great plane. Anyway I am sure if you get the 4 or the 4.5 you will be very happy.
Troy
Lie-Nielsen with the high-angle frog.
You can't go wrong with the Lie-Nielsen 4 1/2. I use my number 4 in tandem with an infill at times when I want a super smooth suface. I use the 4 first and then follow up with a few strokes of the infill plane. The 4 1/2 would a great starting point.
Ron
I have the LN 4 1/2 with the York pitch, and I like it very much, particularly on figured woods. I think it is worth the money- you will find yourself using it a lot- it will probably become your smoothing work horse.
If money is an issue, I'd recommend buying the LN 4 1/2 with the York pitch- its combination of features- Bedrock design, pitch and quality- are hard to find at a lesser price. For an additional $35, you could pick up a pre-WWII Bailey #4. Fettle it, set the frog in fairly close and you will have a very serviceable non-York smoother. Maybe it's just me, but once I have the frog and iron set on my 4 1/2, I like to leave it alone and not swap frogs in and out. Since standard #4 Baileys are easy to find and reasonably priced, I favor the above solution.
Good luck,
Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Hi Bonka
Is there any chance you could try out some of the smoothers you have shortlisted?
Here are a few:
View Image
Veritas BU Smoother at rear, Marcou smoother, LN #4 1/2, and a Spier infill at the front. The shavings are Tasmanian Blackwood.
I do work with gnarly wood a fair amount.
This is one of the key sentences. I assume that you are not looking at working basic, straight grained woods. There are many inexpensiveplanes that can do for that - most Stanleys can. However, if you are looking beyond this, all of the above planes are capable of a far, far superior performance to anything a Stanley can come up with. When pushing the limits on wood with interlinked grain you will want to increase the cutting angle as much as possible. A York pitch is not high enough for some woods. Cutting angles of 60-65 degrees are then but a starting point. Some woods may need as much as 70 degrees. Of the above planes all can plane at this angle, although they require different methods to do so. The bevel up planes just need a steep bevel. The BD planes require a backbevel. In my opinion a backbevel on a BD plane is a hassle. Further, a backbevel on a fixed mouth plane (like the Spier) will just open the mouth. All-in-all, it makes more sense to get a BU plane if you want high cutting angles.
Since both LV and LN make such planes you will need to decide between them (unless you are willing to go for the Marcou, which will blow your socks off, but costs double the total of these together). LN make the #164, while LV make the LA Smoother (#164) and BU Smoother.
would one get more bang for the buck by getting a 4 1/2, which is the York pitch, or the regular 4?
Don't reject a light plane. One of my favourite smoothers is the HNT Gordon which, incidentally, has a 60 degree frog and is designed for cranky Australian woods. The blade can be reversed and the plane turned into a amazingly good scraper plane.
View Image
I have not used the LN #164, but you can read Alf's comparison with the LV LAS here: http://www.traditionaltools.us/ALF/lv_la_smoother.htm
I think that the LAS benefits from a lower angled tote. Here is my custom tote in Sheoak:
View Image
The LAS is another really excellent smoother. It has the benefit of also being a fine plane for a shooting board.
But if you are looking for a heavy plane, then scratch the #164/LAS as both are #4-size. The BUS is significantly heavier than either of those. Think #4 1/2-size. It is also a superb smoother. My review of this plane is at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/LVbevelUpSmoother/index.asp
The BUS would be my choice. It is an amazingly good performer on the most difficult woods I have used.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
I read your reply to the original post and your review on Phillip Marcou's site. Can you tell me what is the advantage of the LV bevel up smoother vs. the LV Low angle smoother? The BUS is around 5# vs the LAS 3 3/4#, but the blades are 1/4 inch wider on the BUS. The BUS is uglier than the LAS. Other than that, they appear to have the same adj. mouth , and blade adjustment. Just wondering why one would be preferred over the other. Also, what was your opinion of the Lie Nielsen LAS?
Lee
Can you tell me what is the advantage of the LV bevel up smoother vs. the LV Low angle smoother?
Hi Lee
Here is the LV LAS and BUS toe-to-toe.
View Image
View Image and side-by-side.
For a quick comparison think #4 verses #4-1/2.
The detailed comparison of these two planes is in my review of the BUS at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/LVbevelUpSmoother/index.asp
The short answer is the the BUS is a dedicated smoother and its design is centered on meeting this goal. It is squat in shape (I agree that it is not the most aesthetically pleasing of designs - LV are due to address this with a new line), but it does everything right. It is not the heaviest of smoothers, but is heavy for its size. It has a sense of authority when planing. I only use a 50 degree bevel in it (producing a 62 degree cutting angle) since it is used as a finish smoother. It has a truly excellent performance.
The LAS has a different personality. It is a light plane and has great "feel". Both planes give good feedback, but the LAS is better in this regard. Where the BUS is dedicated to smoothing, the LAS is a very versatile plane. Use it with a high angle blade for planing the most interlinked of woods, use it with a low angle blade for planing end grain (like a large block plane), or use it on a shooting board (it is one of the better planes in this disguise). The BUS cannot be used on a shooting board (it lacks square sides).
Which would I choose as my smoother? If I did not already have a plane for the shooting board (I use the LV LA Jack), and it was important to have one, then I would seriously consider the LAS. Its only downside is that it does not share blades with any other plane. What of the BUS? Well it is the better smoother - just. It is easier to get a better finish because of its extra heft (over the LAS).
Regards from Perth
Derek
Hi Derek,
Thanks for the reply. I'm not using a shooting board, so I may opt for the added heft of the BUS. Any idea on how long before LV changes the design? I know this sounds juvenile, but the thing looks hideous to me. Now you're not supposed to buy tools for their looks, but since we know this plane is a proven performer, it would be nice if it looked a tad more sleek.
Lee
Hi Lee,
Not sure LV is changing the design of these planes or not. They are adding a new line of planes which will be higher priced and they are allowing the designers more room to create.
Take care, Mike
Mike,
Thanks for the info. I think I may wait a bit and see what the new line looks like before I drop the $.
Cheers,
Lee
You're welcome, Lee.
I happen to be one of those who like the Veritas look. Perhaps because I like making the Modern furniture movement stuff...
Thing is, though, it doesn't matter what I like. It's your cash. All things being equal [performance-wise], what really is left? Yep. How we feel when we look at and use our tools. Like the music I choose to listen to, my tool tastebuds are very eclectic. So I own some very old tools, very contemporary/modern tools and something of most everything between.
Take care,
Mike
Bonka
I am going to be attending Lonnie Bird's School next April, and he is recommending that I purchase the Lee Valley Bevel Up Smooth Plane. It comes with the blade set at 12* and is ground to a 38* bevel, making it a York pitch for difficult grain. Bird claims that it works great on difficult hardwoods and is significantly cheaper than the LN, which he also recommends if you want to spend more money. So far, I'm halfway to my $199 for the LV BUS. LV also sells a low angle smooth plane, and it is somewhat different than the BUS. Just to give you something else to ponder....Tom
Bonka,
Here's my suggestion: buy the #4½ with the standard frog and buy the high angle frog separately (about $75). Doing so will effectively give you two planes for a little more than the cost of one. The standard angle frog will handle most domestic soft- and hardwoods, while the high angle frog will take care of most of the rest of the domestics (the gnarly-/cranky-grained ones) and some of the tropical exotics. If you are going to be planing a lot of, or mostly, tough, interlocking grain, exotic tropical hardwoods, then you really need a more specialised plane, with a 55° or 60° or even higher bedding angle, as Derek mentioned.
The #4½ is about a pound heavier than the bronze and 1½ pounds heavier than the iron #4s, respectively. The additional weight and momentum is useful in propelling the plane down the board, especially when you're dealing with gnarly grain. The extra width is also useful, peeling off wider shavings, even when you need to skew the plane to reduce/eliminate tear-out.
FWIW, the #4½ is my favorite hand plane. I like the length, width, heft, weight, balance, and overall feel and performance of the plane. A very close second is the #5½, which you might consider as a companion plane at some time in the future. (The HA Frog for the #4½ also fits the #5½, #6, and #7.) The #5½ works well as a long smoother/panel plane, and also as a wide jack plane and a short fore/trying/jointer plane.
