Low angle v. standard plane

[Matt Clark]

I was wondering, if I can sharpen a low angle bevel up plane to just about any angle, why buy a standard angle plane? I'm sure there is a good reason, I'm probably just too new to know what it is.

[Mark Roderick]

It's an excellent question.

When I asked that very question at a Lie-Nielsen show, the answer was that the traditional bevel-down planes (such as the Lie-Neilsen #4 1/2 smoothing plane) have more bulk than the bevel-up planes and therefore can do a better job on difficult woods, sometimes.

But putting that to the side, a couple of bevel-up planes (e.g., a jack plane and a jointer) with two or three blades for each of them, sharpened to different angles, sounds like a good plan for most woodworkers.

[lowell holmes]

I have the LN 4 1/2 and a LV BU jack plane with all the irons. I like both planes, but if I had to choose just one, it would be the bu jack.

[Michael Faurot]

You might not ever need a bevel-down plane if you start out buying something like the bevel-up series of planes from Veritas and all the extra interchangeable blades. If you want to be able to do a variety of things with hand planes, but don't want to have a bunch of them--this would be the way to go.

As to why you might want a bevel-down plane . . .



You like acquiring tools as much as you like working wood. :)
Vintage planes can often be found inexpensively and with a bit of sweat equity can be made useful. Having different types of planes around can be useful when dealing with different types of wood and grain. Sometimes one plane will do the job, when another one won't.
The bevel-up series of planes from Veritas, with interchangeable blades, are somewhat wide with blades that are 2-1/4". You may find, at some point, you need something a bit more narrow in a bench plane type configuration like a No. 3.

[Joel Goodman]

I like my LN 62 (BU) with a 35 degree blade better than the BD smoothers I've tried -- and that included a LN 4 1/2 York and an ECE. I'm sure the LV BU planes are similar.

[Raney Nelson]

I gues I'm in the opposite - I much prefer BD planes for most tasks. I do have a LA jack, which is excellent for shooting board and occasional endgrain use.

I find BU planes develop a pretty significant wear bevel, and it's on the blade back because of the orientation. This, to me, increases the sharpening PITA. With BD, the wear bevel is on the ground bevel, so it gets removed with normal honing. Not a deal killer, but it annoys me when I have to sharpen my jack blades.

The real reason, though, is that I don't like the low ceter of gravity on BU planes as much. I am a believer in the fact that a well-designed plane makes good use of the user's sense of level and plumb. Because the COG on BU planes is so low, I didn't find this to be the case.

I have several bench planes, so I like to have them set up to do one thing, and do it right. I'm not very concerned with 'versatility' in that sense.

Having said all that, though, there is really no argument that if you are going to have a small number of planes then BU gives you a LOT of flexibility.

[Robert Rozaieski]

To address your question directly, a BU plane can certainly have it's angle changed by grinding a different angle. However, so can a bevel down plane, by adding a back bevel ;). You can have different irons for a BD plane just as easily as a BU plane, so really, there is no difference in that respect. :D

With that said, I like BD because I like old tools and for the price of 1 BU jack (you choose the make), I can get at least 5 old planes. I don't care about the versatility of the BU planes and actually think that this perceived versatility is way over rated (yes I have used them ;)). I have found that it isn't worth the effort to constantly change blades and settings for different tasks. You give up something in a tool in order to make it more versatile. I have a jack plane set up to be a jack plane, a try set up as a try, a jointer as a jointer and a smoother as a smoother. This allows me to pick up a plane and go and it allows me to perform the tasks that the planes were designed to do very effeciently and with little effort or time spent constantly checking.

If you use machines to do your stock prep, then a jack plane is not what you want as they are designed for rougher tasks (based on their size, not their ability to take a thin shaving). In my experience, a jack plane (bevel up or bevel down, doesn't really matter) can smooth well if set up for doing so, however, they are a lot heavier than needed for a smoother. In addition, they are too long to focus on a small area of tough grain when required to do so. Also, they are too short to be any good for final flattening of panels or jointing edges. You can certainly use them for this, but you are going to work harder at it. I think this is why so many folks get frustrated trying to flatten a panel or joint an edge by hand :mad:...they are trying to make a tool do something it was not optimized to do. That's the price of versatility :).

