Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: History Question on BD vs. BU

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    SCal
    Posts
    1,478

    History Question on BD vs. BU

    I am sure this question has been asked before, but I am curious of the answer and could not find the answer using the Search tool. I am sure many of the plane historians know the answer.

    I see BU planes having many advantages over BD blades.

    1. Easy to change blade angle (by changing blade)

    2. No chip breaker required.

    3. The entire blade surface is supported by the mass of the frog (or whatever you call the blade holder), vs. the BD having the thin part of the blade having no support behind it.


    These seem like significant advantages vs. BD. I am sure they are some small differences that aren't worth mentioning.... but my question is, to create a BU plane took NO technological breakthroughs. So hundreds of years ago, why weren't all planes BU? There must be some reason for this, as in the pre 1900's, the hand plane was probably the most used tool in every shop.

    OH yeah, and btw, is there is any significant advantages to BD?
    Last edited by Will Blick; 04-15-2008 at 9:25 PM.

  2. Quote Originally Posted by Will Blick View Post
    I am sure this question has been asked before, but I am curious of the answer and could not find the answer using the Search tool. I am sure many of the plane historians know the answer.

    I see BU planes having many advantages over BD blades.

    1. Easy to change blade angle (by changing blade)

    2. No chip breaker required.

    3. The entire blade surface is supported by the mass of the frog (or whatever you call the blade holder), vs. the BD having the thin part of the blade having no support behind it.


    These seem like significant advantages vs. BD. I am sure they are some small differences that aren't worth mentioning.... but my question is, to create a BU plane took NO technological breakthroughs. So hundreds of years ago, why weren't all planes BU? There must be some reason for this, as in the pre 1900's, the hand plane was probably the most used tool in every shop.

    OH yeah, and btw, is there is any significant advantages to BD?
    English mitre planes are BU and were in production from he 1790's. The second metal BD planes were introduced- around 1850 large mitre planes vanish and small one handed mitres become more popular.
    why?
    1) with BU planes the wear bevel is on the flat-if you use the plane a lot that's much more work to maintain.
    2) it may seem that the iron on a BU plane is supported to the edge but the iron is also much thinner at that point. Unless the mouth is really fine - that is the iron is supported really realy close to the edge, or the bevel angle is steep, the planes don't perform particularly well. on a BD plane the iron is supported further back of the cutting edge but the thickness of the iron give lots of bending support.

    3) Obviously the changing of the bevel angle wasn't particularly important to the millions of woodworkers who used wood or metal planes BD.

    4) BD plains only need a cap iron for the adjuster. the millions of wooden BD planes had no cap iron, and no adjuster. In rough work a cap iron helps prevent tearout.
    So I disagree pretty strongly with your claims of advantages and of the millions of metal bench planes made none of the larger BU designs were historically very popular. Only now are they popular and I suspect a large reason is that as a group the planes are made very well and are less expensive than their BD cousins.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Haddam Neck, CT
    Posts
    181
    Another large advantage that Larry Williams argued over on Knots (I site him only because he is the person that first pointed it out to me) is that putting a camber on a bevel up plane iron is significantly more difficult to maintain due to the fact that the radius needed for a bevel up plane is significantly larger for similar results. Lower bed angle=Larger radius for same results.
    Last edited by Matt Bickford; 04-15-2008 at 11:11 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    410
    One hypothesis I've thought of is...

    BU planes need their irons bedded at much lower angles, 20 to 25 degrees to achieve the typical cutting angles.

    Think of the way the forces act on a blade bedded at 45 vs one bedded at 20, the one at 20 has a much greater component of the force pushing it back, to dislodge it, the one at 45 has much more component pressing it against the bed. So one could think that it was harder to wedge blades at 20 degrees than it was to bed and wedge them at 45 or 50, this is of course when wood planes were the norm.

    Before anyone mentions it, metal bodied planes are much older than the 1700s, however they were rare.

    /p

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Conway, AR
    Posts
    399
    I cant answer your question but apparently they werent that popular with woodworkers in the early and mid 1900's. Stanley offered both the 62 (LA adjustable mouth jack) and the 164 (LA adjustable mouth smoother) and they never soared like the bu equivalents maybe it was the price that discouraged would be buyers. Here is one of my Stanley 62's a design that is very popular with todays WW'ers and copied by LN and LV with improvements.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    SCal
    Posts
    1,478
    A lot of interesting responses....

    Joel, I am curious of your comment....

    > 1) with BU planes the wear bevel is on the flat-if you use the plane a lot that's much more work to maintain.

    Can you explain this in more detail? With a micro bevel on BU planes, I think the process of holding an edge and re-sharpening is certainly not an issue, but maybe I did not quite understand what you meant.


    It's obvious the BD plane at 45 deg is the best compromise for most woods....today, and yesteryear. So not sure that people did not care about different plane angles, but rather, they did not have the options, as the makers seem to cater to the masses.

    Matt, interesting camber issue, I would have never thought of....


    Pedro, BRILLIANT!!! This answer makes the MOST sense!!! This is a great point... most of the force of a BD iron is applied to the bed! Since most irons were wedged, the BU configuration constantly exploited the wedges holding capacity! When you consider the inferior metals used on their irons, and I suspect inferior sharpening techniques, AND the sheer volume of use these planes got, the slightly dulled iron probably dislodge the wedge too often to make BU a practical tool.... This is what tilted the scales in favor of BD. As mentioned, since the BD performed as well on most all woods, why force the issue?

    I notice this even today, when my BU blades get a bit dull, they can sometimes move the iron back a tad! There is always a reason for why things happened like they did, and I think you may have nailed this one... I am curious what other plane history buffs think!


    Clint....

    > never soared like the bu equivalents

    I assume you meant, never soared like the "BD" equivalents? If so, it could have been the price, or just lack of understanding of the benefits of BU. We are have so many forms of spreading information today, everything travels so fast.... back then, it was probably hard to change the way people did things for hundreds of years prior.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    It is very likely that the reason why BU planes, such as the Stanley #164 and #62, were not popular was simply because they were not strong enough. These were made of cast iron, which was thin as the bed is 12 degrees. The #62 planes (my own included) suffered commonly from stress cracks at the rear of the mouth (where, fortunately, it did not matter). However, they gained a reputation for being fragile.

    Fast forward to recent times, and LN and LV begin manufacturing the design but this time in ductile iron. It is now a different story. Ductile iron is TUFF stuff, and it will take all thrown at it.

    Critics of the BU design are just narrow-minded. Then again, those that argue that only BU planes are the way to go, are equally one-dimensional. BU and BD planes each have pros and cons. Together they combine to offer a wonderful set of attributes.

    An article I wrote a few years back, just before the BU planes became so much in demand:
    http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...%20plane..html

    I use both BU and BD planes fairly equally. The is a place for each. A few points:

    BU planes offer great flexibility in terms of cutting angles. They offer a potentially greater stability in the area of blade holding, and the low centre of gravity gives them a greater sense of control and feedback when planing. Their main drawback is that they create a larger "wear bevel" than does a BD plane blade (which, however, ALSO creates a wear bevel).

    This business of it being more difficult to hone a camber on a BU plane is nonsense. I demonstrated this in a very long thread on Knots (with Larry Williams in attendence). I will complete and publish my article in this regard. The short story is that it depends on how you hone the camber - only do so using a 25 degree primary bevel. More on that at a later date.

    What I like/prefer about BD planes is that they are more suitable to someone like myself who prefers to freehand hone blades. BD planes are less sensitive to changes in the bevel angle as they obtain the cutting angle from the bed/frog. So a hollow grind and a freehand on a stone is a simple matter. By contrast, a BU plane blade is more technical and benefits from a honing guide. If you routinely use honing guides, then this is not an issue.

    More at another time.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    SCal
    Posts
    1,478
    Derek, I was hoping you would ring in! I do remember reading the link you provided.... what a wealth of information you have on your web site, I learned alot reading through it. Thanks for being so generous with your plane knowledge and helping fellow ww's. You got enough data for a book!


    Very interesting contribution regarding the different metal the planes were made from, making BU less practical!

    Great point about sharpening BD blades....much less sensitive to sharpening angle vs. BU! Makes perfect sense, something many people like myself often overlook.


    Question: I realize LV BU will get you 37/50/62 deg cutting angles. You mentioned putting a bevel on the flat side of BD irons, to also alter their cutting angles. (of course only to increase angle). Putting aside the sharpening issues, for a high cutting angle, say 62 deg, would you prefer a BD with a dual edge which produces an effective 62 deg cutting angle, or a BU at 62 deg.? Lets assume you have a BD plane with easy re-setting of the blade, such as a Bridge City CT line.....that levels the playing field as much as possible.... Please explain pros / cons of each planes ability to cut.


    Also, do you feel there is some applications to go above 62 deg cutting angle?


    I found it ironic that the last statement in your link...you wrote...

    The potential of these bevel-up planes is such that I believe they going to be the force for future plane design.

    Maybe great minds think alike? :-)

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Will Blick View Post
    A lot of interesting responses....

    Joel, I am curious of your comment....

    > 1) with BU planes the wear bevel is on the flat-if you use the plane a lot that's much more work to maintain.

    It's obvious the BD plane at 45 deg is the best compromise for most woods....today, and yesteryear. So not sure that people did not care about different plane angles, but rather, they did not have the options, as the makers seem to cater to the masses.

