confusion on the use of the chipbreaker

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Hi all,

I have been reading everything I could get my hands on in regards to setting the chipbreaker, bevel angles, and throat settings for planes. I think I understand most of the information out there but there is still an issue that bothers me.

A lower angle attack bevel leaves a superior surface - but it is prone to causing tearout
A higher angle causes less tearout, but is harder to push and leaves an inferior (to a low angle) finish. this spectrum goes all the way to a scraper which is used as the secret weapon against tearout but only as a last resort (I am only referring to flat surfaces).

In comes the chipbreaker/cap-iron/double-iron:
if set properly ("properly" changes by type of wood, depth of cut, etc...) it bends the wood fibers at such an angle that it compresses the fibers before the blade. compressing the fibers prevents them from tearing ahead of the blade (tearout).

the question is this: does a well tuned chipbreaker diminish the advantages of the low angle, or preserve them? I would have thought that the effects of a high angle and use of chipbreaker would be summative in fighting tearout.

recently I read an article by Derek Cohen in which he customized Veritas custom No.7 and No. 4 bench planes. (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes4.html) He advocated using a low frog angle (40°, and 42° respectively). in the article he compared and ranked various plane configurations importantly using the same plane with the same chipbreaker configuration with 42° and 50° frogs.
Why would a 42° frog with chipbreaker control tearout better than a 50° frog with chipbreaker? I thought that the only downside to high angle frogs is the difficulty in pushing them.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

On a side note. I posted a link to Derek's Website. I did not have his permission to do so. I don't think there is any reason to suspect he would have issue with it but if I have violated site policy please let me know and I will fix it.

[steven c newman]

David Weaver had a series of posts here, a few years back...about the use of the chipbreaker....

IIRC: Stanley went with a thin iron, and the chipbreaker. The chipbreaker acting as part of the iron, so between the two of them, the plane acted like there was a single, THICK iron....while making it easier to sharpen the thin iron.

Normally on the planes I use..the chipbreaker is set less than a mm back from the edge...to where a thin sliver of shine from the iron shows up. I also have a WR #62...and it is a tear-out machine...does NOT use a chipbreaker...imagine that...

One also needs to polish the leading edge on the chipbreaker....to allow a smooth ride for the shavings to glide across. No gaps allowed, no abrupt changes...just a smooth surface.

[Alan Schwabacher]

Don't underestimate the utility of pushing the plane easily. If you work well-behaved stock and think about planing direction, most of the time you don't need to set the chip breaker close, and the plane will be a pleasure to use.

If you do need to control tearout, you can set the chip breaker at various positions to get the surface you desire at minimum effort.

A higher angle frog can let you control tearout with a slightly different chipbreaker setting, at the cost of always being a little harder to push.

Which option you choose depends on the work you do, and your perception of the costs and benefits. Lots of things work.

[Rafael Herrera]

In order to simplify things a little, focus on bailey pattern bench planes or their bedrock cousins. These planes have a standard 45 degree bed angle. There are modern makers makers that offer other angles. Ive tried modified planes with attachments to increase the angle, but I didn't get a higher performance, my regular planes performed just as well.

I assume you're talking only about bevel down planes.

If you already have these non standard frogs, just by use you'll get a sense of their utility to you. If you don't have them, I wouldn't bother with them.

Have you seen the Kawai & Kato study video?
http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=newarticles&file=articles_935.shtml

The key of the chipbreaker effect is the deflection of the shaving soon after it's cut. A common bailey pattern plane can achieve that very easily.

I'm not sure where you got the information about lower angle of attack and superior surface. A bailey smoother can leave a glossy flawless surface on american cherry, pine, rosewood or ebony.

My suggestion would be to get a standard plane as well setup as possible and if you find it wanting, try an alternative.

Do you have issues with your planes now?

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Don't underestimate the utility of pushing the plane easily. If you work well-behaved stock and think about planing direction, most of the time you don't need to set the chip breaker close, and the plane will be a pleasure to use.

I don't. not the point of the post. I want to understand the relationship between smoothing quality the chipbreaker and the frog angle in bevel down planes

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Most of my planing to date has been done in hard maple.

in my (limited) experience hard maple planes really well until it doesn't. End grain is also the bane of my existence.

[Jim Koepke]

Most of my planing to date has been done in hard maple.

in my (limited) experience hard maple planes really well until it doesn't. End grain is also the bane of my existence.

The higher the angle of the blade to wood angle, the more it will cut like a scraper. A bevel down blade's frog angle can only go so low before there isn't any relief angle provided by the bevel. If you watch the Kawai & Kato study video, look closely at the wood behind the blade. It rises slightly. Without about ten degrees of relief provided by the bevel, it would lift the blade out of the work.

On end grain your efforts will likely be improved greatly by using a low angle bevel up plane with a sharp blade. As Rob Luter says in his end line, "Sharp solves all manner of problems."

jtk

[Robert Hazelwood]

I'd say it preserves the surface quality for the most part. There is a range of adjustment, from set way back and not doing anything, to set way too close, and anything in between. If you set the CB extremely close, to the point you start to get accordion shavings, it will leave a pretty dull surface and the plane will be a bear to push. That is almost always too close, and if you see that you should back it off a bit.

If you have straight grained wood and its feasible to plane with the grain, there's no reason to set the CB very close at all. It will be easier to push, and you'll probably get a little brighter surface. As you engage the CB more, I think it will start to leave a duller surface, but its very subtle until you get to the "way too close" range. In the normal working range I use, its not something I notice. If you were going to notice it, it would be on very soft woods like pine or cedar.

I'll say that the major advantage to using the CB is in the steps leading up to final smoothing - getting the board flat and true and hitting your depth mark without leaving a bunch of tearout for the smoothing plane to deal with. And being able to do those steps with healthy shavings along the grain (vs having to go across the grain or diagonal or whatever). Surface finish is good after these steps, but if you are going to leave a hand-planed surface then the final smoothing pass is what will be seen. That is done with a freshly sharpened blade and taking very thin shavings. When the shavings get super thin the CB doesn't have much to do- I set my smoother CB fairly close but it is just barely working the chip when I'm taking .001 shavings.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi surfaces) ….

the question is this: does a well tuned chipbreaker diminish the advantages of the low angle, or preserve them? I would have thought that the effects of a high angle and use of chipbreaker would be summative in fighting tearout.

recently I read an article by Derek Cohen in which he customized Veritas custom No.7 and No. 4 bench planes. (http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes4.html) He advocated using a low frog angle (40°, and 42° respectively). in the article he compared and ranked various plane configurations importantly using the same plane with the same chipbreaker configuration with 42° and 50° frogs.
Why would a 42° frog with chipbreaker control tearout better than a 50° frog with chipbreaker? I thought that the only downside to high angle frogs is the difficulty in pushing them.

Hi Assaf

Chipbreaker vs High Cutting Angle?

The short story is that both work, and can work very well. It really depends on the wood you are working, your experience in setting up planes, and also your personal preference in the type of hand plane.

Given that you are working at the extreme of grain reversal - such as planing a book-matched panel, where the sections intersect opposite to one another, or planing a very figured and complex board that would usually have you reaching for a scraper or sander - then my first choice is a closed up chipbreaker.

Over the past decade I have moved 90% to closed chipbreakers, as opposed to high cutting angles, but that is a personal preference and not a criticism of the latter, per se.

One of the factors for me in choosing a BD plane over a BU plane is sharpening. BU planes with high cutting angles generally need to be prepared using a honing guide. My long-standing recommendation is that one work with a 25-degree primary bevel and a (say) 50 degree micro secondary bevel. This is important if you want to add camber to the blade. A honing guide is needed…. it needs to be added that the reason Steven here gets such poor results from his LA Jack is that he has no clue how to prepare the blade, and is quite oppositional in regard to recommendations to raise the bevel angle.

I was a great proponent for BU planes until the chipbreaker method became better understood. This was a relief to me as I prefer to freehand sharpen, and the bevel angle on BD planes is less important (than with BU planes).

As you noted, a lower cutting angle should leave behind a clearer planed surface. How low can one go? That really is the issue. This now brings into play “relief angles”. Generally, a plane needs around 10 degrees relief. One can get away with as little as 7 degrees, but 10 is better. So, a (BD) frog/bed of 45 degrees and a plane blade with a 30-degree bevel leaves 15 degrees. And a 40-degree frog leaves 10 degrees from a 30-degree bevel and only 8 degrees from a 32-degree bevel. That is cutting it fine, but doable.

Why not 50 degrees for the frog? Because we then start moving in the direction of coarseness. 50 degrees is a good all-rounder, especially if you are not planing wood that demands any special treatment. It also places less emphasis on the leading angle of the chipbreaker needing to be as high as recommended (generally, mine are at 50 degrees). The higher frog is more tolerant of a slightly lower leading edge, as well as not being set as close to the edge as the higher leading edge on a lower angle frog. But the compromise is a lesser surface.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

I use a 25 degree bevel on an LN LA Jack. I think it will be easier when the bench is done and I have a firm hold on my work.
I am considering a 30 degree microbevel- A2 isn’t what I would call robust at 25 degrees on end grain

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Derek, what you and Jim said about the relief angle is very interesting. So with a standard 45° bevel down plane, should I set the reliefs angle to 35°? Would that give a more robust edge or is there a trade off? I currently set mine to 30° on all my BD planes.

follow up - is the relief angle the reason why bevel up planes are bedded at 12°?

[Warren Mickley]

I did experiments on the clearance angle about 45 years ago. The clearance angle is the angle between the sole of the plane and the lower part of the edge. For a bevel down plane, the clearance angle would be the difference between bedding angle ( usually 45 degrees) and the honing angle (I use 30).

What I found was that with a clearance of 8 degrees I was sure that the plane wasn't cutting well, due to lack of clearance. At 12 degrees I was sure that there was no clearance problem. There is undoubtedly some variation in this depending on wood species and dullness of the iron.

The bevel down planes have a 12 degree bed to insure clearance. The bevel down planes generally have a 45 degree bed so that coupled with a honing angle in the low 30s clearance will not be an issue.

I have used a wooden trying plane and a wooden jack plane at 43 degrees for about 43 years. I have used a Bailey type plane altered to have a bed at 42 degrees. These are very marginal improvements over 45 degree beds, but they require more discipline in sharpening. I sharpen at 30 degrees with no microbevel, secondary bevel, just flat honing.

[Derek Cohen]

I use a 25 degree bevel on an LN LA Jack. I think it will be easier when the bench is done and I have a firm hold on my work.
I am considering a 30 degree microbevel- A2 isn’t what I would call robust at 25 degrees on end grain

Assaf, for many years I used a LA Jack (Veritas) as a shooting plane. The blade was 25 degrees and A2. It had no difficulty holding an edge. I have done extensive testing with BU planes and a 25 degree bevel is very strong. HOWEVER, it is not an angle I would use if planing face grain. You are assured of tearing out even mild woods. The cutting angle of 37 degrees is simply too low. Keep in mind that a Stanley has a 45 degree frog, which is the cutting angle. This is the reason Stevens LA Jack tears out for him. You need to raise the bevel angle for face grain. Otherwise all it will be good for is shooting, or cross grain.

30 degrees is also too low for face grain. This will create a 42-degree cutting angle - which is lower than a Stanley, and it does not have the chipbreaker to control tearout.

You need to see these two planes as working in a different way. Learn to play to their strength, not weaknesses. The strength of a Stanley lies with the chipbreaker; the strength of a BU plane lies with the fact that the plane will respond to different bevel angles. As the bevel angles gets higher, the BU plane copes increasingly well with interlocked grain. A 50 degree bevel creates a 62-degree cutting angle, and it will plane just about anything without tearout.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, what you and Jim said about the relief angle is very interesting. So with a standard 45° bevel down plane, should I set the reliefs angle to 35°? Would that give a more robust edge or is there a trade off? I currently set mine to 30° on all my BD planes.

follow up - is the relief angle the reason why bevel up planes are bedded at 12°?

