PM-V11 on Lie-Nielson Planes?

[ken hatch]

I contacted LV about compatibility a few weeks ago and received a fairly blunt response saying they can't recommend such retrofitting. I'm sure this was just a liability issue but I'm glad this question arose here. Time to rethink my plans.

Al,

Using the LN chip breaker with Veritas cutters is no problem other than you may have to slightly enlarge the adjustment hole in the chip breaker with a file or Dremil for the chip breaker/Veritas cutter set to seat on the Frog. It is not a biggie once you know where the problem is.

ken

[Andy Jungblut]

Ken,

I have two newer LN planes (#4 and #7), and both needed the chip breaker to be filed for my PM-V11 Veritas irons to fit in the plane properly.

Andy

[ken hatch]

Ken,

I have two newer LN planes (#4 and #7), and both needed the chip breaker to be filed for my PM-V11 Veritas irons to fit in the plane properly.

Andy

Andy,

Thank you. I'm old and forgetful and it has been years since the last time I fooled with fitting after market irons to a LN plane but that is what I remembered, that while most older planes worked ok the newer ones needed modding.

ken

[Bruce Mack]

For LN bevel up planes, David Eckert (here in Australia) makes PM blades which will fit a number of the LN planes, such as the jack, and some block planes. I have not used them and have no idea what they are like, other than they are PM steel and, according to David, equivalent to PM-V11 - of course he will say this . Link: https://www.thetoolworks.com.au/pma11v-plane-blades/

Regards from Perth

Derek

I have the Eckert blade on my L-N low angle jack, a bevel up plane. Though I hollow-ground and honed it I haven't used it enough to compare the edge holding with the original blades. It has a flat back and fits perfectly.

[Phil Mueller]

That’s true, Ken...diamond and synthetic. Kind of raises the question, given the cost of good stones, is it better to spend extra $ and time on an iron that works with your current stones, or buy a few additional stones for the type of steel in your planes.

[ken hatch]

That’s true, Ken...diamond and synthetic. Kind of raises the question, given the cost of good stones, is it better to spend extra $ and time on an iron that works with your current stones, or buy a few additional stones for the type of steel in your planes.

Phil,

I've never like the feel or the quality of the edge left by either diamond or synthetic polishing stones and I really hate the synthetic stone monkey motion. Now the Unicorn process may change my mind about diamonds and the cutting edge although I expect I'll hang in with natural stones or India stones.

ken

[Warren Mickley]

I was thinking the same, Tom. I have a few LN planes/irons and they seem to sharpen up just fine.

I have been to around ten Lie Nielsen hand tool events. I have never seen a LN plane perform like an old Bailey. I don't know whether their problems are with the steel or the sharpening media or the one who is sharpening.

[Phil Mueller]

Ken, your point is well taken. I’ll have to concede I don’t know what I don’t know. Have not tried natural stones or India stones, or the Unicorn process for that matter. Easy enough to get a buffing wheel...may try that in the near future.

[Tony Wilkins]

I have been to around ten Lie Nielsen hand tool events. I have never seen a LN plane perform like an old Bailey. I don't know whether their problems are with the steel or the sharpening media or the one who is sharpening.

Are you saying they don’t perform as well? Or better?

[ken hatch]

Are you saying they don’t perform as well? Or better?

Tony,

Having read posts by Warren I can without doubt state he did not feel the LN planes performed as well as an old Bailey plane. The Bailey plane was designed by a man who knew what a plane needed to do and every part from the frog to the chip breaker, to the iron does its job well. That can't be said of some of the designs that followed.

ken

[Robert Hazelwood]

I replaced the blade in my LN #4 (I think 2012 vintage) with a Hock O1. The Hock is 3/32" (0.09375"). Using the original chipbreaker, the thinner blade meant that the tapered adjuster prong would not fully slip into the chipbreaker slot. That slot is milled so that it is a perfect fit on the adjuster prong when attached to an 1/8" thick blade, which eliminates one source of backlash. With a thinner blade, the CB slot cannot come down any further onto the prong (b/c it is tapered) so the blade/cap iron assembly would be held up off the bed of the frog a little bit, resting on that tapered prong instead of the frog.

A few minutes of filing on the chipbreaker slot fixed the problem. You have to be careful with the filing or you can create a lot of backlash. Mine has a little more than it did originally, but doesn't bother me. If you go back to the LN blade you would have quite a bit more backlash, so you'd probably want to just order a new chipbreaker if you care about minimal backlash.

Looks like the PM-v11 blades for Stanley replacement are 0.100". So a little thicker than the Hock, but closer to Hock than to the original LN iron (.125"). I can't say for sure if you'll need to file the CB slot but it seems fairly likely. When you install the blade for the first time check that the blade can fully seat on the frog.


I replaced the iron b/c it was always getting microchips and leaving little lines all over the work. Unacceptable in a smoothing plane IMO. It would get these chips long before the blade became dull from wear, so whatever edge longevity advantage it theoretically has could not be utilized. I hear this kind of complaint often enough about A2 that I think it is just a characteristic of the steel rather than a defective iron. In four or so years with the Hock iron I don't think I have ever gotten a chip- it just gradually gets duller. Same with any vintage irons.

The plane itself is fantastic though and I still recommend them.

[Derek Cohen]

I have been to around ten Lie Nielsen hand tool events. I have never seen a LN plane perform like an old Bailey. I don't know whether their problems are with the steel or the sharpening media or the one who is sharpening.

Warren, I would suggest that a wood show is not the best place to assess a hand plane. You are dealing with blades which have been used by every (wo)man and his dog. You have no idea who sharpened it or how long ago. The planes are fiddled with and whatever the original settings were, that was long ago. LN, as a company philosophy, do not appear to recognise the chipbreaker as a tool for tearout control. Consequently, the results are likely to be less than optimal if the wood was demanding in this way.

I have a couple of LN bench planes (#3 and #4 1/2). The latter does not get much use, but is a really excellent performer - just too large and heavy for my liking. The #3 is a great plane, and certainly performs better than my Stanley #3, which has been tuned to the max. I use both planes with PM-V11 steel. (And no, the LN planes have the original chipbreakers and these have not required any modifications at all).

In what way is the LN better than the Stanley? Easier adjustments, the blade seems to bed a little better, and just a more solid feel in the hand. I get good results from the Stanley (to which I have great sentimental attachment), but the LN just seems to be more predictable and reliable. This is about these two planes. I do not generalise to all LN and Stanley planes. Neither should you.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[mike stenson]

Phil,

I'll bet you use synthetic water stones to sharpen. A2 sharpens on synthetic stones but is very slow on natural stones.

ken

Probably the reason I don't mind A2 Also, one of the reasons I have synthetic water stones. This is again one of those issues where I don't believe there is an intrinsically better, just different.

[ken hatch]

Probably the reason I don't mind A2 Also, one of the reasons I have synthetic water stones. This is again one of those issues where I don't believe there is an intrinsically better, just different.

Mike,

I agree, use what blows your skirt.

ken

[mike stenson]

Mike,

I agree, use what blows your skirt.

ken

I'm also in a different position where I do not find sharpening enjoyable. It's just necessary for me. So, while I understand the difference in feel etc.. I don't get excited about it, which makes me very pragmatic towards sharpening