Frustrated with low angle plane

[Osvaldo Cristo]

Although I am an amateur woodworker for 30 years, just recently I turned attention from electric tools to hand tools working. After lots of researches I decided for a Jack plane from Lie Nielsen as my second serious plane after LN block plane. It looked the best plane for more difficults situations and much more simple to set up and to use for a newcomer...

I started with Jacaranda, or Brazilian Rosewood, with acceptable results. It is a (very) hard wood common for furniture making in Brazil. Afterwards I went to white pine to make a TV table for my son and I got also good results except for one piece where I got tear out for its difficult fiber direction (changed constantly).

Today I decided to make a small book case to use over my daughter's working table. I went to a piece of Mahogany I purchased 25 years ago - it is one of the favorites wood for fine woodworking here in Brazil. I milled it with no problems and my Makita box planer made a very good job but one edge was with some saw marking after to rip them to the size... great opportunity to use my Jack plane, I thought. But for my deception, all I got was a lot of tear out. Yes, I observed the fiber directions but as you probably know, it is common for Mahogany to have portions with a messing fiber direction and I really expected a low angle plane could cope with that better. It couldn't. Interestingly my electric tools look to work better with a such woods (box planer, saw, router and, of course, my salvation, sander).

I studied a lot on the use of hand planes, reading and watching videos, but obviously it was not enough to avoid a such disaster. I need more practice but I would appreciate if you can share your experience in order to speed up my learn process.

Thank you in advance for any feedback.

[Jim Koepke]

My opinion, and it may be nothing more than my opinion, is a bevel up blade is more prone to lifting wood ahead of the blade's edge. A tight mouth is supposed to help in such cases, but in my experience this will be better handled by using a chip breaker set close on a very sharp blade.

Maybe another way to look at this is the low angle bevel up blade is employing a slicing action where the bevel down blade is a shearing action.

jtk

[Prashun Patel]

I find mahogany relatively easy to plane with any kind of plane provided the train does not switch direction often as it can. Is your grain direction switching? I am however unsure the quality you have. I know here in the US many things are called mahogany.

I suspect your wood not your plane.

[William Fretwell]

Lots of us are frustrated with low angle planes. Mine are barely used. Good for a shooting board.
Some woods are fine but others need a higher angle, some a very high angle.
If you are new to hand tools it is very unfortunate to start with a low angle plane, change to a regular plane.

[Kurt Cady]

How sharp is it? Can it slice unsupported paper like you might see chef do in a YouTube video? Is the mouth closed tight or wide open? How deep is the cut?

[James Pallas]

Osvaldo, I use BU planes almost exclusively now. And before I go any further, Yes I know how to use the chip breaker on a BD plane. There is a learning curve to BU planes. The most important is the angle of the edge you are presenting to the wood. I have 12 blades for my BU jack, jointer, and smoother. They range from 25* (presents about 37* to the wood), to 50* (presents about 62* to the wood). That I believe is key to success. I have not run into any wood that I can not plane with success. I’m not saying that there is not some wood that I can’t plane, just haven’t run into it yet. I still own BD planes but I don’t use them anymore. Not because they don’t work but they are more difficult for me to use because of back problems. I think Derek Cohen has some good posts about bevel angles for BU planes along with others on the forum.
Jim

[Tony Shea]

Mahogany can absolutely be frustrating to plane, it has some ribbon stripe figure with alternating sections that causes you to plane in the wrong direction no matter what you do. I am using some now that has that exact problem but fortunately I have the tools to deal with it.

The first thing you need to be sure of is you blades are shaving sharp. That is critical to get good results, especially in difficult woods. I find Mahogany dulls my blades relatively quickly due to all the silica in the wood. Sharpen often.

I assume you know what sharp is due to your research so I think you have another issue that you're not thinking about. It is my opinion that your blades attack angle is probably too shallow for this difficult ribbon stripe wood. A bevel up plane out of the box actually planes wood at a lower angle than a bevel down plane. Typically these bevel up planes have a bed angle of around 12deg. The Lie Nielsen blades usually come with a primary bevel of 25deg which I usually sharpen at 30deg. If you sharpen at the original 25deg then you end up with a total of 37deg planing angle. If you sharpen at 30deg then you end up with a planing angle of 42deg. A standard bevel down plane typically has a frog angle of 45deg and the angle you sharpen at doesn't change the planing angle.

This is a simplified explanation of this theory but you ultimately need to increase your planing angle to deal with this tear-out. I recommend starting with 50deg and working up from there. The higher this angle is the more difficult it is to push the plane and the less shiny your surface will end up. This means you need to put a micro-bevel of 38deg to get 50 deg.

I have linked to good article on the subject below. There is a lot of information of taming tearout with a bevel-up (low angle) hand plane.
https://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/taming_handplane_tear-out/

The other option is use a standard Baily style bevel down plane and use the chipbreaker to tame that tearout. There is a bunch of information out there about this method as well and I promise you that it works great. The key is getting that chipbreaker set close enough to the edge to make this work. But I assume you don't have one of these planes but you can certainly get good results with the plane you already have. Hope this helps!

[Doug Dawson]

Although I am an amateur woodworker for 30 years, just recently I turned attention from electric tools to hand tools working. After lots of researches I decided for a Jack plane from Lie Nielsen as my second serious plane after LN block plane. It looked the best plane for more difficults situations and much more simple to set up and to use for a newcomer...

I started with Jacaranda, or Brazilian Rosewood, with acceptable results. It is a (very) hard wood common for furniture making in Brazil. Afterwards I went to white pine to make a TV table for my son and I got also good results except for one piece where I got tear out for its difficult fiber direction (changed constantly).

Today I decided to make a small book case to use over my daughter's working table. I went to a piece of Mahogany I purchased 25 years ago - it is one of the favorites wood for fine woodworking here in Brazil. I milled it with no problems and my Makita box planer made a very good job but one edge was with some saw marking after to rip them to the size... great opportunity to use my Jack plane, I thought. But for my deception, all I got was a lot of tear out. Yes, I observed the fiber directions but as you probably know, it is common for Mahogany to have portions with a messing fiber direction and I really expected a low angle plane could cope with that better. It couldn't. Interestingly my electric tools look to work better with a such woods (box planer, saw, router and, of course, my salvation, sander).

I studied a lot on the use of hand planes, reading and watching videos, but obviously it was not enough to avoid a such disaster. I need more practice but I would appreciate if you can share your experience in order to speed up my learn process.

Thank you in advance for any feedback.

I have the LN low angle jack, and the advantage of it is that it is a very well-made tool, capable of very precise adjustments. You could say that it's _too_ good, I prefer a plane of that length with some slight sole concavity (maybe a thou or so.) It can produce a good result, provided that the mouth is very tight, _almost_ to the point of clogging but not beyond. And, that the plane is used at a significant angle to the direction of travel. The blade is excellent.

I don't use it much, my vintage Stanleys seem to be more than sufficient.

[glenn bradley]

I am a bevel-up fan in that I use both and favor neither on general principles :D. Like Jim, I do find that for any tricky figure I swap my Jack's iron for a 50 degree or use another plane. I read where a few folks have left their LA Jack behind after buying other planes. I have other planes but the Veritas LA Jack is still a go-to for me. This may be due to my having three irons early on and just getting used to the expected result from each. Don't blame the BU or the plane itself; for such work I prefer a plane with a chip breaker.

[Frederick Skelly]

Oswaldo, I feel your pain. I have an end table right next to me made of mahogany. It was one of the first projects that I hand planed. The top still has the ugly tear out. For me, I take light passes (pretty thin shavings) and try to follow the grain direction. But mahogany can still be difficult for me to plane, several years later.

Fred

[Derek Cohen]

These days I use BD double iron bench planes more than high angle BU bench planes. However, the latter do get used and I retain a huge respect for their ability.

It is horses for courses. The huge advantage of BU planes is that they can be set up so easily, which is why beginners love them. With a high cutting angle (50 degree bevel for a 62 degree included angle), there is little they cannot smooth. Those that become disenchanted with BU planes do so most commonly because (1) the cutting angle is set too low for the wood, (2) they are frustrated with the difficulty in creating a camber on the blade, and/or (3) they tend to be forced into thin shavings for most tasks. BU planes excel for the extremes of cutting angles: low (37 degrees) for end grain, and high (62 degrees) for face or edge grain. The middle ground is not special.

There are woods that will challenge all planes, such as Mahogany. This tends to have alternating strips of grain that run against one another, so at some point you are always planing into the grain. It is similar to planing the intersection of a book-matched panel. This is where a BD double iron planes wins out every time.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Julian Behrisch Elce]

Another technique is to plane across the grain to level and then sand smooth. You still need to be as sharp and fine as possible, with a camber to the edge. Surprisingly little sanding is needed.

[Doug Dawson]

There is also the dampening effect of having a chip breaker "spring loaded" against the cutting edge of a bevel down plane iron, which is an advantage not to be underestimated.

[Derek Cohen]

Will you explain that Doug?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[JimA Thornton]

Osvaldo, I use BU planes almost exclusively now. And before I go any further, Yes I know how to use the chip breaker on a BD plane. There is a learning curve to BU planes. The most important is the angle of the edge you are presenting to the wood. I have 12 blades for my BU jack, jointer, and smoother. They range from 25* (presents about 37* to the wood), to 50* (presents about 62* to the wood). That I believe is key to success. I have not run into any wood that I can not plane with success. I’m not saying that there is not some wood that I can’t plane, just haven’t run into it yet. I still own BD planes but I don’t use them anymore. Not because they don’t work but they are more difficult for me to use because of back problems. I think Derek Cohen has some good posts about bevel angles for BU planes along with others on the forum.
Jim

Well said Jim. I have the Veritas BU Smoother. It came with a 38 degree blade (giving me a 50 degree total to the wood). Works great most of the time. However, I'm building a new workbench out of European Beech and was having trouble with tearout. I put a 50* micro bevel on the blade (62* to the wood) and that seems to have solved the problem. It still pushes fairly easy. I also bought a Veritas Cabinet Scraper which works quite well also. You would have to go and mention the BU Jack and Jointer........I can see those in my future. Is there no end to this! LOL

Disclaimer: I'm a lifelong machine woodworker and a new hand tool convert.

Another Jim

[Scott Winners]

Osvaldo, I too am in the group who think you have your plane set up correctly and are up against challenging grain.

You can try making your iron/ blade/ edge even sharper than it is. You can twist the plane a little with respect to the direction of cut, so the direction you slide the plane is maybe 45 degrees to the right or left of the direction the plane is pointed.

Derek has probably forgotten more about woodworking than I have learned in the last 40 years as a dabbler.

As a clumsy n00b (me) I can sometimes make clean cuts with a bevel down plane that I can't do with a bevel up plane. For that to work for me I have the cap iron on the blade as close down to the edge as I can get it, with the mouth of the plane closed up tight.

Can you close up the mouth of your plane so the wood ahead of the edge is supported by the plane body pressing down on it until the last possible moment when it is sheared by the edge arriving? If I recall correctly the LN low angle jack has an adjustable mouth.

Since you did fine on Rosewood I think it is the grain in the mahogany. Maybe a cabinet scraper? Or a rasp, then a file, then a cabinet scraper?

[Jim Koepke]

There is also the dampening effect of having a chip breaker "spring loaded" against the cutting edge of a bevel down plane iron, which is an advantage not to be underestimated.


Will you explain that Doug?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Not being Doug, this is my understanding of the effect Leonard Bailey explained in his patent to allow the use of thinner blades. The pressure of the chip breaker against the iron was to reduce the effects of metal distortion and lessen chatter.

jtk

[Rob Luter]

One of my first "good" planes was a Veritas Low Angle Jack. The 25* iron certainly does promote tearout on face grain. When I purchased it I also got the other two available irons at 38* and 50* These yield an effective cutting angle of 50* and 62* respectively. I've found these higher cutting angles to be very effective in eliminating tearout, especially when making light cuts. They are a bit harder to push but the results are worth the effort.

[don wilwol]

My opinion, and it may be nothing more than my opinion, is a bevel up blade is more prone to lifting wood ahead of the blade's edge. A tight mouth is supposed to help in such cases, but in my experience this will be better handled by using a chip breaker set close on a very sharp blade.

Maybe another way to look at this is the low angle bevel up blade is employing a slicing action where the bevel down blade is a shearing action.

jtk

I'd repeat this

[William Fretwell]

A plane requiring 3 blades at different angles, all to be sharpened is not so begginer friendly. I have a BU jack and jointer from the same maker, both set up the same, on some woods the jack simply would not work but the jointer was acceptable. Things like that just add to the frustration.

All planes are fussy to set up: Part of the appeal of BU planes is eliminating the chip breaker and it’s set up. My old Bailey jack plane chip breaker is no marvel of engineering and required much fine tuning. My new Clifton planes with the one peice chip breaker are an engineering marvel, tweak the breaker at your peril! Until you muck one up you don’t appreciate the precision it’s made with. When you have had to fine tune tools your whole life fiddling becomes a habit! Apart from the front knob brass screw needing it’s dome lowered a bit (they may have fixed that), there is nothing to do but sharpen the blade. Yes they work; so my BU planes rest.

[Derek Cohen]

Not being Doug, this is my understanding of the effect Leonard Bailey explained in his patent to allow the use of thinner blades. The pressure of the chip breaker against the iron was to reduce the effects of metal distortion and lessen chatter.

jtk

Hi Jim

My argument is that "dampening" irrelevant. It may be needed for thin blades, such as the Stanley Bailey. However the thick LN and Veritas BU blades do not need dampening.

The performance from a Bailey plane does not come from the chipbreaker dampening the blade. That is a misunderstanding of the reason for the chipbreaker. The performance of a Bailey comes when the chipbreaker is set close to the edge of the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

A plane requiring 3 blades at different angles, all to be sharpened is not so begginer friendly. I have a BU jack and jointer from the same maker, both set up the same, on some woods the jack simply would not work but the jointer was acceptable. Things like that just add to the frustration.

All planes are fussy to set up: Part of the appeal of BU planes is eliminating the chip breaker and it’s set up. My old Bailey jack plane chip breaker is no marvel of engineering and required much fine tuning. My new Carlton planes with the one peice chip breaker are an engineering marvel, tweak the breaker at your peril! Until you muck one up you don’t appreciate the precision it’s made with. When you have had to fine tune tools your whole life fiddling becomes a habit! Apart from the front knob brass screw needing it’s dome lowered a bit (they may have fixed that), there is nothing to do but sharpen the blade. Yes they work; so my BU planes rest.

We shall have to disagree on BU planes, William. That they can use three blades reflects their flexibility. As it is, I rarely use more than one blade per BU plane. The BU Smoother is dedicated to smoothing and has a 50 degree blade. The LA Jack has a 25 degree blade for end grain. However it does borrow the 50 degree blade where indicated.

I find the BU planes requiring the least tuning of all ... to such an extent, that I would be prepared to put plane to work piece without a test cut.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[James Pallas]

I sometimes think that we get hung up on how tools work. Tools have the same name and same use but work differently.i look at BU and BD planes the same way as I look at CC saw and rip saw. They both saw and nowadays there are just handsaws. You can crosscut with a rip saw and with experience in where you start your cut can be successful. Somewhat the same for planes. Low angles work well on end grain higher angle not so good. You can trick a high angle plane by skewing it a little or taking really thin shavings. You can back bevel a bevel down plane to show the wood a steeper angle or use the chip breaker. You can steepen the bevel on a bevel up plane and approximate the same. Learning how and when to do these things is key. I learned back bevel long before chip breaker. Having several irons around helped a lot. Just my experiences, yours may be vastly different. That is why we have these discussions.
Jim

[Nicholas Lawrence]

People point to the chatter language in the patent application though. That is why we spent so many years calling them “cap irons” and people would call you ignorant if you called it a “chipbreaker.”

I think the chatter language in the patent was a scheme to get an unpatentable device past the patent examiner. You cannot patent something that is already commonly used in the industry.

The presence of chipbreakers on my wooden planes was a “light bulb” moment for me. I read the “chatter” versus “close set” arguments for years, looked at my bailey style planes, fooled around with them and could not decide who was right.
Then I bought a antique double iron wooden plane and started using it. Those irons are massive, no need for dampening, and are far too heavy to care about being “spring loaded.” Yet there they are, equipped with chipbreakers years before Bailey’s patent.

A patent was an important selling point in a competitive market. Admitting it was there to break chips would not be patentable, because that was not a new idea, so the patent application would be rejected. But calling it an anti-chatter device apparently got it past the examiner.


Hi Jim

My argument is that "dampening" irrelevant. It may be needed for thin blades, such as the Stanley Bailey. However the thick LN and Veritas BU blades do not need dampening.

The performance from a Bailey plane does not come from the chipbreaker dampening the blade. That is a misunderstanding of the reason for the chipbreaker. The performance of a Bailey comes when the chipbreaker is set close to the edge of the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[William Fretwell]

Actually Derek I don’t think I disagree that much! You clearly have had the benefit of a wider view of the BU than I. Mine were bought some years ago. I wish they had marketed them with 3 blades included at different angles to start. Marketing could be “three planes in one”. My memory says secondary blades were only suggested as possibly needed. If we all had three angles to start I’m sure a lot of people’s frustration would have been relieved! I did buy a second blade eventually but the damage was done.......

[Doug Dawson]

My argument is that "dampening" irrelevant. It may be needed for thin blades, such as the Stanley Bailey. However the thick LN and Veritas BU blades do not need dampening.

The performance from a Bailey plane does not come from the chipbreaker dampening the blade. That is a misunderstanding of the reason for the chipbreaker. The performance of a Bailey comes when the chipbreaker is set close to the edge of the blade.

One needs to take off one's spectacles and observe the scratches on the glass one is polishing. The thickness of the blade has only secondary influence on what is happening at the cutting edge, which is a very fine point. Physically, the cutting edge in action is a damped oscillator, with the driving force effectively being variations in the resistance of the wood being cut, at the semi-microscopic level. The spring-loading of the chipbreaker close to the cutting edge will indeed cause an increase in the damping (and mitigate chatter.) The BU plane has no such additional damping.

The guys who originally set this up were very smart, although their understanding _may_ have been more intuitive than technical. I am an actual physicist, and have studied this, long ago.

[Phil Mueller]

Osvaldo, I too was in your position. I had pretty much relegated my BU planes to end grain and very straight grained wood. Given this thread and others I have read, I decided to take the extra iron I had for my LN 62 and grind it to a 50 degree bevel and give it a try. Well, first, thank you to all who provided this input. And second, I think I just got another plane I can use for face work. I took a piece of mahogany and went after it. Yes, a bit harder to push, but got nothing but nice thin shavings and a tear out free board. Here’s after the first dozen passes or so.

401771

[Vincent Tai]

a 38° bevel is a good place to start. The BU planes I use for face work have that as standard (minus the BU smoother). this gives a 50° angle of attack and is rather nice. I can get away with 50° angle of attack on figured woods - most of the time. I have planed mahogany and other problematic woods that have grain hell bent on reversing everywhere; 50° did alright when breaking down the stock, and a BU smoother with a 60° angle of attack cleaned up fine.



Pictures; a BD plane with cap iron and a BU Jack shared the bulk of the workload and a BU jointer cleans up quickly and well enough I skip the smoother. Adding an Apple sticker to your plane increases the value by 35%. Also may reduce chance of tear-out. reduces weight by 50%. I think the results are decent enough. One can learn the balance the tear-out; a small bit from the thicker shavings taken by a jack is alright, just stop soon enough to where a few passes with thinner shavings from the jack followed by a few passes with a jointer erases all tear out. A few woodies would've done just a good a job, Western or otherwise. Sharp solves most things. Make sure you've gotten rid of the wear bevel.

401786


401785
401787

[Robert Hazelwood]

Tearout is a basic problem of hand planing. If you can't solve the issue by simply changing the planing direction, as is the case here, then you can deal with it in several ways:

-Increase sharpness
-Decrease depth of cut
-Increase angle of cutting edge (this is why your power planers don't tear out too badly most of the time)
-Reduce mouth aperture (close the adjustable toe plate as much as you can)

There is another method- the chipbreaker/cap iron, which is the most versatile, but your plane doesn't have one, so you will need to experiment with cutting angles and thin shavings. Try honing a 50 degree microbevel on the blade, get it as sharp as you can. Then set it to take the thinnest shaving you can manage. See what happens- tearout should be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

If you kept your microbevel small it should not be a big deal to return to your original bevel angle.

[Bill McDermott]

My BU Jack is a trusty and reliable go to plane. It gets used as if it were just a big block plane. I use if for trimming and adjusting where a longer reference is helpful. This often involves some end grain, or a change in direction; e.g. flushing protruding tails, fitting a drawer or flattening a face frame -- going around the corner and bridging the open space. I tend to use a very heavy shearing approach with that plane (and block planes). I am not using it to run with the grain on the face of a board. In any event, I don't expect it to give me the final finish. Happily, it usually does yield a great finish. When it does not, it is almost always time to sharpen. I need to grind to a burr and then hone on the BU jointer. None of the other planes demand that very often. Even BD my smoother works great with regular honing or even stropping alone. All that said, some wood just wants to tear...