Assaf, I have used the term "relief angle" when it is probably better to use "clearance angle", as Warren used. It means the same thing.

The clearance angle has nothing to do with a "robust edge". The clearance angle is the limitation for increasing the bevel angle on a BD plane.

For BD planes, a 32-35 degree bevel is going to produce the strongest edge. The bevel angle is not going to affect the cutting angle for a BD plane.

You can alter/improve the performance of a BD plane in three ways: close the chipbreaker, increase the angle of the bed/frog; or increase the cutting angle by adding a back bevel to the blade.

BU planes are bedded at 12 degrees out of history. They are called "block planes" as they were originally used to plane butcher blocks, which are made of end grain. They went out of favour many decades ago, only coming back in recent times (90's) because (1) being made now of ductile iron created a strong plane (the earlier versions were cast iron, which is fragile, and the low bed angle leaves the sole very thin). (2) the re-discovery of a high cutting angle could be created simply by increasing the bevel angle.

BU planes simply became a way to create a plane with a high cutting angle. Before BU planes, I was using a bevel down HNT Gordon woodies, which have a 60 degree bed (and 60 degree cutting angle). BD and BU, but they are the same cutting angle.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Prashun Patel]

I've been using a close-set chip breaker for a couple years. It does indeed mitigate tear out, regardless of the bevel angle, and I have not found that it affects the finish quality of the surface at all.

I've never been one to mess around with the frog.

I will say that the most dramatic improvements in my planing quality have come from 1) improving my sharpening, and 2) learning how to read grain direction. If I were to start again, I would focus on these two things for years before looking to altered angles.

All this assumes of course that you have a properly set up plane; namely that your sole, breaker, and blade are all flat and true at the business ends.

[Kevin Jenness]

I did experiments on the clearance angle about 45 years ago. The clearance angle is the angle between the sole of the plane and the lower part of the edge. For a bevel down plane, the clearance angle would be the difference between bedding angle ( usually 45 degrees) and the honing angle (I use 30).

I have used a wooden trying plane and a wooden jack plane at 33 degrees for about 43 years. I have used a Bailey type plane altered to have a bed at 32 degrees. These are very marginal improvements over 45 degree beds, but they require more discipline in sharpening. I sharpen at 30 degrees with no microbevel, secondary bevel, just flat honing.

Warren, are the blades in your trying and jack planes set bevel up? Is the 32* bed on your Bailey plane a typo? I don't understand how such a low bedding angle on a bevel down plane can provide a sufficient clearance angle if the edges are at 30*.

[Warren Mickley]

Yes, thanks Kevin. I should read 43 degrees and 42 degrees for the beds. 40 degrees is near the lower limit for a bevel down plane. I will change the original posting.

[Kevin Jenness]

Yes, thanks Kevin. I should read 43 degrees and 42 degrees for the beds. 40 degrees is near the lower limit for a bevel down plane. I will change the original posting.

Oh, that makes more sense. Your answer to my question about planing difficult woods on a previous thread led me to tune up my smoothing plane and set the chipbreaker quite close to the edge. What a difference that made!

The Japanese video on chipbreaker setting cited earlier https://vimeo.com/158558759 is an eye-opener. I assume the performance of super surfacer machines depends in large part on this adjustment.

[Rafael Herrera]

The chipbreaker debate was about 10 years ago by now. It's an interesting read. There were very vehement advocates of higher angle beds, closed mouth setups that were sure that the chipbreaker (or cap iron as some insist on calling it) were useless. The chipbreakers were introduced in the mid 18th century and dominated the hand plane design up until they were replaced by machinery in the professional workshop.

Some argue(d) that their function was to stiffen the iron, there were no thin irons when the chip breaker were invented. In this picture a typical wooden plane tapered iron (right, approx 3/16" / 5mm) next to a metal bench plane iron. The chip breaker was not used to stiffen it.
471974

During the hobbyist woodworker revival the new planes brought into the market came fitted with chip breakers that would not function as they were supposed to, later to be corrected. I gleaned all this from the forum discussions of that time.

Higher angles and narrow mouths work, but a $30 Bailey pattern smoother can be tuned to perform similarly or better and also be used for coarser work.

This video shows one of those super surfacer machines in action. Note how the shavings come out as straight sheets? That's due to the chipbreaker in action. Similar shavings can be produced with a hand plane. When the chip breaker is not engaged, the shavings will curl.

https://youtu.be/eaClhzlpc_0

[Kevin Jenness]

This video shows one of those super surfacer machines in action. Note how the shavings come out as straight sheets? That's due to the chipbreaker in action. Similar shavings can be produced with a hand plane. When the chip breaker is not engaged, the shavings will curl.

https://youtu.be/eaClhzlpc_0

Excelsior!

[Warren Mickley]

I started using the double iron for tear out in 1973, as a result of reading historical references from the 18th and early 19th centuries. I started advocating for double iron use at the time I started participating in online forums around 2006. My posts were continually discredited by those with much less planing experience and little knowledge of historical practice.

My first convert to using the double iron was Bob Strawn, who learned in 2009-2010. David Weaver reported success on 3/26/2012. Here is a post Bob Strawn wrote on this forum:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?182885-Question-for-plane-gurus-woodie-build-single-blade-or-blade-chipbreaker

Plane irons were thin in the 18th century when double irons were first recorded., roughly 1/8, or sometimes a little less. The Seaton Chest book has some late 18th century measurements. I don't know why plane irons became thicker in the 19th century.

A cap iron set too close results in a cloudy appearance on the wood. This is more noticeable on the more tender woods.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

Prashun, if you are asking if my planes are set up the answer is... I hope so.

I am self taught, and my planes are Lie Nielsen's for the simple reason that I would rather assume that the problem is with me, rather then figure out of it is an issue of skill vs tool quality. I began to believe I am adequate after I successfully laminated a 4 inch benchtop of 8/4 material gap free. it might have been faster to try and grow the tree to the dimensions I wanted but I got there....

[Rafael Herrera]

Plane irons were thin in the 18th century when double irons were first recorded., roughly 1/8, or sometimes a little less. The Seaton Chest book has some late 18th century measurements. I don't know why plane irons became thicker in the 19th century.


I've only had access to 19th century irons so far, although I think I may have a 17th sample that is tapered, I need to look more deeply into it. I didn't know they were manufactured thinner earlier, perhaps a manufacturing requirement? cast steel replaced blister steel in the late 18th century, could that have affected the methods of production?

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

For BD planes, a 32-35 degree bevel is going to produce the strongest edge. The bevel angle is not going to affect the cutting angle for a BD plane.

interesting, Ill begin changing the angle as I progress in my sharpening.

[Assaf Oppenheimer]

That. is. ridiculous.

[steven c newman]

Currently, there is an Ohio 035 in the shop...and it does have a thick, tapered iron....and a wooden Razee body like a Stanley No. 35.

[Jim Koepke]

Some argue(d) that their function was to stiffen the iron, there were no thin irons when the chip breaker were invented. In this picture a typical wooden plane tapered iron (right, approx 3/16" / 5mm) next to a metal bench plane iron. The chip breaker was not used to stiffen it.

Here are a couple of paragraphs from Leonard Bailey's patent for his design of the cap iron:

472000

The full copy can be found at > https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&idkey=NONE&SectionNum=3&HomeUrl=&docid=0072443

Some of the early cap irons sat flat on the blade iron and did not have the tensioning effect of the Bailey cap iron.

If earlier cap irons were used to control tear out, then Bailey needed a different reason to patent the set up of his thinner blade and cap iron.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

Here are a couple of paragraphs from Leonard Bailey's patent for his design of the cap iron:

472000

The full copy can be found at > https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&idkey=NONE&SectionNum=3&HomeUrl=&docid=0072443

Some of the early cap irons sat flat on the blade iron and did not have the tensioning effect of the Bailey cap iron.

If earlier cap irons were used to control tear out, then Bailey needed a different reason to patent the set up of his thinner blade and cap iron.

jtk

Jim,

His 1858 patents use double irons, https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&idkey=NONE&SectionNum=3&HomeUrl=&docid=0020615, albeit they seem to be of the tapered type.

I would venture say that Bailey was still improving on his design by thinning the cutting iron of the double iron assembly, not introducing the cap iron in the design, it was already part of it. He came up with a modification of the cap iron to make the thinner iron work. The cap iron function, as a means of deflecting the shavings, was not hindered.

There's an interesting article in the TATHS site of an early double iron smoother, estimated to have been used in the 1750s. Of note is that the screw to hold the two pieces together had not been invented yet.

https://taths.org.uk/tools-trades/articles/49-an-early-cabinet-maker-s-smoothing-plane-from-the-city-of-london

Conserved double iron from the TATHS article
472014

Warren gave an interesting piece of information about thin cutter irons in the 18th century. The thinness of irons is mentioned in the article above, I missed that when I first read the article a while back. I don't have the Seaton chest book, perhaps someone could chime in.

[Keegan Shields]

Assaf,

I am also self taught and struggled until recently to get my LN 4 1/2 to perform the way it was supposed to. I tried some pointers from the members here about prepping the chip breaker and setting it close. It’s magical to use now. No tear out regardless of grain direction. Keep at it and things will click.

HNT Gordon has an excellent YouTube video on what happens to the blade edge as it wears. Really helped me visualize what is happening.

[steven c newman]

2 examples...1) Millers Falls No. 9, Type 4....chipbreaker is set 1mm back from the iron's edge...have never had a hint of chatter, nor tear-out. Iron is OEM Solid tool steel. Flat back, single 25 degree bevel.

2). Wood River No. 62. factory 25 degree bevel, flat back, no chipbreaker ( bevel up) Even with the mouth closed up tight, still has a lot of tear out in not only Pine(with knots) Aromatic Red Cedar, and Ash, when face plane working....Jointer work? Works great, just a tad s l o w.....

Wood the shop has used over the years: White & Red Oak, All kinds of Maple, Figured Cherry, Sycamore, Walnut, Rosewood ( Plane totes), Poplar, Cottonwood( Fuzzy stuff,stinks) the Cedar, Pine, and Ash.

I live in Ohio, so that is the wood choices I have. I have noticed that the Millers Falls irons are just a tad thicker than most Stanley irons.....

[Derek Cohen]

2). Wood River No. 62. factory 25 degree bevel, flat back, no chipbreaker ( bevel up) Even with the mouth closed up tight, still has a lot of tear out in not only Pine(with knots) Aromatic Red Cedar, and Ash, when face plane working....

Steven, that is exactly what I have been saying here - you have the plane set up incorrectly. A 25 degree bevel on a 12-degree bed of the LA Jack creates a 37 degree cutting angle. It will - definitely, unreservedly, unquestionably, assuredly, unequivocally, categorically and decidedly ... tear out all face grain in its path. Even Pine. :eek:

ALL you have to do is add a 40 degree secondary bevel to the blade, and discover a whole new plane. Go on .. do it :)

Regards fro Perth

Derek

p.s. Paul Sellers did the same, and then proclaimed BU planes rubbish. Makes you think ...

[Rob Luter]

Most of my planing to date has been done in hard maple.

in my (limited) experience hard maple planes really well until it doesn't. End grain is also the bane of my existence.

I hate planing maple. It always seems to tear out. My solution has been paying very close attention to grain direction, setting the mouth of the plane very tight, setting the chipbreaker close, and taking light cuts. I've also had good luck with a bevel up plane and a high cutting angle as Derek mentions above.

[Jim Koepke]

Steven, that is exactly what I have been saying here - you have the plane set up incorrectly. A 25 degree bevel on a 12-degree bed of the LA Jack creates a 37 degree cutting angle. It will - definitely, unreservedly, unquestionably, assuredly, unequivocally, categorically and decidedly ... tear out all face grain in its path. Even Pine. :eek:

ALL you have to do is add a 40 degree secondary bevel to the blade, and discover a whole new plane. Go on .. do it :)

Regards fro Perth

Derek

p.s. Paul Sellers did the same, and then proclaimed BU planes rubbish. Makes you think ...

One more thing on a bevel up plane besides the bevel angle, don't try to take an 0.030" shaving. :eek:

Thick shavings are just asking for tear out, especially with a plane best suited to cut end grain.

jtk

[Tom Trees]

I hate planing maple. It always seems to tear out. My solution has been paying very close attention to grain direction, setting the mouth of the plane very tight, setting the chipbreaker close, and taking light cuts. I've also had good luck with a bevel up plane and a high cutting angle as Derek mentions above.

Hating planing any wood should be a thing of the past, once you get those straight shavings.
Stick to the basics, and forget about a tight mouth, and focus on the influence of the cap alone, which is more than sufficient for planing any species.
You can forget about reading grain direction beyond rough jack planing, should you need to take off a lot,
If you don't, which is likely for fancier timbers...
Then the finer cambered,(if you like), jack, panel, try, or what have you, needs to have enough influence for the timber at hand, so you can smooth with a swipe or two to
get down to any inkling of tearout.
If you have to take multiple shavings, to get down to large pits, then things are not working as they should, and that makes for hard work.
Smoothing should never tear out on even the most troublesome timbers, regardless of grain direction.

Influence as in either setting the cap iron closer, (perhaps your cambered cutter is too large to get the cap close enough yet?)
or making the leading edge of the cap iron steeper.

If you get large tearout, then that is simply the case, and an easy remedy to get that cap to have more infulence.

No masterful sharpening required, if it cuts hair then it's good enough.
Note that relying on uber sharpness to stop tearout, is a sure sign of not enough influence.

Having a tight mouth was the reason it had not worked for me, and I've not closed the mouth up since then.

Tom

[Prashun Patel]

no fighting.

[steven c newman]

Makes a good jointer, though..
472224
YMMV, of course.....

[Jim Koepke]

p.s. Paul Sellers did the same, and then proclaimed BU planes rubbish. Makes you think ...

Paul Sellers has done many things to make me question some of his methods. He does make me think of a Benjamin Franklin quote, "Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it."

jtk

[chuck van dyck]

Paul Sellers has done many things to make me question some of his methods. He does make me think of a Benjamin Franklin quote, "Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it."

jtk

I cringed when he once mentioned that your hand made a good strop in a pinch. Be that as it may, that's better left for people to learn on their own....love the guy though.

[steven c newman]

Old timers did indeed use the palm of their hands as a quick strop...however..theirs would be very callused up, from working with those hands all day long, 6 days a week.

[Keegan Shields]

When using your hand as a strop, do you need to apply the honing paste to your palm or are the calluses sufficient? :)

[steven c newman]

Tobacco Juice...

[Jim Koepke]

When using your hand as a strop, do you need to apply the honing paste to your palm or are the calluses sufficient? :)


Tobacco Juice...

Ain't none of that around here. Not likely to spit some in my hand if it was.

Stropping on the canvas of a pants leg is one thing, on my bare skin is another.

Maybe there is good reason my hand or fingers are seldom in need of a Band-Aid.

jtk

[Rafael Herrera]

That indeed seems to have been a normal practice in the past. My father's hands would have been certainly calloused enough to strop his blades with. I only spend a few hours in the shop a week and get blisters from time to time, we're not in the same league as old timers.

[Keegan Shields]

Haha nice. That might work.