On the bevel up vs bevel down debate, I'm not a fan of the bevel-up-for-everything school of thought. While BU planes obviously can be used for many things via changing the iron's bevel angle, my view is that BU planes are something of a specialty plane (they are, technically, all block planes) that do some things -- like end grain and very soft woods -- very well, and other things perhaps less well. There are others that will assert just the opposite, based on their experiences. Like life, there are many different approaches to wood working; some work better than others, but they all work. My thought on this: go the way that makes you happy and produces the results you're looking for. (I'm not interested in getting into an extended debate of the relative merits/demerits of BU vs BD; the flesh on that dead horse has been removed from the bone and the hooves boiled down into glue numerous times here on Knots....)
As for braggin' rights, I suppose that owning a LN gives you some, but, from my perspective, the main reason to own one is that is does exactly what it is supposed to do, right out of the box. No fettling necessary (well...OK, you may have to hone the iron a wee bit, depending on your definition of "sharp"), just set the iron depth and start making shavings. Plus, LN has some of the very best customer service that you will find anywhere, in any industry (the same can be said for LV, as well). What else could you ask for?
Hope that this is of some use to you. Have fun deciding which new toy you're going to get, and, especially, have fun making shavings with it!
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
Edited 10/26/2006 1:13 pm by pzgren
Edited 10/26/2006 2:16 pm by pzgren
Edited 10/26/2006 2:18 pm by pzgren
James,
The only bevel down planes I have used were a couple of cheap Records. Apart from being imposible to fettle well because of poor materials and engineering,I found the fiddling about with frogs to change the gap of the mouth a real pain. Also, those cap irons seem an unneccesary complication.
I now have a couple of LV bevel-ups and a wonderful Marcou S15a (also bevel-up and uses LV blades). It is very easy to change a blade and to alter the mouth gap - it takes seconds and is easy to do right. As LV offer three bevel up blades of various grinds, you can get 3 planes for the cost of one + 2 blades (about $35 each I think). The same applies to the Marcou.
In fact, you can buy any number of these blades and grind them to the angle you like, thus making (potentially) many planes from one. Having now used all three of the standard grinds, I have learnt that the different angles make a very big difference to perfomance on various difficult woods, or grain of different types/angles. As Derek Cohen says, a choice of 2 blade angles just 5 degrees apart seem insuffient.
LVs are generaly cheaper than LNs and often "win" in comparative reviews, on their lower cost and more innovative engineering. This doesn't neccesarily make them plane wood better than LNs but probably does save money and time to reconfigure.
Of course, I recommend without reservation the Marcou, which is VERY heavy, works like a dream, is made as well as (and looks as good as) a Holtey but costs 1/3 the price of those Scottish damsels. As well as a plane, you get an object of Great Beauty and (who knows) maybe an investment - once you have popped off and the ladywife cashes in your shed contents for going-out-on-the-razzle money.
Lataxe, New Model plane buyer.
Edited 10/28/2006 8:48 am ET by Lataxe
To A Most Noble and Exquisite Worker of Wood, Discourser on Subjects of a Philosophical Nature, and Generally All 'Round Good Guy, Greetings!
<<The only bevel down planes I have used were a couple of cheap Records. Apart from being imposible to fettle well because of poor materials and engineering,I found the fiddling about with frogs to change the gap of the mouth a real pain. Also, those cap irons seem an unneccesary complication.>>
My experience with a couple of Groz planes was similar to yours with the Records. They were pretty much impossible to fettle, thanks to the use of inferior materials, sloppy machining, etc. (I was asked to fettle them for a hand planing demonstration.... I would never consider buying them now -- not after trying to fettle them!!!) After putting a very nice edge on the iron, it then took exactly 4¼ shavings on soft pine (no knots...) for the edge to disappear somewhere out there in the woodworking ether, er...sawdust..... Needless to say, about the only benefit received out of this little exercise in futility was a bit of practice on my fettling technique. The plane was -- I shall be polite -- not very impressive....
<<I now have ... a wonderful Marcou S15a ....>>
You Saxon dog!! All this time, you've been sandbagging us, what with your musings on the relative merits of disgorging this or that item from your list of prospective hand tool acquisitions, philosophical meanderings on numerous only-slightly-related-to-woodworking subjects, sly wit and gentle jabs to the ribs of those who needed a wee bit of trenchant come-uppance to keep them honest, informal disquisitions on the colloquialisms of the Borderlands, and so forth. And whilst you were carefully diverting our attentions elsewhere, you were making secret arrangements with that famous maker of Kiwi Crow Attractant to acquire your very own, right under the very noses of this -- as it turns out -- not so very attentive crew of tool afficianados. Well, then, I must congratulate you on a very fine acquisition and addition to your hand tool collec...er...inventory! (I'm sure that the Lady Wife will be looking forward to receiving all of the current and future furniture commissions that shall be "emanating" from this superb tool and its highly skilled and dedicated operator!) An Object of Great Beauty: Aye! that it is! ;-) [All said, of course, with tongue firmly jammed in cheek and with just a hint of a sly wink....]
_____
The original version of this reply, composed a few days ago, had pretentions of becoming War and Peace length, and was intended to...bloody hell! I forgot what it was intended to do.... That's now irrelevant anyway, as the electrical gremlins took it all whilst being spell-checked, and I was left with a blank page.....so, you get the short version.....
_____
<<LVs are generaly cheaper than LNs and often "win" in comparative reviews, on their lower cost and more innovative engineering. This doesn't neccesarily make them plane wood better than LNs but probably does save money and time to reconfigure.>>
Having used only one LV plane (a BU jack that a student brought to a woodworking class I taught a couple of weeks ago), I don't have much experience at all with which to compare the two brands. But, while I didn't particularly care for the ergonomics in "normal" use, I found it to be very comfortable to use as a trimming plane on a shooting board (much more so than the LN LA jack). I may end up having to get one of them to use exclusively as a shooting board plane.
Well then, I've exposed my addled brain to public view for long enough, so I shall draw this to a close. Once again, congratulations on becoming the proud owner of that Lovely Plane; may it help you build fine things!Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
Metod,
In theory, at least, the back bevel works. However, there is a point -- as a poster far more knowledgeable in this area than I am likely to ever be, recently pointed out in another thread on hand planes -- where the back bevel weakens the edge to the point of practical unusability, because of a lack/loss of edge durability. Since, never having put a back bevel on an iron, I have no practical experience with one, and have a rather limited knowledge of metallurgy, I honestly have no idea where that point is.
As a general philosophy, I think that things should be only as complicated as they need to be, and no more; complication for complication's sake, IMO, is usually unnecessary, is often just plain stupid, and is frequently indicative of a rather high degree of arrogance. I generally subscribe to the viewpoint that there are tools specifically designed to do certain things, and if you want to do that particular thing, then the best (i.e., ideal-in-a-perfect-world) solution is to use the tool designed to do it. Reality, on the other hand, often precludes doing so, because of the time/space/budget/skill/etc. limitations that we all face. Obviously, that's where work-around/alternate solutions, such as a back-beveled plane iron, come into play.
Nevertheless, I usually go with the simplest, least-complicated, solution whenever possible. For general purpose work, I suspect that a back bevel is an unnecessary complication. Others may well have a vastly different view, and I would be very interested to learn from their views and experiences. Regardless -- as I've said before -- there are many approaches to doing things in woodworking; some of them work better than others, but they all generally work. If it's safe, it works for you, and you're happy with the results, then, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter how you got there. (You'll find me in the line where people tell you how you can do stuff, rather than in the line where they tell you how you should do stuff.....)
After you've had a chance to play with a back-beveled iron on your #4, please post on how it worked for you; I, for one, would be very interested to hear about your experiences with it.
Hope I haven't bored you too much with my philosophising....
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
<"have this (unfounded so far...) belief that it is faster to change irons than the frogs">
I agree. Even with a Bedrock, I would rather change the iron (or the plane as I suggested), than to have to remove, reseat and realign/calibrate the position of the frog. Just laziness on my part, but it is the path of least resistance...
Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Edited 10/26/2006 3:47 pm ET by Glaucon
B.lots of very good solutions from some great folks who know their business. I tripped-fell- into my solution. I originally bought a Clifton 4 1/2 as it had more weight and was a well made bedrock style. Years later I needed a better very nasty wood plane and (at that moment) had a little windfall and picked up a LN #5 1/2 yorkie (I don't like changing irons or frogs) as IT had a weight advantage. I have been very happy with those choices. Pat
BTW this doesn't mean that I don't still lust after a big ole infill. pfh
<"I wish I couls use your 'laziness defense' in some of my helpless situations with my wife... ;)">
Metod,
You have my permission...
Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Metod,
Thank you for the update. It's always good to hear how well various techniques work "in the real world." I am glad that you got good results; I'm going to have to acquire a spare iron to try the back bevel out.
Best wishes for a safe and Happy Thanksgiving!
Tschüß!
Mit freundlichen holzbearbeitungischen Grüßen aus dem Land der Rio Grande!!
James
Metod, excuse me for chiming in here, but I notice that you said that LN offer a 50 degree bed-I didn't know that, thinking they did a 55 degree.
That is why I decided to make a new smaller smoother with a 50 degree bed- I also went for 50 since it is in between the standard 45 and the currently in favour 55 bed, and folk can still get into the 55 area by doing the back bevel thing. In other words I went for 50 because it seems more versatile whilst only making small compromise-if any.
However the original two of this type were still born, because although they work nicely I found too many things that if changed would make them much better- so another pair are to be re-born in the near future.
What will I do with the still borns? Suggestions? Can supply pictures if required.
Metod, hopefully Bonka has got what he was looking for so we may as well divert a little...
The pictures show the aborted item in comparison to a #4 and one of my S20A smoothers-it is the same length as the #4.Although the toe length is the same as the #4 it is not enough and as a result of the increased bed angle there is even less room for fingers to grip the knob and not be in the way of shavings coming from the mouth. That will be cured by moving the mouth back about 15mm-and make it better for starting the cut.Also more room to make it mouth adjustable.
I will also fit a lateral adjusting facility-even though one could do without it I suspect it would be asked for anyway.
Throwing everything back into the cerebral melting pot has also resulted in two other items- a different (stronger) way to fix the handle, now that I have acquired some cunning little tools, and a tarted up knob.
Incidentally, any resemblance to the Lie Nielsen is purely co-incidental, but I will also do one with Bailey type sides.
Higher angles? Are there any that have not been tried? I reckon one should experiment , but an important factor is the type of wood being worked.Philip Marcou
Edited 11/23/2006 1:39 am by philip
I am beginning to wonder (probably just a hobbyist's excitement and lack of broader experience) why does LN (still) offer a 50* frog, and why not a 55* one. Maybe the good reasons lie in exotic and hard to tame woods, of which (the woods) I know nothing yet.
Hi Metod
One of the comments that frequently comes up in discussion after a smoother review is why the obsession with fine shavings. Actually it is not the fine shavings, per se, but the ability of a plane to create a fine surface - and sometimes fine shavings are necessary to avoid tear out. The differences between many smoothers is not often evident in wood that is straight grained and predictable. Many, if not most standard angle smoothers handle such wood quite comfortably. As the difficulty of the grain increases, so the demands on the planes ability to tame this also increases. The cutting angle is one - but only one - factor in managing this issue. As we know, the higher the cutting angle, the more likely it will cope with reversing and interlinked grain.
50 degrees in a smoothing plane would not get you past the starting gate with many Australian hardwoods. A real difference is often only seen once the 60 degree mark is reached. I emphasize that there are other factors involved as well (such as the mouth size - although this is less important the higher one goes - the ability of the plane to dissipate energy, blade thickness, plane mass ...). Still, many of the smoothers I reserve for the difficult grains have a cutting angle of 62-65 degrees. Even then I still may need to resort to a card scraper (what cutting angle would you envisage that this is?).
Stanley planes, with their 45 degree beds, were not intended for such woods (that is not to say that they cannot be used for fine woodworking - as we all know, marvellous work has been produced with them). Frankly I do not see that LN 45 degree beds being suited either - however, they are more than the sum of their parts and will outperform any Stanley of the same cutting angle. The 50 degree frog is definitely going to improve matters (putting aside the issue whether one should use this frog or backbevel the blade), but it does not make a significant difference over the 45 degree frog on some of the woods I use. And having said that I shall own up to buying the LN Anniversary #4 1/2 (which will arrive tomorrow!). I am sure that it shall provide an outstanding performance on some of the more difficult grains, but I do not expect it to perform as well as a Marcou bevel up smoother since the latter is able to be set up at a much higher cutting angle.
The bottom line is that most hobby woodworkers probably never get to test the upper limits of their smoothers and so many of these issues are just academic.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek, your post makes my point that the type of wood is a salient factor.
"The bottom line is that most hobby woodworkers probably never get to test the upper limits of their smoothers and so many of these issues are just academic."-- I am not sure about that- they are the very ones who have the time and the interest to try all these things out.
Incidentally, I forgot to mention that the plane mentioned in the post to Metod will take the blade bevel up as well-so one can also have an 80 degree cutting(scraping) angle. Seems to work alright on the Iroko I tried it on, but I would not expect the edge to last too long .Philip Marcou
Derek, your post makes my point that the type of wood is a salient factor."The bottom line is that most hobby woodworkers probably never get to test the upper limits of their smoothers and so many of these issues are just academic."-- I am not sure about that- they are the very ones who have the time and the interest to try all these things out.
Hi Philip
Good to hear from you. We haven't chatted for a while.
I have thought the same as you - at times I think that it is the hobbiests, like myself, whom are the ones to experiment. However (and this is just my theory), I suspect that it is more a case of what woods are available to hobbiests, and that there is a distinct difference in the types of woods available in the USA and Australia, for example. In other words, that the average American woodworker's experience will differ from that of the average Australian woodworker. We just don't always have the same terms of reference.
Here is a small wood sample to which I am referring. Note the three types of Maple. In one review (it may have been yours) I used a piece and commented on the properties, which were subsequently disputed by some in the USA. Others in Australia echoed my description. What this table does not reflect is the figure in the wood, only the density and hardness. I have included just a few of the common woods I use along with a couple of common USA ones.
View Image
A more detailed comparion can be found at http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/wood/timber_list.htm
Incidentally, I forgot to mention that the plane mentioned in the post to Metod will take the blade bevel up as well-so one can also have an 80 degree cutting(scraping) angle. Seems to work alright on the Iroko I tried it on, but I would not expect the edge to last too long .
Yes, my experience of the HNT Gordon smoother-used-as-a-scraper plane is that the blade will become blunt quite quickly. The heat that is generated is quite destructive. Still, the concept works very well and is most handy when needed.
Frankly, in the past few years my use of scraper planes has decreased almost to the point of zero. It is the availability of stupendous smoothers, such as your own, that has reduced the need for such things.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Here is a photo of a 45deg 70mm I just set up. The photo shows the test shavings I got from Black Walnut, sub blade was not used. You may not be in the market now for a Japanese plane but if you decide to give one a try someday I'm sure you'll be pleased.
Dale
This morning I (on a whim) compared a low angle block and 55* 4 1/2 on some scrap walnut and red oak endgrain. Can't seem to notice a difference in the quality of the surface.
I can get quite a respectable surface using a 60 degree HNT Gordon Trying Plane on my shooting board when planing hardwoods. Hardwood endgrain is less discriminiating of a cutting angle. It is much more difficult to get a good finish on some softwoods (where the wood fibres tend to bend and become crushed before they are cut). On the softer woods a low cutting angle provides the cleaner finish.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I have never seen any production 55 degree frogs from LN. I heard they made some experimental ones....is that what you have used in your test? Otherwise, how do you achieve 55 (back bevel?)?
Hey guys, to chime in.... have any of you seen or heard of the Bridge City Tools variable angle plane? I just saw it last night. Like $1.5k, but it's supposed to cover any angle that you want. Would this have the same issues as far as blade sharpness going faster at a steeper angle? Are there any similar planes on the market?
Rod
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled