Low angle v. standard plane

[Bill Moser]

Some comment s and questions:

1) I've also found that A2 steel isn't as great as it's cracked up to be -- not so tough that you can go for much longer between sharpenings than high carbon steel.

2) The only blades I freehand sharpen are my Japanese chisels -- these I don't hollow grind, and they're thick enough so that there's a big surface area -- which means sharpening is slower, but I don't have to worry about dubbing over the edge

3) moulding planes are somewhat more delicate than bench planes, it seems to me. So for these, maybe a thinner iron is best, since a thicker iron means a larger opening for the throat. For bench planes, it seems to me that you could go thicker -- 1/4" seems like a nice round number -- without compromising the structural integrity of the plane. Also , isn't a thicker blade easier to sharpen freehand?

[philip marcou]

Wow! Did I ever get more then I bargained for! Thanks for all the information, I think I'm going to start with the LN LA Jack plane, but I will probably wind up with a combination of both. Once again thanks everyone.

The fact is that in the last few hundred years or so planes were made with bed angles starting around 12 degrees and going up in increments of 21/2 degrees right up to and over 90 degrees- so there is a vast choice out there
What ever you do, don't end up with too few planes.....And you can divide them into two distinct herds-Wooden bodies and Metal bodies.....

[philip marcou]

Larry,
Don't float off to heaven just yet- you may be missed.
Sounds to me as if your experiences with steels other than O1 and W2 have been far too brief and unfortunate too. Dismissing D2 becuase someone gave you a badly made , and I suspect incorrectly heat treated chisel made from it, is a pity.
As far as I am concerned all these common steels are great for woodworking purposes as long as the heat treat is done right and unfortunately D2 etc require a treatment best done by professional companies with the right equipment. All of them, in their annealed state, are easy to work with-and all of them are easy to grind with the right wheels-so I don't understand your problems there at all. If you can't quickly get an edge on a piece of hardened A2 then it is either too hard or the stone is bad-same applies to O1. I place critical importance on heat treatment so that is why I get mine done by a professional company- to aircraft standards- whether it is O1 or any other steel. The work is certified.The only drawbacks with more complicated steels are the cost and availability in suitable dimensions.

[philip marcou]

Some comment s and questions:

1) I've also found that A2 steel isn't as great as it's cracked up to be -- not so tough that you can go for much longer between sharpenings than high carbon steel.

2) The only blades I freehand sharpen are my Japanese chisels -- these I don't hollow grind, and they're thick enough so that there's a big surface area -- which means sharpening is slower, but I don't have to worry about dubbing over the edge

3) moulding planes are somewhat more delicate than bench planes, it seems to me. So for these, maybe a thinner iron is best, since a thicker iron means a larger opening for the throat. For bench planes, it seems to me that you could go thicker -- 1/4" seems like a nice round number -- without compromising the structural integrity of the plane. Also , isn't a thicker blade easier to sharpen freehand?

Bill, and all those interested:
Here is a chart which has useful information. You will see that A2 is a high carbon steel like O1. I am not pushing any steel over another- I have already stated what I think are the critical factors affecting us as woodworkers. The interesting things to note and compare are the relative carbon amounts (read ability to harden), the wear resistance (read edge holding ability) and the grain size (read ability to get very sharp).
I am also aware that all these charts, stats, figures, comparisons etc are fine enough , but the real thing is about what happens in practice: for example it is no use believing that if for example you have a certain blade made from A2 or even 154CM to go to extremes, it will perform better than say an O1 blade-it will not if heat treatment is not properly done. The charts do demonstrate the proven characteristics required to obtain the qualities wanted.

[David Colafranceschi]

I do not know all the specifics about the mechanics of building a plane even though I studied four years of physics and math. I do know this, I own one LN low angle plane and never was a big fan of it. If BU was such a good idea then why wasn't it more popular 150 years ago when poeple were using them all day long for their work. Fact of the matter is that they didn't and it never became popular.

I have two Sauer and Steiner infill planes. The last project I completed I experienced some nasty grain-really nasty stuff. Closed the mouth in my hign angle plane-didn't work. Tried my low angle at several different degrees-didn't work. Used my infill and it has a high carbon steel blade in it-nothing special, no A2 or O2. No tear out whatsoever, with the grain,against the grain, uphill, downhill it didn't make a difference. Perfect finish and no fuss about what angle to grind the blade at. My final conclusion is when I need the final passes over a piece of lumber with a plane I grab my infill with it's high carbon blade and forget about grain direction and finish the job.

After all this money spent my recommendation would be to scrap all the BU stuff with all these extra blades and buy one really good infill wether it be Holtey, Wayne Anderson or Konrad Sauer's like mine and forget about all the other stuff and woodwork. Nothing better than woodworking and not even thinking about what is in your hands.

My two cents....or in this market about 1.2 cents.

[Bill Moser]

Bill, and all those interested:
Here is a chart which has useful information. You will see that A2 is a high carbon steel like O1. I am not pushing any steel over another- I have already stated what I think are the critical factors affecting us as woodworkers. The interesting things to note and compare are the relative carbon amounts (read ability to harden), the wear resistance (read edge holding ability) and the grain size (read ability to get very sharp).
I am also aware that all these charts, stats, figures, comparisons etc are fine enough , but the real thing is about what happens in practice: for example it is no use believing that if for example you have a certain blade made from A2 or even 154CM to go to extremes, it will perform better than say an O1 blade-it will not if heat treatment is not properly done. The charts do demonstrate the proven characteristics required to obtain the qualities wanted.

Philip - I'm very far from being an expert on tool steel, just going with the informal designations that folks like ron hock make on their websites. I don't find A2 to be more difficult to sharpen than so-called high-carbon steels (o1, w1?), or much better wearing either (despite the figures on the chart you've shown). It makes me curious as to what all the fuss is about.

[Larry Williams]

I have two Sauer and Steiner infill planes. The last project I completed I experienced some nasty grain-really nasty stuff. Closed the mouth in my hign angle plane-didn't work. Tried my low angle at several different degrees-didn't work. Used my infill and it has a high carbon steel blade in it-nothing special, no A2 or O2.

Konrad uses O-1 steel irons made by Ron Hock in his planes. He just calls it high carbon steel, which it is.

One thing Philip did get right is that heat treating is critical. I'm not real sure of what he's talking about when he mentions aviation grade heat treating. Maybe there's some standard out there I'm not aware of. The more exotic and highly alloyed steels like A-2 and D-2 are more difficult to heat treat. Putting a plane iron in a batch with other steel items doesn't get it. The heat treating schedules of these steels are thickness and volume specific, especially if you need a fine grain. Preheat and heat treating soak times and temperatures are critical as is the velocity, volume and temperature of the air quench. You don't just fire up a furnace and heat treat a single iron of this stuff, you run batches. Everything in a batch needs to be of similar thickness and size.

An important thing Philip's chart doesn't explain is wear resistance. When they talk about wear resistance they're talking about abrasion resistance. Sharpening is also accomplished through abrasion. The more wear resistant a steel is the more resistant to sharpening it is. I don't know what to say about Bill not being able to tell the difference between A-2 and O-1. I can most certainly tell the difference, especially when it comes to flattening a relatively large tool like the back of a bench plane iron.

D-2 is also resistant to machining in its soft state. It's a difficult to work and is classified as a non free machining steel. Its use comes with trade-offs and it's often shaped by abrasives rather than cutting tools. Other than for possibly making file making chisels, I have no use for the stuff regardless of who claims what. I've messed around with it in both its soft and hardened states.

[James Mittlefehldt]

I do not know all the specifics about the mechanics of building a plane even though I studied four years of physics and math. I do know this, I own one LN low angle plane and never was a big fan of it. If BU was such a good idea then why wasn't it more popular 150 years ago when poeple were using them all day long for their work. Fact of the matter is that they didn't and it never became popular.

After all this money spent my recommendation would be to scrap all the BU stuff with all these extra blades and buy one really good infill wether it be Holtey, Wayne Anderson or Konrad Sauer's like mine and forget about all the other stuff and woodwork. Nothing better than woodworking and not even thinking about what is in your hands.

My two cents....or in this market about 1.2 cents.

Robin Lee addressed that issue in another forum, saying that the planes in days of yore were made from old style, ie grey cast iron, which was quite brittle, try dropping one on a cement floor and see what happens. The new planes are made from ductile iron and unlike the old version do not chip out at the mouth, from the planing stress. His point being like you said, without ductile cast iron they were too brittle. That is the difference, and why they are now practical, when they were not before.

I love Konrad's planes but there is no way I can pay the price they demand, and the bevel up even with all the blades would be a lot less.

[John Sanford]

Aviation Grade refers to the quality control levels and, to a lesser extent, the tolerances permitted.

At the very top end of the Q/C scale is "Nuclear grade." Nuclear grade components have a paper trail on the raw materials all the way back to the work shift and location WITHIN the mine from which they were quarried. Every, and I do mean EVERY component in the reactor and its immediate support system (i.e. coolant system, control system) is tested. If a component fails, once the point of failure is identified, every one of its brethren from that stage of production is re-inspected/tested, and quite possibly replaced "just because."

For aviation grade, the q/c levels would be along the lines of 1 in 2 to 1 in 10, depending on the components. Paper trail isn't quite as extensive, but all batching is still tracked from production forward. So for a batch of irons heat treated to aviation grade, its likely that 1 in 10 of the irons would then be tested to verify the outcome.

Standard decent quality commercial q/c would have testing rates of 1 in 100 to 1 in a 1,000, or even higher, depending on the nature of the product and processes involved.

Now, one thing that is significant is to distinguish betwenn a product that is produced in a facility that "does X grade work", and a product that IS "X Grade" itself. Simply producing something in a facility capable of working at X level doesn't guarantee that the product is X level, its likely that you'll have to pay for the X level work. Otherwise you get "standard" level work, albeit likely carried out by folks who's normal mode of doing business means you'll probably get "standard +" results.

[Will Blick]

Phillip, what book is that from?
Thanks

[Shannon Vincent]

Aviation Grade refers to the quality control levels and, to a lesser extent, the tolerances permitted.


For aviation grade, the q/c levels would be along the lines of 1 in 2 to 1 in 10, depending on the components. Paper trail isn't quite as extensive, but all batching is still tracked from production forward. So for a batch of irons heat treated to aviation grade, its likely that 1 in 10 of the irons would then be tested to verify the outcome.

.

Actually,any and every single part made for aviation use, thats been heat treated, has a conductivity test performed and rockwell hardness ck'd to verify proper heat treat.Also the material used is documented down to the purchase order number.All this is then bought off by QC before the part can be used on the aircraft.Certain critical parts go through even deeper non-destructive testing to ensure no internal cracks were incurred during the process.Improper heat treating is the leading cause of intergranular corrosion within aluminum in particular.(Stepped into my area of expertise,so i thought I would lend out some needless info!)I know, who cares!

[philip marcou]

Phillip, what book is that from?
Thanks

The book is called "Step by Step Knifemaking" by David Boye . First printed 1977 and he is still going strong today. ISBN O 87857-180-9.
He summarised that data from another reference: "Tool steels" by GA Roberts, JC Hamaker and AR Johnson first published in 1962 by the American Society for Metals.
I have found the book very useful and practical because it is written by hands on guys-knifemakers.

[philip marcou]

Actually,any and every single part made for aviation use, thats been heat treated, has a conductivity test performed and rockwell hardness ck'd to verify proper heat treat.Also the material used is documented down to the purchase order number.All this is then bought off by QC before the part can be used on the aircraft.Certain critical parts go through even deeper non-destructive testing to ensure no internal cracks were incurred during the process.Improper heat treating is the leading cause of intergranular corrosion within aluminum in particular.(Stepped into my area of expertise,so i thought I would lend out some needless info!)I know, who cares!

Thanks Shannon and John, for further explanation.
You can see that I go to great lengths to ensure that my planes will not just fall out of the sky.
Actually I am just satisfied by the q/c certificate which accompanies any blades they do for me. The company did ask where the D2 came from and were happy enough when I told them "Bohler Steel, Austria" -seems that in past years there were problems with D2 made in "other places".

[John Sanford]

Actually,any and every single part made for aviation use, thats been heat treated, has a conductivity test performed and rockwell hardness ck'd to verify proper heat treat.Also the material used is documented down to the purchase order number.All this is then bought off by QC before the part can be used on the aircraft.Certain critical parts go through even deeper non-destructive testing to ensure no internal cracks were incurred during the process.Improper heat treating is the leading cause of intergranular corrosion within aluminum in particular.(Stepped into my area of expertise,so i thought I would lend out some needless info!)I know, who cares!

Shannon, thanks for the clarification, and the not needless info. My info on the aviation side came from a Navy nuke electrician who later worked in the shipyard building nuke ships, so his take on the aviation standards may have been insufficiently informed (and biased, black gang vs. zoomies and all that).

[Shannon Vincent]

Thanks Shannon and John, for further explanation.
You can see that I go to great lengths to ensure that my planes will not just fall out of the sky.
.

No problem.Just keep me in mind if you need one of YOUR "planes" inspected and maintained.I would be MORE than happy to have one or two...or twelve in my "hangar" to maintain upkeep from time to time.