[William Fretwell]

One needs to take off one's spectacles and observe the scratches on the glass one is polishing. The thickness of the blade has only secondary influence on what is happening at the cutting edge, which is a very fine point. Physically, the cutting edge in action is a damped oscillator, with the driving force effectively being variations in the resistance of the wood being cut, at the semi-microscopic level. The spring-loading of the chipbreaker close to the cutting edge will indeed cause an increase in the damping (and mitigate chatter.) The BU plane has no such additional damping.

The guys who originally set this up were very smart, although their understanding _may_ have been more intuitive than technical. I am an actual physicist, and have studied this, long ago.

Doug what you say makes sense especially for the same blade angle in BU and BD planes. I wonder if the thicker bevel up blade was a misconceived idea to compensate for that, you just end up with a longer bevel.
My Clifton planes chip breaker on the new one peice design are precision machined with a wide very low contact angle near the blade edge, someone was thinking.

[Derek Cohen]

Doug what you say makes sense especially for the same blade angle in BU and BD planes. I wonder if the thicker bevel up blade was a misconceived idea to compensate for that, you just end up with a longer bevel.
My Clifton planes chip breaker on the new one peice design are precision machined with a wide very low contact angle near the blade edge, someone was thinking.

Thicker blades have been around a long time, for both parallel and tapered blades. I imagine that they were focussed on dampening the blade, since the bevel of a BD plane blade is unsupported if the chipbreaker is not set close. In BU planes, there is more bevel support, even without a chipbreaker, since the bed runs close to the end of the blade. Ironically, a BU plane blade can be thinner than a BD plane blade. I think that the thicker blades came along as a sort of fashion statement, that is, with a belief that thicker must be better, and so all would-be premium planes received them.

The two-piece chipbreaker of the Clifton planes I found to be an abomination. Firstly, the idea was to be able to remove the front section to sharpen the blade. However, once doing so, on returning the front section, would the settings remain the same if originally set close to the edge? Secondly, the front sections on mine always dropped off, usually landing on a toe. Eventually I epoxied them on. Thirdly, all chipbreakers - Clifton, LN, Veritas - come with a 30 degree leading edge. This is too low to be effective in setting the chipbreaker close. The leading edge needs to be around 50 degrees. Stanleys are rounded and roughly 45-50 degrees.

If one were to look for "precision machining", I would look at the underside of the leading edge, that is, how flat this is, which would enable the chipbreaker to mate with the back of the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

I think that the thicker blades came along as a sort of fashion statement, that is, with a belief that thicker must be better, and so all would-be premium planes received them.

Thickness relates to mass. The more mass the more resistance to vibration (aka chatter). Or as some Americans believe, if a little bit is good 10 times as much must be 10 times better!

Of course there is a point of diminishing return.

Well past that point can be seen in the blade used on this plane:

http://www.leevalley.com/us/wood/page.aspx?p=49588&cat=1,46158,75230,75235&ap=1

They do suggest using a micro bevel to save your stones.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

Through the years, I settled into regular use of a variety of planes. Bear in mind, I mainly buy lumber surfaced 2 sides, jointed 1 side. Most used (always "tweaking something") is my LN 102 block plane. Second (and rapidly replacing the 102), is a Stanley 9-1/2, with a Ray Isles blade. For smoothers, a Clifton #3, a LN #4 (high angle frog) and one getting used more and more, a Millers Falls #4 with 2 piece lever cap. For the material I mainly used, I'm always reaching for my LN BU jointer-blade honed somewhere between 27 and 30 degress, it just always works.

I got a wide variety of special purpose planes (shooting, rabbeting, grooving, etc.), but the above list is what works for me. The key for me, is settling into regular use of the same planes so as to become thoroughly familiar with them. Yes, I have othersthat some will say should be used more (#4 and #7 Bedrocks, LN BU jack, etc.), but I used to the ones listed, and used to honing characteristcs, the feel of the knob and totes and especially how to squint just right, balance on my right foot, hold my tongue just so....and doing that, they all feel just right.

[Warren Mickley]

Chatter shows up as a regular series of ridges on the work parallel to the cutting edge.Chatter is not a problem unless the bedding is very poor. In recent years people have made thicker irons to "mitigate chatter", when what they are really hoping for is to mitigate tear out, which is a very different thing. A cap iron will mitigate tearout, but if the bedding is poor enough, the iron will vibrate even with a cap iron. And a Bailey plane with the cap iron cut off (below the screw) will not have chatter unless the bedding is poor. 18th century plane irons were rather thin, even before the use of double irons became widespread.

In the 21st century some manufacturers started making and promoting thicker irons because their customers thought they would help. The blind leading the blind

[William Fretwell]

If one were to look for "precision machining", I would look at the underside of the leading edge, that is, how flat this is, which would enable the chipbreaker to mate with the back of the blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

That is exactly where the precision is applied, the mating is very precise. I tried honing the bottom edge on leather and regretted it, such is the precision. Replacement on the way.
The previous two peice breaker was horrible!

Doug’s observation of oscillations is most interesting. As breaker blades are sprung right against the edge they damp in both directions while BU blades support is not sprung near the edge, at best it can damp in one direction from underneath only, I think we all know that one sided damping just changes the frequency.

[Jim Foster]

One more thought on sharpness. I was using an inexpensive 6000 grit water stone for years. Started using an 8000 grit water-stone last year and got noticeably better results with respect to tearout immediately. I have been working in Walnut a little and Q-Sawn Oak a lot and still get tearout more than I would like, so I am trying a toothed blade to see if my results improve, but have not had the opportunity to try it yet.

[Doug Dawson]

Chatter shows up as a regular series of ridges on the work parallel to the cutting edge.Chatter is not a problem unless the bedding is very poor. In recent years people have made thicker irons to "mitigate chatter", when what they are really hoping for is to mitigate tear out, which is a very different thing. A cap iron will mitigate tearout, but if the bedding is poor enough, the iron will vibrate even with a cap iron. And a Bailey plane with the cap iron cut off (below the screw) will not have chatter unless the bedding is poor. 18th century plane irons were rather thin, even before the use of double irons became widespread.

In the 21st century some manufacturers started making and promoting thicker irons because their customers thought they would help. The blind leading the blind

If you have an iron that doesn't even bed properly, that's a whole new magnitude of dysfunction. ;^) The chipbreaker assists in proper bedding of the iron, pushing it against the bed where it most matters. That works better with the older, thinner irons, of course.

What about the thicker irons thing. More mass? Easier to handle with tongs? Easier to hone? A bigger, more satisfying order of curly fries? You say "they" were hoping to mitigate tear-out, but that has more to do with merely setting the mouth narrower (along w/a sharp blade, shallow cut and angling the plane, bevel angle etc.) And all the kids know that. I suspect that portion size has something to do with it.

It's all a matter of degree. It's possible to smooth wood with an adze.

[Jim Koepke]

What about the thicker irons thing. More mass? Easier to handle with tongs? Easier to hone?

If you had ever tried to hone one with a flat bevel you would know they are not easier to hone. Maybe a hollow grind would make them easier to hone.

jtk

[Doug Dawson]

If you had ever tried to hone one with a flat bevel you would know they are not easier to hone.

I do that all the time, freehand. My point was, that there's a larger bearing surface. Maintaining a bevel on one of the thinner blades is where I go for the jig, typically.

[Jim Koepke]

I do that all the time, freehand. My point was, that there's a larger bearing surface. Maintaining a bevel on one of the thinner blades is where I go for the jig, typically.

For me the larger bearing surface of a flat grind causes stiction on a freshly flattened stone. My tendency is to use a holder on the thicker blades and do the thiner blades by hand.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Have been trying to find some uses for the #62.....ince last August....beginning to treat it as nothing more than an over-grown, over-weight, over-hyped block plane that my Stanley # 60-1/2 would run circles around.....Have a type 10 Stanley No. 4 and a 3 patent date Stanley No. 3c that I always reach for as smoothers....both have OEM irons, BTW.

[John Schtrumpf]

I'm in Doug's camp with the thick irons, thicker blades are easier for me. I freehand sharpen/hone full flat bevel, and use the existing bevel to register on the stone.

[Doug Dawson]

Have been trying to find some uses for the #62.....ince last August....beginning to treat it as nothing more than an over-grown, over-weight, over-hyped block plane that my Stanley # 60-1/2 would run circles around.....Have a type 10 Stanley No. 4 and a 3 patent date Stanley No. 3c that I always reach for as smoothers....both have OEM irons, BTW.

I bought the LN #62 when it first came out, 1994 or so? It was one of LN's first planes, a resurrection of something that had long since gone out of production. (I wonder why.) It was a curiosity at the time, although many people liked it (including me for a while, because it was so well-made.) I moved a couple of years ago, and it's still in a box somewhere. It belongs in a museum! :^)

[steven c newman]

Mine is a year old Wood River....and this..
401839
Does a much better, trouble free job.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Make a hot dog handle for the side and use it for shooting.

[William Fretwell]

401878

Dragged my BU jack out for some easy poplar legs for my next project. Compared it with my BD jack (one of them).
No real difference with the easy grain, the BD feels twice as heavy but a bit smoother because of the weight.

Then I dragged out the jointers for final flattening:

401879

There was more difference, the BD’s weight made it a bit smoother, however after the Paul Sellers rag in a can both felt almost weightless. The heavy BD felt more in control.

The wood and grain are the best case scenario for both planes.

[Andrew Seemann]

Chatter shows up as a regular series of ridges on the work parallel to the cutting edge.Chatter is not a problem unless the bedding is very poor. In recent years people have made thicker irons to "mitigate chatter", when what they are really hoping for is to mitigate tear out, which is a very different thing. A cap iron will mitigate tearout, but if the bedding is poor enough, the iron will vibrate even with a cap iron. And a Bailey plane with the cap iron cut off (below the screw) will not have chatter unless the bedding is poor. 18th century plane irons were rather thin, even before the use of double irons became widespread.

In the 21st century some manufacturers started making and promoting thicker irons because their customers thought they would help. The blind leading the blind

Thanks for posting this Warren; it is good to hear this from someone whose livelihood is depends on their hand tools.

I never quite understood the bit about thicker irons reducing chatter. I had always thought that chatter was caused by either poor technique or set up (too thick of cut or rounded bevel) and didn't get how a thicker iron would fix either.

[Andrew Seemann]

Have been trying to find some uses for the #62.....ince last August....beginning to treat it as nothing more than an over-grown, over-weight, over-hyped block plane that my Stanley # 60-1/2 would run circles around.....Have a type 10 Stanley No. 4 and a 3 patent date Stanley No. 3c that I always reach for as smoothers....both have OEM irons, BTW.

I never quite got the point of the low angle jack plane. I tried one at a LN show a few years ago, and that made me not get the point of them even more. Regular jack planes make very good jack planes, and they are far cheaper. I suppose the LA jack plane works for that "If you could only have one plane it would be a LA jack" thought game, but if you could have more than one plane, none of them need to be LA jack plane, because then you could get the correct size and style for what you are doing. And given the cost of antiques or reproductions, you could very well be able to buy the correct vintage Bailey's style planes for less than the LA jack.

Sometimes I think they are only popular because Patrick Leach thought they were neat on his site. And they are kind of neat, just not that useful in normal work. Actually, I don't really know what work they would be good for. Stanley's adverts for them indicate they were for rough work, definitely not the fine jointing and smoothing they are purported to be good for today, both of which are easier done with standard Bailey' style planes of the right length.

Apparently workmen of old didn't find them useful either, given the scarcity of vintage examples and how long ago Stanley stopped making them, 1942 (and yes, I looked up the 1942 date from Patrick's site. Wonderful info there, thanks Patrick!)

[Prashun Patel]

"none of them need to be LA jack plane because then you could get the correct size and style for what you are doing." wouldn't this be the same argument against a BD jack?

I own three bevel ups: a jointer, small smoother, and jack. I have grown to love them all. Unless you have really used one for a long while, any explanations are academic.

I love mine because they feel good and work well. There are times when I just appreciate the lower center of gravity and the convenience of not having to screw and unscrew and set a cap iron. I also own a BD smoother that I love for all the reasons people love BD planes.

[Graham Haydon]

I'm sure Osvaldo is sorted now, but if not head over to Derek's site http://inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/TheSecretToCamberinBUPlaneBlades.html . I have tried a bevel up jack, but found it less practical overall than bevel down. If you can afford it, purchase a bevel down plane. If you don't want to learn how to use a cap iron you can by a second iron and back bevel it. However I would encourage you to look at using the cap iron.

The other side to this is if you're making nice furniture without the plane and it causes more problems than solves, perhaps don't use one. Life can be too short!

[Jim Koepke]

I never quite got the point of the low angle jack plane. I tried one at a LN show a few years ago, and that made me not get the point of them even more. Regular jack planes make very good jack planes, and they are far cheaper. I suppose the LA jack plane works for that "If you could only have one plane it would be a LA jack" thought game, but if you could have more than one plane, none of them need to be LA jack plane, because then you could get the correct size and style for what you are doing. And given the cost of antiques or reproductions, you could very well be able to buy the correct vintage Bailey's style planes for less than the LA jack.

Sometimes I think they are only popular because Patrick Leach thought they were neat on his site. And they are kind of neat, just not that useful in normal work. Actually, I don't really know what work they would be good for. Stanley's adverts for them indicate they were for rough work, definitely not the fine jointing and smoothing they are purported to be good for today, both of which are easier done with standard Bailey' style planes of the right length.

Apparently workmen of old didn't find them useful either, given the scarcity of vintage examples and how long ago Stanley stopped making them, 1942 (and yes, I looked up the 1942 date from Patrick's site. Wonderful info there, thanks Patrick!)

For my use the low angle jack serves as my shooting plane. Restoring vintage planes isn't for everyone. For me it can be a pleasurable pursuit. For some it is nothing but one frustration followed by another.

My recollection about the original intent of the Stanley #62 was for restoring the surface on worn chopping blocks. The large chopping block was common in butcher shops at one time. Though maybe not a big enough market to support making a tool some committee dreamed up. Then, WW II came along and forever changed what American manufacturing would be.

jtk

[Timothy MacMurtrie]

Agreed!!!! I’ve planned with a LN low angle jack on the softest pine and on up to hard maple. I do have blades (three) set with different micro bevels all on a 25* primary bevel with the corners knocked back and I find only light to medium cuts are best with the mouth set as tight as possible for the cut being taken

[Derek Cohen]

I never quite got the point of the low angle jack plane. I tried one at a LN show a few years ago, and that made me not get the point of them even more. Regular jack planes make very good jack planes, and they are far cheaper. I suppose the LA jack plane works for that "If you could only have one plane it would be a LA jack" thought game, but if you could have more than one plane, none of them need to be LA jack plane, because then you could get the correct size and style for what you are doing. And given the cost of antiques or reproductions, you could very well be able to buy the correct vintage Bailey's style planes for less than the LA jack.

Sometimes I think they are only popular because Patrick Leach thought they were neat on his site. And they are kind of neat, just not that useful in normal work. Actually, I don't really know what work they would be good for. Stanley's adverts for them indicate they were for rough work, definitely not the fine jointing and smoothing they are purported to be good for today, both of which are easier done with standard Bailey' style planes of the right length.

Apparently workmen of old didn't find them useful either, given the scarcity of vintage examples and how long ago Stanley stopped making them, 1942 (and yes, I looked up the 1942 date from Patrick's site. Wonderful info there, thanks Patrick!)

This is a context thing.

It was 2002, and I was hearing good things about high angle planes. Lyn Mangiameli has written the definitive review (http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.shtml), and this appeared to be a way to tame tearout. You have to remember that double irons and the chipbreaker were (for most) at least a decade away. High cutting angles were "the thing".

There were (still are) three ways to achieve a high cutting angle: plane with a high bed, a 15 degree backbevel, or a BU plane with a high bevel. History has used all three, but the BU (or as they were then termed, low angle) planes did not have a good record as this was based on the Stanley #164 and #62 planes. The Stanley planes were made of grey iron and had a reputation for being fragile at the sole. Then along came LN and Veritas with their versions made from ductile iron. This was a game changer.

I had restored a Stanley #62, and wrote an article. Rob Lee read this, and asked whether I might wish to compare it with the new LA Jack. After this I began to receive requests for input into planes on the drawing board and later pre-production testing. I have continued to do this ever since. The long and short of it is that my involvement with BU planes has probably been since their re-emergence as a serious bench plane.

Up until 2012/3, when the chipbreaker became a familiar topic and method for controlling tearout, I used high angle planes exclusively. These were both BD (e.g. HNT Gordon) and BU (Veritas). At that stage, a high cutting angle was simply the only way to tame the interlocked timber of Western Australia. In addition, tool steel became an important factor, since the woods were abrasive. I loved the keenness of O1, but it did not hold an edge long. A2 was the go to, with HSS (M2) catching up.

What I can say about BU planes is they work. They (e.g. the LA Jack) are superior on a shooting board when used with a low cutting angle. And they ruled with a high cutting angle on interlocked face grain (and even edge grain). The Veritas BU Smoother is just a superb plane - utterly dependable and with performance of the highest order ... with a 62 degree cutting angle.

My one frustration with BU planes is honing the blades - they require a honing guide, since the best/most efficient way to camber a high angle is a secondary bevel on a low primary bevel. This is not something you can freehand. I am by preference a freehand sharpener. In spite of this, I was a convert to BU planes. Their feel - the low centre of effort - made them so stable. In fact, they were easier to push than BD planes of the same cutting angle.

When the chipbreaker came along I became a convert to this method. In part this was because I could hone blades freehand, and in part because a closed chipbreaker is superior to a high cutting angle. Now, having said this, the worth of a BU plane is not invalidated. They are still superior to a single iron BD plane or a double iron where the chipbreaker is not utilised. They are easy to set up and, if using a honing guide is your bag, then they are wonderful planes for the great majority to use. I love the low centre of effort! If you are not getting success with a BU plane, it is simply not set up correctly. As planes go, they are nearly fool proof, but there are steps to follow - such as the correct bevel angle, and how to push the plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[James Pallas]

Osvaldo, I hope you got the answer you needed. Sometimes on this forum you ask for a glass of water and you get many bucketfuls :D
Jim

[Andrew Seemann]

As you say Derek, the context matters. Most of the North American hardwoods and softwoods we use here work well with the standard angle Baileys style planes, not surprising given they were developed here. I can't imagine working with those native Australian woods made of cement that you folks use down under. Many of us here would probably run away with our tails between our legs and take up a different hobby if we tried them (including me).

It is interesting how different planes go in and out of fashion in the woodworking world. Bedrock planes were all the rage a while back, followed by things like low angled planes, high angle frogs, York pitch (whatever that is/was), double iron planes (which I think are regular Baileys planes?), infill smoothers, heavy planes, light planes, bronze planes, wood planes. Who knows what is next. I guess every plane has its day in the world of wood.

[Stewie Simpson]

The following video Terry Gordon discusses the importance of clearance angle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v9X9Cgtl7c

[Tom Bender]

After miles of planing and some struggles and after reading many posts, this one has provided my light bulb moment. I must be a slow learner. Thanks to all for the keystrokes you have laid down here. I am heading to the shop to have a fresh look at my planes.

Actually I will have to use another type of hand plane to clear up last night's snow. Derek and Osvaldo and some others will not have the benefit of this experience. You will have to trust that it too is a Neander entertainment.

[David Silverson]

After reading this thread I went and reread Derek’s homesite on putting a micro bevel on BU planes. I’ve always tried to freehand it but this time tried it using a honing guide as he suggests. It was easy and effective,no comparison to trying to freehand it. I was so impressed that I will now try going back to using the honing guide for all my plane blade sharpening.

[lowell holmes]

Can you use these links?

https://www.google.com/search?q=sharpen+low+angle+plane+iron&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTneyw85DgAhVPeKwKHe7BCDQQ_AUIECgD&biw=1280&bih=625

https://www.wonkeedonkeetools.co.uk/woodworking-hand-planes/how-to-sharpen-and-adjust-a-scrub-plane-iron/

[Osvaldo Cristo]

I was travelling with limited time to personal internet access, so sorry for late answer...

I really appreciated your feedback and encouragement. The bottom line looks me I have to practice a lot more - a great reason to dedicate more to manual woodworking! ;)

FYI I have two blades for that plane: one at 30 degrees and another at 78 degrees. The last one works fine as a "scrapper". I will buy something intermediate as per advice of several of you.

BTW today I had a grateful surprise: I had to flat just one surface of two irregular relatively small wood pieces. I was imagining a jig to use my Makita lunch box planer when occurred me why not to use manual tools. I simply put the pieces at my vise, one at a time, checked with two rules for their flatness (both were twisted) and voila, all was done in five minutes for both pieces just using my LN Jack plane. Yes, just five minutes including plane setup!

This time the pieces were some kind of Cedar and the finish was perfect. No tear out. I couldn't be happier!