    When you consider the inferior metals used on their irons, and I suspect inferior sharpening techniques, AND the sheer volume of use these planes got, the slightly dulled iron probably dislodge the wedge too often to make BU a practical tool....
    1) if you use a plane with any amount of use, especially on abrasive woods, the iron will wear as it gets dull. after all some of the iron is rubbing against the just planed surface of the wood. on a BD plane you get a wear bevel on the bevel side of the iron. on a bevel up plane it's on the flat side. Which is easier to remove? - the wear on the bevel by a lot. Today of course more people use planes just for smoothing, actually use it very little, and have wear resistant alloys - so it is less of an issue.

    2) Wooden planes are at higher angles than stanleys. you can also easily shim up a plane for higher or lower angles if you really have too. However for example with my bedrocks I have never found the need to - but I mostly work easy to plane Walnut. This idea that you need to constantly tune the angle of your plane is ridiculous. If I was a cabinetmaker in the 19th century I would probably be using higher angle wooden plane anyway. It's just not a big deal.

    3) Inferior metals? it's true that modern alloys have better edge retention but some of the steels of the 19th century were spectacular. And they did know how to grind and sharpen, but it was like sharpening a pencil, no big deal needing to be called attention too.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    Putting aside the sharpening issues, for a high cutting angle, say 62 deg, would you prefer a BD with a dual edge which produces an effective 62 deg cutting angle, or a BU at 62 deg.?

    Hi Will

    There are three ways to look at this.

    The first is - given that you could hold every potential extraneous variable constant - to quote Rob Lee, "The wood does not care".

    The second is in regard to ergonomics. In general I prefer low aspect planes over high aspect planes for feel. Some BD planes fit this bill - HNT Gordon and Krenov woodies I have built (all with a 60 degree angle of attack). All BU planes are low aspect.

    The third factor is re-sharpening a blade. I find it interesting that such a big deal is made of sharpening, while I believe that it is re-sharpening or edge maintenance that is more important. I like to strop an edge inbetween honings. This is much easier to do if you work with a microbevel on a hollow grind than a microbevel on a flat grind. Consequently, from a ease of work, I prefer using a BD plane.

    Now there is a fourth factor, which is where the balance moves back to the BU plane. This is that, for most new users (and some old users), when looking to buy a high angle smoother to deal with interlinked grain, it is more likely that only a BU plane will meet the high angle criterion, or be available to do so. These planes are really amazing value for money. They can provide extraordinary planing performance by dialing in a high cutting angle. BD planes that match this performance envelope cannot compare on price. Yes you can create a higher cutting angle with a backbevel, but now we enter the same arena of criticism I levelled at BU planes for their microbevels (honing a BD blade with a backbevel is a complex chore).

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    SCal
    Posts
    1,478
    Joel, regarding 1), thank you for extended explanation....I now understand your point. But from my experience using LV BU A2 blades, I would suggest this issue today is more theoretical, than reality.... as you suggest, because today, most people only use planes as the final step, so they probably get 1/50th the use they did prior to power tools. There is too many efficient ways to remove large areas of wood today. However, getting back to the OT... prior to power tools, with heavy use, this edge sharpening factor, once again tilted the scales in favor of BD. It seems all roads lead to BD in the early days, and this thread sure exposed many of them, quite interesting...... but I think Dereks position on the bright future of BU planes is nutz-on.

    As for your other clarifications.... Although 19th century ww's used what was available, I am sure if the modern BU line-up we have today was available, they too would own them all.... no one complained about horse n buggies either... yet everyone abandoned them.

    As for inferior metals and sharpening.... well.... I think our blade metals and sharpening options are so vast today, I can't imagine 200 years ago anyone getting mirror edges as simple as we can get today....or having that mirror edge last as long. But, even today, a lot of ww only take sharpening to a certain point, much less than my OCD pushes me to.

    Derek, thanks .... and yes, I was referring to re-sharpening, not sharpening.

    But I am still curious, is there a reason the angles stopped at 62 degrees vs. say 70 deg.? My guess is, anything greater than 62 deg is getting into scraper territory? I was just curious with all your knowledge if you ever have seen applications where 70 degrees provided added performance?

Similar Threads

  1. Lurker peering thru the door with a rail and stile question? (Long)
    By Chris Wilson in forum General Woodworking and Power Tools
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-13-2007, 5:20 PM
  2. Shop moving question?
    By Alan Tolchinsky in forum General Woodworking and Power Tools
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-13-2006, 9:31 AM
  3. Lathe and bowl question
    By Jason Wulff in forum Turner's Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-06-2006, 2:09 PM
  4. HI - New to this forum - got a question 'bout lathes
    By Matthew Dworman in forum General Woodworking and Power Tools
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-01-2004, 10:38 PM
  5. A Different Question re: Old vs. New Planes
    By Lewis Lamb in forum Neanderthal Haven
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2004, 6:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •