Bevel up or bevel down? Hope Rob Lee chimes in

[Warren Mickley]

It does indeed look like all options work great with some slight edge for the BD plane. I would assume the Stanley plane was easier to push given the lower angle. I don't think the small difference will be noticeable in my own woodworking but this gives me an excuse to try one of the new Veritas BD planes

I would not say "all options work". On Friday I took a scrap of North American hardwood to the Lie Nielsen event and asked the representative if he could plane it. He told me that some man brought him a bunch of exotics every year and he had planed them all. He used a 55 degree plane which gave tearout. Then he used a toothing plane diagonally which removed the damaged material, but also damaged the corners of the wood. Then he used a 60 degree bevel up plane which left the worst surface of all, holes that were 1/2 X 1 and 1/16 deep. He gave up after about 15 minutes having removed about 1/4 inch of thickness from the scrap.

The opposite side of the the scrap had been planed smooth by me in 1977. I had used a Stanley Handyman plane which I bought new in 1973 for $10.49 plus tax.

[Pat Barry]

I would not say "all options work". On Friday I took a scrap of North American hardwood to the Lie Nielsen event and asked the representative if he could plane it. He told me that some man brought him a bunch of exotics every year and he had planed them all. He used a 55 degree plane which gave tearout. Then he used a toothing plane diagonally which removed the damaged material, but also damaged the corners of the wood. Then he used a 60 degree bevel up plane which left the worst surface of all, holes that were 1/2 X 1 and 1/16 deep. He gave up after about 15 minutes having removed about 1/4 inch of thickness from the scrap.

The opposite side of the the scrap had been planed smooth by me in 1977. I had used a Stanley Handyman plane which I bought new in 1973 for $10.49 plus tax.

Not very surprising Warren. After sitting for close to 40 years its not unexpected that the wood might be a tad dried out and prone to tearout. Did you try to clean up the surface afterwards? Any before and after pictures?

[David Weaver]

I have no trouble believing what warren said. It's the difference between a guy who travels around selling planes and demonstrating them vs. a guy who who uses a plane to a very high standard because the work demands it.

I used to be the first to poo poo transitionals and handyman planes because they given you no options with the mouth, but I've reversed course on that now for obvious reasons (cap iron). Handyman planes are still offputting, but they are available almost for free now.

Warren, it would be interesting to see you smooth the second side, too, and time yourself so that nobody can make accusations about you poring over the piece of wood for a long period of time.

I know lie nielsen loves to pitch their toothed irons, but I really don't see the point of them. They allow a beginner to avoid some tearout, but are ultimately slower than a plane with a double iron because they don't take a full cut.

[Derek Cohen]

Warren, you held onto this piece of wood for 37 years? Why?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[David Weaver]

Warren lives near lancaster and the PA dutch. Nobody who lives near lancaster throws anything away!!

[Tom M King]

There aren't many days that I work with wood any newer than that, and the only newer plane I have is a LV shooter. The only bevel up planes I have are a couple of block planes, and a couple of shoulder rabbets-that I can think of. I will say though, that I've never had my hands on the woods that Derek uses. My old planes do fine for anything I do. Sharp-really sharp-solves all sorts of problems. As told to me by the best finish carpenter I ever knew, Jack Jordan (pronounced Jerdan), "just keep setting it closer until it works, and you don't need the mouth as close as you ever set a block plane." Jack left us in the late '80s. He was also the best hand loader of ammo that anyone knew, and deadly at horseshoes. I will say though, that the knarliest wood we ever worked was some curly Maple. I see a lot of people use a plane like they are trying to sneak up on the wood. I think speed, past the reluctance, helps too

[Warren Mickley]

Not very surprising Warren. After sitting for close to 40 years its not unexpected that the wood might be a tad dried out and prone to tearout. Did you try to clean up the surface afterwards? Any before and after pictures?

There is no problem planing wood that has been sitting for 40 or 240 years. In this case I planed the edge of the same sample on Friday morning; it took about 15 seconds to get a very smooth surface. In fairness, I should include the many seconds it took to adjust the cap iron from the previous work, so the whole thing took about a minute. Compared with the high angle stuff which took fifteen minutes and resulted in a surface which was worse than a rip saw, not too bad.

[allen long]

Derek, as always great job.

Did I miss it or did you not demonstrate a high angle frog cut? Anyone have thoughts on the high angle frog with the chip breaker set close to the blade edge? I ask because I have two premium planes with high angle frogs 5 1/2 and 4 that honestly I am not using since Kees' postings on the breaker settings. I have tried a number of premium blades, and improved chip breakers on my tuned Stanleys and honestly the combination that excels the most is the standard Stanley chipmaker (thanks to David's suggestion ) with the lv pm-v11 blade.

My older sons (both materials engineers - one of them a metallurgist) both believe my hobby had become more of seeking how sharp I can get various new and vintage tools. Lately I have begun to actually USE my tools and wonder if there is a place for the HAF and especially the 5-1/2. My old Stanley 7 with standard breaker and pm-v11 blade sings. I also have a 3, 4, and 5 all with pm-v11 blades. Is there any need for the 5-1/2? I also have the lv shooter if I ever get around to making a shooting board for it.

[Frank Martin]

I would not say "all options work". On Friday I took a scrap of North American hardwood to the Lie Nielsen event and asked the representative if he could plane it. He told me that some man brought him a bunch of exotics every year and he had planed them all. He used a 55 degree plane which gave tearout. Then he used a toothing plane diagonally which removed the damaged material, but also damaged the corners of the wood. Then he used a 60 degree bevel up plane which left the worst surface of all, holes that were 1/2 X 1 and 1/16 deep. He gave up after about 15 minutes having removed about 1/4 inch of thickness from the scrap.

The opposite side of the the scrap had been planed smooth by me in 1977. I had used a Stanley Handyman plane which I bought new in 1973 for $10.49 plus tax.

Warren, you are right. I should have said all planes worked for the wood Derek showcased. I am really intrigued by this chip breaker discussion. I am fairly sure this was the reason why I never liked my first several planes (all vintage Stanleys and a new Record back 12 years ago). Sold them all and got LV BU planes. For what I do all my LV planes work wonderfully, but now I understand BD design is a very capable design and setup to work potentially even better than the BU design. It is great that this discussion for me coincided with the release of the new LV BD planes...

[Pat Barry]

There is no problem planing wood that has been sitting for 40 or 240 years. In this case I planed the edge of the same sample on Friday morning; it took about 15 seconds to get a very smooth surface. In fairness, I should include the many seconds it took to adjust the cap iron from the previous work, so the whole thing took about a minute. Compared with the high angle stuff which took fifteen minutes and resulted in a surface which was worse than a rip saw, not too bad.

Of course my note about the wood being old is based on splintering issues I have seen in the past with old pine and cedar. Not knowing what wood you had I should have just noted that some before and after pictures of the surfaces of interest would have been very informative.

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, as always great job.

Did I miss it or did you not demonstrate a high angle frog cut? Anyone have thoughts on the high angle frog with the chip breaker set close to the blade edge? I ask because I have two premium planes with high angle frogs 5 1/2 and 4 that honestly I am not using since Kees' postings on the breaker settings. I have tried a number of premium blades, and improved chip breakers on my tuned Stanleys and honestly the combination that excels the most is the standard Stanley chipmaker (thanks to David's suggestion ) with the lv pm-v11 blade.

My older sons (both materials engineers - one of them a metallurgist) both believe my hobby had become more of seeking how sharp I can get various new and vintage tools. Lately I have begun to actually USE my tools and wonder if there is a place for the HAF and especially the 5-1/2. My old Stanley 7 with standard breaker and pm-v11 blade sings. I also have a 3, 4, and 5 all with pm-v11 blades. Is there any need for the 5-1/2? I also have the lv shooter if I ever get around to making a shooting board for it.

Hi Allan

Yes, I did post pictures of a LN #3 with 55 degree frog cutting with- and with out the chip breaker. I find that the effect can be additive.

Link: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...72#post2314072

What I have found with high angle beds is that the leading edge for the chip breaker works better if it is lower than for a lower angle frog. Numbers are difficult to arrive at since the distance from the leading edge will also have an effect.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Of course my note about the wood being old is based on splintering issues I have seen in the past with old pine and cedar.

Heck pine and cedar can have splintering issues fresh from the mill or kiln.

jtk

[Gary Muto]

Hi Frank

Yes, the BUS is modified. I did this recently.





Here it is with the SBUS ...



Here's the original ..



Whatdoyouthink?

Regards from Perth

Derek

I like it! I think it just needs the trademark counterbore dimples on the side though.

[Gary Muto]

I have no trouble believing what warren said. It's the difference between a guy who travels around selling planes and demonstrating them vs. a guy who who uses a plane to a very high standard because the work demands it.

I used to be the first to poo poo transitionals and handyman planes because they given you no options with the mouth, but I've reversed course on that now for obvious reasons (cap iron). Handyman planes are still offputting, but they are available almost for free now.

Warren, it would be interesting to see you smooth the second side, too, and time yourself so that nobody can make accusations about you poring over the piece of wood for a long period of time.

I know lie nielsen loves to pitch their toothed irons, but I really don't see the point of them. They allow a beginner to avoid some tearout, but are ultimately slower than a plane with a double iron because they don't take a full cut.

So maybe this says more about the users than the tools? (Indian vs. arrow as you say).