Ask yourself what you want the plane to do. If you want to smooth a board, get a smooth plane. If you want to joint an edge, get a jointer. If you want to prepare rough stock using only hand planes, get all three (Jack, jointer, smoother). How it feels in use should be the deciding factor. If it's not comfortable for you to use, you will avoid it.

Bevel up or bevel down doesn't really matter as they will both do the task, but don't let a false sense of versatility sway your vote. If you work domestic hardwoods, you shouldn't need to change the cutting angle very often. I have a standard 45 degree smoother that does 95 percent of my smoothing. A sharp iron goes a long way :). When I need a higher angle in a rare case, I have a 55 degree woodie I made or I'll scrape.

The one thing that I will give the BU planes over the BD is their effectiveness on end grain. A BD plane cannot have a cutting angle lower than it's bed angle. If you want a plane for end grain, get a BU smoother, that way you can leave it set up as a smoother. If you set a BU jack for use as a jack plane, you won't be able to take a shaving on the end grain as it will be too big a bite so you'll constantly be changing the setting...very ineffecient. With that said, I have a BD wooden strike block (miter plane, whatever you call it) with a bed angle of 35 degrees. This is the same effective cutting angle as your typical BU plane with a 25 degree bevel angle. It works just as well on end grain as a BU plane.:D

[glenn bradley]

I went with a LA BU and have a second iron with a higher angle so I can change back and forth as desired.

[Brian Kent]

So why is it that the LV Low Angle Jack suddenly meets a piece of wood it doesn't like (and it really does get along well with most wood) and then an old Stanley jack or a Mujingfang or a Krenov suddenly takes the right bite?

It's a mystery. Pick your "mostly" plane and make really good friends with it, but have one of its cousins sharp and ready.

[Chris Friesen]

With that said, I like BD because I like old tools and for the price of 1 BU jack (you choose the make), I can get at least 5 old planes.

I live in the middle of the Canadian prairies. There are basically no old tools available locally, and when dealers in the US condescend to deal with us Canucks the shipping is often excessive (and then add on UPS brokerage fees, since many dealers won't ship USPS).

It's enough of a pain that I've basically given up on being able to find decent old tools, and have started buying new.

[Eddie Darby]

I own both types of planes, and the real difference in performance is mostly to be found out at the fringes where you find difficult woods.

The BD planes have the added weight and the adjustability on the fly that makes them ideal for the job. You can just advance the blade with a twirl of the index finger, and keep on going.

Adjustment isn't as straight forward and easy with BU planes, which tend to be lighter, generally.

The BU excel at low angles of attack, such as endgrain, and I prefer BD for tough wild grain, where the mass helps.

Both will get the job done, and the BU offer flexibility, which is nice for someone starting out on a budget.

[Larry Williams]

I was wondering, if I can sharpen a low angle bevel up plane to just about any angle, why buy a standard angle plane? I'm sure there is a good reason, I'm probably just too new to know what it is.

Derek Cohen is one of the biggest proponents of low-angle/bevel-up planes around. Recently, though, in a discussion of the new Holtey No. 982 he wrote: "...Hats off to Karl Holtey for his superlative work. Does it matter whether he does 90% or 50% or 10% with machines? This man is the universally accepted master of toolmakers. He has about 3 decades or more of experience and expertise in his planes. ..."

While I don't agree about "universally accepted master", I do think he's learned plenty about hand planes. He's discontinuing his #98 bevel-up plane in favor of a middle pitch bevel down plane. His #98 with its 22 1/2º bed angle doesn't suffer the clearance angle problems of the 12º bed angle bevel up planes like the rapid wear on the under side of the iron mentioned earlier.

I could explain why I think he's learned the middle pitch single iron plane is better than a bevel-up for difficult interlocked grain hardwoods but I don't have time to write a book.

I find the evolution of Holtey's planes interesting. He started out producing reproduction standard double iron infills. Then he switched to steeper pitched double iron infills. After these, came the #98. Now he's making a single iron middle pitched plane. It looks to me like he's ended up nearly right where plane evolution was in the last half of the 18th Century when double irons were introduced.

