Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 61

Thread: Frustrated with low angle plane

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    DuBois, PA
    Posts
    1,557
    Make a hot dog handle for the side and use it for shooting.
    If the thunder don't get you, the lightning will.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    South West Ontario
    Posts
    694
    E17EA6BC-A5F2-4AFD-B2C3-F4AC16BB415C.jpg

    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:

    4FAF7BCA-7E25-4843-A533-B3B3BB28C8AF.jpg

    There was more difference, the BDís 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.
    ​You can do a lot with very little! You can do a little more with a lot!

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Warren Mickley View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Andrew Seemann; 01-23-2019 at 2:39 AM.

  4. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by steven c newman View Post
    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!)

  5. #50
    "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.



  6. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom - Devon
    Posts
    410
    I'm sure Osvaldo is sorted now, but if not head over to Derek's site http://inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTec...aneBlades.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!

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    18,685
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Seemann View Post
    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
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  8. Agreed!!!! Iíve 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

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    6,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Seemann View Post
    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, 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

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,385
    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
    Jim

  11. #56
    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.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,352
    The following video Terry Gordon discusses the importance of clearance angle.

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

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    524
    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.
    Last edited by Tom Bender; 01-27-2019 at 10:10 AM.

  14. #59
    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.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dickinson, Texas
    Posts
    5,998

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •