Would a LV LA Jointer be a substantial advantage?

[Greg Becker]

I just had my contract to work on hospitals in Afghanistan renewed for the next year and a half! I love the work there and I love the fact that it's a 2 months US and 1 month Kabul schedule so I get to spend lots of time woodworking between trips. Feeling financially secure now, my love of fine tools starts calling me towards new acquisitions. (yesterday I ordered a LV LA block plane and LA Spokeshave)

My present project is a dining room table made out of 8/4 cherry that I am hand planing thanks to advice and guidance from this forum. I have a #6 Woodriver Foreplane that I have tuned and sharpened to cut gossamer thin shavings and was planning to use this one to joint the boards for edge gluing and to do the pre-smoothing surface planing. I have drilled and tapped a jointing fence to fit this plane so it should be pretty reliable to joint and bevel the table.

My question is: Would a Veritas Low Angle Jointer give me an advantage over the #6 that is worth the money? If I had known before what I know now I would have bought the Jointer instead of the #6, but did not know what I did not know about planing when I bought it.

Would the extra 4 inches of length make a difference??? (in the plane that is!) Would I get better results from the low angle bevel up? (my next project is a new kitchen out of curly cherry)

Thanks

[Don Dorn]

I'm definately going to be paying attention to this thread - I'm at a point that I contemplating that very thing and also have a 6. I have a LV low angle smoother and it produces results even with (or even a little better) than my LN smoother. If the LA Jointer is the same quality which I'm sure it is, I'm postive I'd love it.

[William M Johnson]

Yes there difinitly is a huge advantage to the jointer. It is the only tool that can do the job properly. It would be idiotic to even attempt to use a plane other than a jointer to joint the edge of a board. Further it would be embarassing to you as a woodworker to be caught using the wrong tool.

Do like I did. I recited this 10 times then placed my order for the LN LA jointer.

While you are in Kabul look up Chris Humphries (txag802003@yahoo.com), he is a civilian dirt contractor from Texas. Be prepared to spend some serious time laughing.

[Jim Koepke]

It is not just the extra 4 inches.

For the longest time it seemed my #7 was all that was needed for jointing boards. Then while out and about and a little flush with cash, someone who wanted my cash made me a deal on a #8 that just could not be refused.

That is just 2 inches difference and a quarter inch wider at the blade.

It makes a big difference.

A lot of it is the difference in the mass. There is also the length effect over the hills and valleys.

My experience is mostly with Stanley/Bailey planes. My only Low Angle bench plane is a Lie-Nielsen Bevel up Jack.

jim

[Derek Cohen]

I just had my contract to work on hospitals in Afghanistan renewed for the next year and a half! I love the work there and I love the fact that it's a 2 months US and 1 month Kabul schedule so I get to spend lots of time woodworking between trips. Feeling financially secure now, my love of fine tools starts calling me towards new acquisitions. (yesterday I ordered a LV LA block plane and LA Spokeshave)

My present project is a dining room table made out of 8/4 cherry that I am hand planing thanks to advice and guidance from this forum. I have a #6 Woodriver Foreplane that I have tuned and sharpened to cut gossamer thin shavings and was planning to use this one to joint the boards for edge gluing and to do the pre-smoothing surface planing. I have drilled and tapped a jointing fence to fit this plane so it should be pretty reliable to joint and bevel the table.

My question is: Would a Veritas Low Angle Jointer give me an advantage over the #6 that is worth the money? If I had known before what I know now I would have bought the Jointer instead of the #6, but did not know what I did not know about planing when I bought it.

Would the extra 4 inches of length make a difference??? (in the plane that is!) Would I get better results from the low angle bevel up? (my next project is a new kitchen out of curly cherry)

Thanks

Hi Greg

You are missing the opportunity to use your #6 as it was designed. It is not intended to take fine shavings. It is intended to be used with a moderately radiused blade to flatten rough boards. It should take thick shavings. In another life it would have been referred to as a "fore plane".

Yes the BU Jointer is a terrific plane. The extra length is significant, and in fact the length is effectively longer than its 22" as the mouth lies further back than on the original #7. In fact it replicated a #8 in this way. The extra length certainly offers more registration, which increases the likelihood of a flat surface being produced.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/The%20Veritas%20Lee%20Valley%20Bevel%20Up%20Jointe r.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Zach England]

The nice thing about this plane is that the blades are interchangeable with the other low-angle planes. I especially like the jack.

[Greg Becker]

Hi Greg

You are missing the opportunity to use your #6 as it was designed. It is not intended to take fine shavings. It is intended to be used with a moderately radiused blade to flatten rough boards. It should take thick shavings. In another life it would have been referred to as a "fore plane".

Derek

I put a moderate radius on a #5 Stanley and used it like a scrub (with a little less gouging than I understand a real scrub to leave) and then followed this with the #6 set to intermediate thickness to level the rough cut boards. This took me from rough to very flat (testing with a 72" straight edge and with 36" wide winding sticks) in a fairly intense 2 step process.

Would the LA Jointer be used after this or as an alternative step (eliminating the #6 or using the #6 with a heavier cut instead of the #5)?

Nice review of the "BUJ" - thanks for the link

[Greg Becker]

Yes there difinitly is a huge advantage to the jointer. It is the only tool that can do the job properly. It would be idiotic to even attempt to use a plane other than a jointer to joint the edge of a board. Further it would be embarassing to you as a woodworker to be caught using the wrong tool.

Do like I did. I recited this 10 times then placed my order for the LN LA jointer.
(txag802003@yahoo.com), he is a civilian dirt contractor from Texas. Be prepared to spend some serious time laughing.

I only had to repeat it 5 times after getting the feedback on this thread - I should know better than to think this forum would ever say "Don't" buy a tool.;)

I placed the order last night and this morning got shipping confirmation from LV.

[Owen E Wheeler]

The thing that attracted me to the LV bevel up jointer, jack & smoother is that the blades are all the same. I own all three, and have a collection of blades in different angles & radiused or flat grind that can be popped into the plane I need. While the total money spent was significant, the "system" value is what attracted me. It doesn't hurt that they are very nice planes by any yardstick.

[Don Dorn]

I have said before that if I had to do it again, I'd buy the full set of BU planes for the very reason you describe. I do love my LN 10 1/4 but that is one that can't be duplicated by the BU models. It may be allot of money, but less than I have involved now.

[Greg Becker]

The thing that attracted me to the LV bevel up jointer, jack & smoother is that the blades are all the same. I own all three, and have a collection of blades in different angles & radiused or flat grind that can be popped into the plane I need. While the total money spent was significant, the "system" value is what attracted me. It doesn't hurt that they are very nice planes by any yardstick.

I already have the LA smoother with 38 and 50 degree blades so the 25 that comes with the LA Jointer will make is a complete set. (other than the toothed blade which I hope to do without)

Does anyone know a good online description of how to "camber" a BU iron? I would imagine that this would be most easily done by removing a little from the back side on the two corners but would like some clear directions.

[michael osadchuk]

I already have the LA smoother with 38 and 50 degree blades so the 25 that comes with the LA Jointer will make is a complete set. (other than the toothed blade which I hope to do without)

Does anyone know a good online description of how to "camber" a BU iron? I would imagine that this would be most easily done by removing a little from the back side on the two corners but would like some clear directions.

Derek Cohen has done this; the third item on his sharpening page.....


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/index.html


Derek's website has lots of good stuff, particularly regarding LV planes.

good luck

michael

[Sam Takeuchi]

If you have LA smoother, it's not compatible with LA jack or bevel-up jointer. Terminology may be confusing, but that's how it is. It's grouped like this: BU jointer, LA jack, BU smoother. LA smoother is not a part of this group of planes.

[Greg Becker]

If you have LA smoother, it's not compatible with LA jack or bevel-up jointer. Terminology may be confusing, but that's how it is. It's grouped like this: BU jointer, LA jack, BU smoother. LA smoother is not a part of this group of planes.

I did not realize that they have a different LA smoother and BU smoother. I have the BU smoother so the blades are the same. Thanks for the clarification.

[Greg Becker]

Derek Cohen has done this; the third item on his sharpening page.....


http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/index.html


Derek's website has lots of good stuff, particularly regarding LV planes.

good luck

michael

Thanks for the link. I read the article and find it very well done -- but, it seems to be starting from a point of inappropriate logic. If one thinks about a BU blade in the same paradigm as a BD iron then Derek's approach is impeccable. I believe however that if you rethink the problem from outside the BD perspective then a much simpler method is possible.

The primary reason a camber is desired (at least in the case of a smoother and jointer) is so that the corner of the blade does not gouge the work surface and leave a track. The camber achieves this by raising the corner of the bevel from the contact surface.

In the case of a BU blade, the contact surface is the back of the blade and not the bevel. Raising the back of the blade away from the wood surface following following Derek's method involves the removal of considerable metal and being restricted to a 25 degree primary bevel because it is being approached from the bevel side.

If however the blade is thought of as having the back of the blade as the primary contact surface then the most efficient way to raise the corner off the wood surface would be to file or grind a slight curve on the back surface of the blade at both corners.

What do people think? Derek? Folks at Lee Valley? Is there a reason this would not work (for example, is there another/different benefit of a camber?) I hope that this explanation is clear. If it isn't, I'll try to come up with a drawing or photo.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Greg

It is always good to hear someone thinking outside the box. You should try this out and report back.

The issue is not just design but also efficiency.

In the case of cambering the back of the blade (instead of the bevel), this was a consideration when I was exploring the options. However there is an issue with this approach, this being that you are introducing a backbevel. A backbevel on a BU blade will lower the clearance angle. If the clearance angle drops too far, then the blade will not cut. Now in theory this is what you want at the corners of the blade, so so-far-so-good. That is, in theory it should work. However how do you control the amount of metal to come off? Since it is better to have a continuous arc for the cutting edge (I am not a fan of just knocking off corners of blades since any sudden changes of angle can still show up as a track), a cambered backbevel will need to fade into the back proper. This is not so easy in practice.

The other issue with a backbevel on a BU blade - for my sharpening preference I must add - is that I want to strop the back of the blade between honings (to extend the life of the edge, not as part of the sharpening method, per se). A microbevel gets in the way. I prefer to keep the back of the blade flat.

With a 25 degree primary bevel, adding a cambered secondary bevel to a BU plane blade is no different to that of a BD plane blade, and really not much work. It is certainlky less work that having to shape both sides of the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Tony Shea]

The other issue with a backbevel on a BU blade - for my sharpening preference I must add - is that I want to strop the back of the blade between honings (to extend the life of the edge, not as part of the sharpening method, per se). A microbevel gets in the way. I prefer to keep the back of the blade flat.


I am in agreement with your statement about the microbevel getting in the way of stropping the back of the blade. I have once in a while used the ruler trick on a couple of older plane irons that I was having issues with getting the backs flat. Ever since adding this slight microbevel I continue to run into difficulties with sharpening these blades. Honing the backs is no longer an easy task. I also typically stay away from any microbevels as well as I freehand most my blades and keeping a consistant microbevel is not an easy task, almost always end up with a rounded bevel.

[Orlando Gonzalez]

Hi Derek,

I have the LAJ and BUS with the 25, 38, 50 degree blades. After reading this thread and your write up on cambering up BU blades, I am getting some additional 25* blades for my planes. I do have a couple of questions on setting up the MKII.

You describe how to make a 50* secondary camber on the BUS & BUJ and I noticed that you have the jig in the #1 postion for High Angles (which I'm not sure what LV means by this). The blade projects out further than the setting for 50* on the registration jig. I inserted my 25* LV blade and it looks like the registration has to be set at the 25* high angle setting to get that much blade projection.

Can you provide, here or on your site, what the registration angle settings should be for each angle (e.g., 45*, 50*, 62*) and in what postion the jig should be set at. This would be of great help.

Is the belt sander the only option to get a flat grind camber for the LAJ?

Thanks

Orlando

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Orlando

Since that article was written I use a hollow grind for all primary bevels, BU and BD blades alike. This does not mean that the belt sander is less useful - I might still use it for grinding away a lot of steel as it does this job with less heat that a dry grinder.

It is very likely (I have not compared this specifically) that a hollow ground 25 degree primary bevel is going to be even easier to camber than a flat 25 degree primary bevel.

The picture of the LV honing guide was just to illustrate the finger positions when cambering. The settings are, in fact, for a BD blade, which is why there is so much blade projecting from the guide. I must change the picture or leave an explanation.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Orlando Gonzalez]

Thanks Derek. If I understand you correctly I just place the 25* blade in the honing jig and set the registration jig on 50* which will then give me a 50* secondary bevel as I hone it as you describe.

[Derek Cohen]

Thanks Derek. If I understand you correctly I just place the 25* blade in the honing jig and set the registration jig on 50* which will then give me a 50* secondary bevel as I hone it as you describe.

Exactly.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Greg Becker]

Hi Greg

It is always good to hear someone thinking outside the box. You should try this out and report back.

The issue is not just design but also efficiency.

In the case of cambering the back of the blade (instead of the bevel), this was a consideration when I was exploring the options. However there is an issue with this approach, this being that you are introducing a backbevel. A backbevel on a BU blade will lower the clearance angle. If the clearance angle drops too far, then the blade will not cut. Now in theory this is what you want at the corners of the blade, so so-far-so-good. That is, in theory it should work. However how do you control the amount of metal to come off? Since it is better to have a continuous arc for the cutting edge (I am not a fan of just knocking off corners of blades since any sudden changes of angle can still show up as a track), a cambered backbevel will need to fade into the back proper. This is not so easy in practice.

The other issue with a backbevel on a BU blade - for my sharpening preference I must add - is that I want to strop the back of the blade between honings (to extend the life of the edge, not as part of the sharpening method, per se). A microbevel gets in the way. I prefer to keep the back of the blade flat.

With a 25 degree primary bevel, adding a cambered secondary bevel to a BU plane blade is no different to that of a BD plane blade, and really not much work. It is certainlky less work that having to shape both sides of the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Thanks for your reply and thanks for discussing this -- our shared goal is greater efficiency and effectiveness.

I will give this a try when the jointer gets here. I may also try it on the BU smoother although I do not have any problem with tracks (for now -- new wood can mean new interactions!)

I am getting ready to head back to Kabul in a couple weeks so don't know if I'll have time to try this out and to photo it before I go, but I do not think that what I am suggesting would interfere with stropping the back (I polish bevel and back with 8000 and then a very light stropping as a rule).

I'm really suggesting "radiusing"the corners only for about 4mm. (sorry if this is the wrong term -- engineering not one of my primary languages!)
I think I can easily achieve this by hand rounding the corners on a 250 grit stone. After the initial shaping the curve could be maintained by rolling the edges a couple of strokes before honing the back.

This would not result in a "back bevel" as only the corner profile would change and the majority of the back would still be honed flat.