Those old guys knew a lot and tried everything. Just look at American plane patents for an idea of the constant effort at improving planes over the years. One funny thing is Holtey and a lot of others seem to be looking for the heaviest plane possible. If you look at the patent records for American metal planes one thing you'll find is the old guys kept looking for a way to make metal planes lighter. In fact, being lighter may be the most common claim in old US metal plane patents. If you've ever actually worked all day at a bench with bench planes doing traditional work, you'll really understand the earlier quest for lighter planes.

[philip marcou]

Larry,
Let's not worry too much about who supports what. You are certainly correct in saying that the Old Boys knew a lot- but they also knew nothing of improved wear resisting steels such as D2, A2 and various other high speed steels. It would be interesting to see how access to those would have influenced plane design.
I have an issue with your take on metal planes and the quest for weight reduction: since Stanley were the big boys in mass production I suspect (believe) that the real reason for all that touting was in fact the need to cut costs of production by using /casting as little iron as possible. Why did they not seek to lose some weight by using lighter weight timbers for knobs and totes?. Ditto the famous/infamous chattering thin irons....the really Old Boys in fact used mighty thick irons.
The days of labouring all day with handplanes are long gone- folk are more keen on playing/enjoying the work and will use electricity to do the boring stuff . I also think that workmen of yore were a lot tougher than what we have nowadays, so handplaning all day was no sweat, but handplaning dense hardwoods was a different proposition so they in fact looked for heavier planes such as Norris, Spiers et al made. I would rather plane Teak or Jatoba with a Very Heavy Plane , all day, than force and keep a lighty down for a short time.
The fact of the matter is that the main influences on bevel angles and the question of b/u or b/d are items such as the way one works (or plays), the nature of the blade, and wood types worked (a lot different to days of yore). Folk are more apt to adapt or customise their tools and planes to suit-and it must be said that a b/u plane with superior steel blades allows more scope for that.
As to why dear K.H has defected from b/u to b/d- who knows the real reason? These days one is better off with many strings to the bow,(read: many blades to the plane) and if one is considered a leader in one's field one is able to mould a market to suit one's tastes, should one be so inclined. One also grows more cynical with age.
What would you predict the next Holtey to be?;)

[David Keller NC]

Why would one buy two or more planes when a bevel up plane wtih two or more blades can do the same work?

If you work with handplanes a lot (and not just for smoothing, but also joinery and shooting on the same job), there's a really easy answer - because stopping your work to change out a blade is a tremendous PITA. My method of working is, I suspect, fairly similiar to others that do mostly handwork after roughing out planks on machines. Once I set up a plane, I tend not to mess with the setting for the rest of the day, and perhaps for the rest of the job, depending on how hard the wood is and whether I have to stop to hone the blade (which is also a PITA, but that part can't be helped;))

A good example is in block planes. Over the last 3 days I constructed a 1:12 scale doll bed for my niece. Most of the work was done with a Lie-Nielsen low-angle block plane, standard angle block plane, #2 bronze bevel-down bailey plane, and a miter plane on a shooting board. Having to stop to replace the blade in my low-angle block would've very significantly slowed me down, and very much interfered with the precision of my work.

The precision hindrance comes from the fact that even though I like and use Charlesworth's method of flipping the plane upside down and running a small piece of wood across the blade aver the width of the plane to check and adjust the depth and centering, I still typically make small adjustments to the cut depth and centering after two or three shavings.

On every tiny workpiece of this project, I was typically flush-planing it to match its mate, shooting each side, and planing each end. Stopping to change the blade in my low angle block to go from side or face grain to end grain would've been maddening.

[Larry Williams]

Philip,

I doubt access to today's fad steels would have changed much in traditional plane design. I doubt they could have sold tools with steel that didn't quickly take a good edge back then.

While I maintain a lot of high speed steels and even carbide for metal working, I have no use for them in woodworking tools. I had a D-2 chisel given to me but it wasn't worth the effort to properly tune, a brief session on the sharpening stones told me all I needed to know about that chisel. Of coarse, if I was using metal stamping dies I'd look to D-2 because that's its intended use.

I used some A-2 plane irons for a while but I've replaced them with W-1 irons. I found the "increased wear" marginal and not worth the struggle and extra effort to sharpen them. I'm getting to be an old man with a limited amount of time left on this planet, I've got better things to do than sharpen steel that really doesn't want to be sharpened.

Because of the metal working we do, we have grinders you won't find in many woodworking shops. I could have taken that D-2 chisel I mentioned to the oscillating diamond grinder and properly shaped the body for its intended use. It would have probably taken a day or more and used up a couple $150 diamond wheels. I can buy a whole set of old chisels like that one for less than the diamond wheels would have cost. I have the equipment to handle today's fad steels and still don't find them worth the effort for woodworking.

I spent a lifetime doing architectural woodworking and a lot of what I did was with hand tools. I used Stanley planes for years. I can understand complaints about tear out with Stanley planes but complaints about chattering irons tell me someone needs to learn to tune and sharpen their planes.

Actually the early irons were quite thin, about 1/8" or less thick. The thick irons you mention were a 19th Century compromise to mass production.

When you say, "The days of labouring all day with handplanes are long gone," are you suggesting the only use for hand planes today is as a substitute for a finish sander? Only to remove machine marks? I know a lot of people who would disagree with that. I think those who believe that are limiting themselves and missing out on a whole world of capability. You'll also find the pressure required to keep a plane in the cut greatly increases with an inadequate clearance angle.

Here's a link to US bench plane patents:

http://www.datamp.org/displayIndex.php?start=0

If you spend much time looking at them you'll soon come to realize how often metal plane patents claim to reduce the weight of metal planes.

I have no idea where Holtey might go but it is interesting where his experience has led him. I'd have told him to start where he is now but he didn't ask. :D

[Raney Nelson]

Interesting point about clearance angles Larry - I hadn't thought about it before, but I think that the decreased 12 degree clearance angle may very well be part of my preference to BD planes... I keep my irons between 25-30 degrees or so and I don't do secondary bevels - unless you consider hollow grinding a 'secondary' which I don't. This means that all my planes except the two BU ones I have all get at the very least a 15 degree clearance, and most are closer to 20...

I do know that other than endgrain work, I almost always go to a BD plane. Even when I used to use block planes more often, I grabbed the SA most of the time if I'm working anything other than endgrain. And even though I seem to be in the minority, when I did have a BU smoother I reached for my LN 4-1/2 every single time.

I'll have to spend a little more time working with that idea in mind to see if it holds water for me, but it gave me a real 'aha' bell-ring when I read it. Thanks.

[Derek Cohen]

I was wondering, if I can sharpen a low angle bevel up plane to just about any angle, why buy a standard angle plane? I'm sure there is a good reason, I'm probably just too new to know what it is.

Both types of planes have their pros and cons. There is no such thing as the "perfect" plane (although those from Holtey do come close, Larry - but I am/was talking about construction in the misquote you made).

As all know, the advantage of the BU plane is its cutting angle range. Now this is not truly accurate. The real advantage is that one can dial in the angle you need. This may sound like splitting hairs, but one does not really want to have several blades per plane. What one wants is to have the plane that does the job. In a smoother I want a plane with a particularly high cutting angle since I work with really difficult grain. I can get 60 degrees from a BD plane such as the HNT Gordon rage (which I use), but only a BU plane can get me to 65 degrees, which is sometimes necessary.

OK, what about BU non-smoother planes? I think that the LA Jack is fantastic! It is extremely versatile, but my most used area is on the shooting board, which I use all the time. There is no standard BD plane that has a cutting angle as low (the only one I know is a woodie made by Phil Edwards), and a low cutting angle is better/easier on end grain. Yes you can use a standard angle, but it will not leave as smooth a finish.

Now I am not trying to sell BU planes here - I am simply pointing out a few areas in which they excell over BD planes. They are the extreme ends of the spectrum, either very high or very low angles. Most BD planes fit into the middle ground. While this may not sound as exciting, in my opinion there is a good reason for a particular group of woodworkers to choose a BD plane in this instance.

Before I discuss the pros of BD planes I must point out that I always recommend prospective buyers/users to try out both types of planes. They feel different in use. This is not about right or wrong. It is a personal thing. BD planes generally (but not always) have a high centre of gravity. Stanley planes and, yes, especially the traditional coffin woodies. This can be helpful when planing since you are better able to judge whether you are holding a plane square to the work. BU planes generally have a low centre of gravity. The advantage of this is that they are easier to push and have a greater degree of feedback ("feel").

If you are a user of honing guides when sharpening, then the following is not going to mean much to you. On the other hand, if you are a freehand sharpener, then you will likely dislike BU planes.

With BD planes, the cutting angle comes from the bed. A plane with a 45 degree frog/bed will create a 45 degree cutting angle, irrespective of the angle at which the plane is beveled. The cutting angle remains the same whether beveled at 25- or 30 degrees.

With BU planes, the cutting angle is the combined bed- and bevel angle. So a 12 degree bed plus a 33 degree bevel provides a 45 degree cutting angle.

From this it is evident that one does not need to be too exact with the bevel angle on BD planes. Honing at 25, 28, 30, even 35 degrees will make little difference. On the other hand, the bevel angle on a BU plane does make a significant difference. Of course there is the same flexibility as with the BD plane in that a few degrees here or there are unimportant, but there is a difference in planing outcome when one goes from 25 degrees to 50 degrees.

My preference is to hollow grind a blade and then hone it freehand. Much of the time I lack the patience to muck about with honing guides. For this reason I prefer the ease of maintaining the blade of a BD plane. Maintaining a BU bevel is a chore for me, and it says a lot about their performance that makes me want to use them! So, for the less demanding stuff, I predominantly use BD planes. This is about 50% of the time (For the record Larry these include HNT Gordon, Stanley, LN and Blum).

The best of both worlds is the BU infill with a 25 degree bed that I built. This uses a 35 degree hollow ground bevel. This is the upper limit of what I would recommend it you wish to add a slight camber to the bevel (higher angle bevels involve too much metal to remove easily - see http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/TheSecretToCamberinBUPlaneBlades.html ).

I could say a lot more, but I am not sure whether anyone is still awake! :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

www.inthewoodshop.com

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Raney

Our posts crossed so I will add a little about the effect of wear bevels on BU plane use.

In theory the BU plane should stop working owing to a greater wear bevel than on the BD plane. There is some evidence through research of Brent Beach that it is present.

In practice I do not find this to be an issue. And if it were, I just do not notice it.

In part the reason may be my blade maintenance method, which I shall describe below.

The major like I have for BD planes is the ease of blade maintenance. I am not simply refering to sharpening, per se. I thnk that you and I sharpen in a similar manner. I prefer a hollow grind, which I freehand on waterstones, at the angle of the hollow (in other words, on BD planes blades, I try and grind a hollow at an angle close to my preferred cutting angle). I do not add a secondary bevel, but create a microbevel on the hollowed edge.

The reason I do not like an added secondary bevel is that this makes it more difficult to refresh when stropping. The danger is that you dub the edge. The same goes for a backbevel. I avoid them as well. So stropping a BD blade is generally easy as pie.

The same can not be said for BU plane blades. They rely a secondary bevel for the cutting angle (with the exception of the 25 degree bevel on the LA Jack, and the 35 degree bevel on my infill smoother). Stropping for maintenance is not as easy. So what I do is just strop the back of the blade. In practice what I find is that the edge is maintained pretty well. Itmay be that this stropping removes the wear bevel. And that is why it does not have a presence in my experience.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Will Blick]

Derek, you can keep talkin all you want, we still listen! You really have excellent insights into hand planes....

As for the history of planes.... I agree with a poster above...its hard to imagine how things would have been different, had they had the metals we have today and the sharpening accessories we have today.

The really good high end sharpening stones offered today take sharpness to a new level. And as mentioned previously, its truly amazing how ultra sharp blades solve so many planing problems.... it also eliminates the issue of "which plane is better". I even feel that mass can be over rated, WHEN the blade is ultra sharp....although, even with an ultra sharp blade, you can feel the benefits of mass. Of course, you have to be a sharpen freak to attain this level of sharpness, but it sure is rewarding with the way it cuts wood. Every mourning when I shave, and my disposable razor starts pulling a bit vs. cutting, I think of how important a ultra sharp edge is on hand plane blade....

[Robert Rozaieski]

I can get 60 degrees from a BD plane such as the HNT Gordon rage (which I use), but only a BU plane can get me to 65 degrees, which is sometimes necessary.
Derek, a bevel down plane with a back bevel will get you to 65 degrees or higher if you like. But you already know that ;).


There is no standard BD plane that has a cutting angle as low
How about this one?
http://logancabinetshoppe.weebly.com/uploads/9/4/7/5/947508/826708_orig.jpg

American made strike block/miter plane, whatever you want to call it, made some time in the early 1800s. Single bevel down iron bedded at 35 degrees, which is actually lower than a low angle BU plane with a 25 degree bevel (which would be around 37 degrees). I see these every once in awhile on ebay so they do exist :D. And you are correct, the low angle of this plane leaves a very nice finish on end grain.


This is not about right or wrong. It is a personal thing.

:) I couldn't agree more. The choice is very personal. I guess my only point is that the versatility arguement about BU planes being able to change cutting angle is (IN MY OPINION ONLY) over hyped. You can change the cutting angle of a BD plane as well with the use of a back bevel (though you can increase it only, never decrease it). Unless you want to get down to bed/cutting angles below 30-35 degrees, a BD plane can be just as "versatile" as a BU plane. You just have to approach it differently.

Cheers!:D

Bob

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Bob

Don't forget I said standard BD plane when commenting on their relative absence among the low cutting fraternity. :).

With reference to using backbevels on BD planes ... well I dislike them for the same reason I dislike a secondary bevel on a BU plane - they are more work when it comes to re-sharpening (honing) and blade maintenance (stropping).

You can certainly increase the cutting angle with a backbevel, but (in my opinion ..ha!) it is even more work than it is worth.

What I am waiting for is a 60 degree frog to go on my Anniversary LN #4 1/2. That combination will be a killer plane!

With reference to mass, in my experience higher mass is a significant benefit on hardwoods. The best smoother I have ever used is still a Marcou. It is seriously weighty! But mass is not experienced negatively when the plane has good balance. One of the best examples of this is the Blum smoother. It weighs more than a HNT Gordon smoother (which is made from some very dense woods), yet feels significantly lighter.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Don C Peterson]

There's endless debate on this subject and I, as a relative newbie, have been persuaded by both camps at different times. I have a couple of LN bench planes (BD) and a low angle Jack (BU) as well as a couple of old Stanley bench planes.

After I got over the arguments and got down to using them for some time, I think I've arrived at a couple conclusions for myself:

In theory it's really cool that the LV low angle planes have interchangeable irons, and all the BU planes theorietically allow you to "easily" change the effective cutting angle, it's all just a nice theory. Yes, changing irons in a BU plane is marginally easier than chaning irons in a BD plane, but it's not something I want, or need, to do very often.

I do have several irons for my BU Jack, but the one that sees the vast majority of the work is the standard 25 degree iron, distantly followed by the 90 degree iron that I occasionally use to turn it into a scraper. The LA Jack sees most of it's bench time in conjunction with a shooting board.

When I have surface planing to do, I almost always reach for the standard bench planes. I don't know exactly why, and I really don't care to spend the time to figure out, but the BD bench planes feel "right" to me. I also like the the ease of adjustment both depth and yaw, I don't even have to pause working to make most of the necessary adjustments.

I completely agree with Derek's comment about sharpening, being a freehand sharpener, I don't care if my BD irons are sharpened with precisely this or that angle, and I don't like the fuss and bother of using a honing guide for the BU irons which usually means that I don't, which also means that the results are a bit less predictable.

[Matt Clark]

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

[Tristan Raymond]

...I think I'm going to start with the LN LA Jack plane...

I don't own a lot of planes, but that one is my favorite. I believe that it will serve you well.

[Randy Klein]

distantly followed by the 90 degree iron that I occasionally use to turn it into a scraper.

Can you elaborate on this iron? Is it something you ground yourself?

[Don C Peterson]

Can you elaborate on this iron? Is it something you ground yourself?

LN sells them. Just like the name implies they don't come to a "point" at the edge but have a rather small square face (maybe about 1/32 tall) and once fitted into the LA Jack, the plane effectively becomes a scraper with an 102 degree cutting angle.

I sharpen it just like I would any other scraper. It's definately not something I try to do freehand, but the jig is simple to make.

[Larry Williams]

...There is no such thing as the "perfect" plane (although those from Holtey do come close, Larry - but I am/was talking about construction in the misquote you made). ...

There's no "misquote" there. Your comments were cut and pasted from the following thread:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?p=908476

[Joel Goodman]

I have been thinking of getting this 90 degree iron. Do use a burr on it? How does it compare to a scraper plane? How do you like it?

[Raney Nelson]

Hi Raney

Our posts crossed so I will add a little about the effect of wear bevels on BU plane use.

In theory the BU plane should stop working owing to a greater wear bevel than on the BD plane. There is some evidence through research of Brent Beach that it is present.

In practice I do not find this to be an issue. And if it were, I just do not notice it.

In part the reason may be my blade maintenance method, which I shall describe below.

The major like I have for BD planes is the ease of blade maintenance. I am not simply refering to sharpening, per se. I thnk that you and I sharpen in a similar manner. I prefer a hollow grind, which I freehand on waterstones, at the angle of the hollow (in other words, on BD planes blades, I try and grind a hollow at an angle close to my preferred cutting angle). I do not add a secondary bevel, but create a microbevel on the hollowed edge.

The reason I do not like an added secondary bevel is that this makes it more difficult to refresh when stropping. The danger is that you dub the edge. The same goes for a backbevel. I avoid them as well. So stropping a BD blade is generally easy as pie.

The same can not be said for BU plane blades. They rely a secondary bevel for the cutting angle (with the exception of the 25 degree bevel on the LA Jack, and the 35 degree bevel on my infill smoother). Stropping for maintenance is not as easy. So what I do is just strop the back of the blade. In practice what I find is that the edge is maintained pretty well. Itmay be that this stropping removes the wear bevel. And that is why it does not have a presence in my experience.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek - you're spot-on about your comments. I freehand in just that way, and am loathe to vary it much. It's the extra 'mucking around' that made BU planes unpleasant to me, other than as a shooting plane (where I agree the LA jack is a spectacular performer). Stropping the back is a new idea to me - and sounds like it may eliminate the need to 'backbevel' the face to eliminate the wear bevel - by far my least favorite piece of maintenance on the LAJ. I don't use sec. bevels because the 25 degree blade is all that I kept.

So there are three clear things about my work habits that make BD much better for me:
1) I freehand hone whenever humanly possible -which, with BD bench planes, is always.
2) I work mostly with more reasonable woods - I have a York pitch LN 4-1/2 and a middle pitch infill that cover 90% of what I do. I have the luxury of also having a smaller (1-1/2" blade) infill bedded at 60 degrees for very difficult stuff. It pushes easily, has a very tight aperture, and if it won't handle it , I scrape. I also on rare occasions resort to the 0-degree impregnated-paper abrasive scraper plane, but don't tell my neanderthal friends ;)
3) I very much appreciate (and often rely on) the level-plumb sensitivity BD and taller woodies convey.

The not-so clear is that I just prefer them for some intangible reasons as well, many of which are now firmly habit, so unlikely to change. I do also wonder whether Larry's clearance angle argument isn't a very big 'missing piece' for me - it certainly makes a lot of sense to me... I definitely know that under 10 deg clearance works poorly if at all, so the idea that a 20 deg clearance may be somewhat preferable to 12 degree is worth checking further into for myself.

Having said that, I am also quite aware that there are any number of very talented folk who find BU planes preferable. To each his own.

[Derek Cohen]

There's no "misquote" there. Your comments were cut and pasted from the following thread:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?p=908476

Larry

You have taken my quote out of context, that is why it is a misquote. That thread was about the value, perceived or real, of Holtey planes. My comment was about construction, per se. You are using it here to refer to design, in the context of BU verses BD.

What is your point?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Bill Moser]

Some comment s and questions:

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

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

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

[philip marcou]

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

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

[philip marcou]

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

[philip marcou]

Some comment s and questions:

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

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

3) moulding planes are somewhat more delicate than bench planes, it seems to me. So for these, maybe a thinner iron is best, since a thicker iron means a larger opening for the throat. For bench planes, it seems to me that you could go thicker -- 1/4" seems like a nice round number -- without compromising the structural integrity of the plane. Also , isn't a thicker blade easier to sharpen freehand?
Bill, and all those interested:
Here is a chart which has useful information. You will see that A2 is a high carbon steel like O1. I am not pushing any steel over another- I have already stated what I think are the critical factors affecting us as woodworkers. The interesting things to note and compare are the relative carbon amounts (read ability to harden), the wear resistance (read edge holding ability) and the grain size (read ability to get very sharp).
I am also aware that all these charts, stats, figures, comparisons etc are fine enough , but the real thing is about what happens in practice: for example it is no use believing that if for example you have a certain blade made from A2 or even 154CM to go to extremes, it will perform better than say an O1 blade-it will not if heat treatment is not properly done. The charts do demonstrate the proven characteristics required to obtain the qualities wanted.

[David Colafranceschi]

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

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

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

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

[Bill Moser]

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

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

[Larry Williams]

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

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

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

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

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

[James Mittlefehldt]

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

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

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

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

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

[John Sanford]

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

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

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

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

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

[Will Blick]

Phillip, what book is that from?
Thanks

[Shannon Vincent]

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


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

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

[philip marcou]

Phillip, what book is that from?
Thanks

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

[philip marcou]

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

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

[John Sanford]

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

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

[Shannon Vincent]

Thanks Shannon and John, for further explanation.
You can see that I go to great lengths to ensure that my planes will not just fall out of the sky:D.
.
No problem.Just keep me in mind if you need one of YOUR "planes" inspected and maintained.I would be MORE than happy to have one or two...or twelve in my "hangar" to maintain upkeep from time to time.;):D

[Shannon Vincent]

One more thing and I will go back to my corner....my prefered method of heat treatment is performed by using the salt bath method instead of an oven.(Much more evenly heated in a liquid.)My experience has been that ovens require much more attention/tweaking and tend to develop mechanical problems more frequently.(I would guess that the heat treating facility that Mr.Marcou uses, employs the salt bath method.But I am guessing.:)
And to keep myself from totally hijacking this thread....I own the LV BU jack with all 3 blades and love it....But I want a LN #4 sooo bad....and a 4 1/2...and a Marcou smoother...and...sorry,its slippery 'round here.:D

[philip marcou]

One more thing and I will go back to my corner....my prefered method of heat treatment is performed by using the salt bath method instead of an oven.(Much more evenly heated in a liquid.)My experience has been that ovens require much more attention/tweaking and tend to develop mechanical problems more frequently.(I would guess that the heat treating facility that Mr.Marcou uses, employs the salt bath method.But I am guessing.:)
And to keep myself from totally hijacking this thread....I own the LV BU jack with all 3 blades and love it....But I want a LN #4 sooo bad....and a 4 1/2...and a Marcou smoother...and...sorry,its slippery 'round here.:D

No they use air hardening mainly but it depends on what steel type is being treated . No surface degradation/scaling whatsoever-the metal looks as though it has been coated: exclusion of oxygen . I have been sending blades about 8 thou oversize, then I surface grind when they are hard: easier to get a nice smooth matt surface when metal is hard.
What was the original subject of this thread?:D

[philip marcou]

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

You may jest-but who knows what can happen in the future.
At this time all planes are grounded due to economic and financial turbulence.
So I am just adding to my fleet- that is what Richard Branson did.... ;)

[Tim Dorcas]

I was wondering, if I can sharpen a low angle bevel up plane to just about any angle, why buy a standard angle plane? I'm sure there is a good reason, I'm probably just too new to know what it is.

Both types of planes have their pros and cons. There is no such thing as the "perfect" plane (although those from Holtey do come close, Larry - but I am/was talking about construction in the misquote you made).

...

Derek,

Thanks for the time to respond to this thread. I am learning quite a bit. Personally my planes are BU and they seem to work fine but I only use them in conjunction with power tools so my needs are less. If you have more to add, I am certainly listening.