Here goes (apology in advance for any strife), Bevel Up or Bevel Down Smoother......

[Danny Burns]

Whatever you choose, make sure that you can get a very tight mouth setting and then take a very fine chip. If you have a bench plane, then try either high angle frogs, or small back bevels to increase the angle of the blade.

[John Keeton]

Interesting... If anyone cares, I was able to plane it with my LV BUS with a 50 degree bevel.

Not to hog this thread with my inexperienced opinions, but as I stated previously, I get similar results with the LV BU Jack with the 50* blade on very curly maple. That is enough to sell me.

That said, David Keller's observations regarding the changing of blades is understandable - and, one of the reasons many of you have multiple planes.

For us "hybrid" woodworkers, the use of handplanes may take on a little different function. For me, changing the blades is just part of the fun. At that point, I am working with stock that has already been through the jointer and planer.

Again, this opinion has little value - but is mine nonetheless.

[David Keller NC]

"This seems odd...on a BU plane it takes maybe a minute to swap blades, put the old blade away, and adjust the new blade. It's going to take substantially longer than that to smooth-plane most projects (at least for me it will) so the incremental cost of the blade change is minimal."

It's true that doing the change itself is relatively quick (though not quite as quick in a LN-designed BU smoother - getting the keeper in the right orientation and the correct distance from the mouth is non-obvious; I wound up scribing the blade), but it is, of course, just as quick with a BD smoother. Getting a correct lateral adjustment and blade extension on a smoother quite a bit slower, and generally requires a test board so you don't accidentally track you project (or take a big chip out of the end).

Naturally, you can do the same thing with a Bevel-Down plane as well - one simply keeps a couple of blades around with a back-bevel to yield the planing angle of your choice. Though of course you still have to carefully re-adjust the blade extension and lateral adjustment.

Point is, other than planing end grain, which is what the original BU designs were intended for, there isn't any advantage (or disadvantage) to a bevel up plane, it's simply a personal preference.

[george wilson]

That's good,matt. I have had good results with the LN on curly maple,but since I don't like ribbon fogure,I haven't tried the BU on it. I used to use ribbon many years ago,and it was a real pill to deal with. Back then,we didn't have the nice planes available today. I think I had an aluminum Craftsman plane when in my late teens!! Had a square blade with 4 edges. Actually,it is still in a drawer.

[Roger Barlow]

Thanks for responding guys. I did read a bunch of posts and reviews before dropping this thread, I know it's like asking "what tablesaw to buy".

For grins, read this
http://www.woodcentral.com/bparticles/haspc.pdf

It's a comparison of several planes, interesting read, with some results that led me away form my initial BU low angle smoother choice.

I've also read some reviews of BU's that call them fantastic.

Since I don't own or have used a BU plane (other than block plane), I don't have any comparison. And the BU adjustment feature David mentioned might be an irritant for me, I routinely adjust blade depth on the fly depending on what I am doing.

And the ribbon mahogany comments have come up a few time in this thread, so, yes I know it's usually African (Sapele also comes quarter sawn and ribbon strip as well). I also know first hand it's a total pain to try and plane it. I rely on abrasives for this stuff. Sapele is akin to mahogany, darker brown with a harder/more brittle grain structure. It planes well, like walnut but with some grain reversals. But I sand the ribbon Sapele though.

The job in question is in cherry, so most well tuned smoothers should do a good job, but I wanted a wider blade than my LN #4, hence the 4 1/2 question. I was also looking to use the new smoother with a higher angle (50 or 55) - either by grind or frog. I was all set to buy a BU but then second guessed myself with the lack of chip breaker (and that review posted above). I do like the comment about owning several smoothers for dedicated frog and or bevel angles - that's the same principle I used for dedicated machine tools and that argument works for me. Guess I'll get a couple new smoothers There goes the profits.

[Brian Kent]

Hey Roger. That's a fine article you mentioned. It's why I tried the High Angle Mujingfang, which remains one of my favorite users. Also, note one thing here:

"6. Lee Valley Low Angle Smooth plane, adjustable mouth, single A2 iron, Norris style adjuster, lateral blade support screws, 12 bed plus 20 degree bevel for 32º overall effective angle, $139"

He was using the LA smoother with the lowest angle - 32°. It does so much better with a higher angle blade. And besides - an LV LA Smoother for $139?

[Roger Barlow]

Hey Roger. That's a fine article you mentioned. It's why I tried the High Angle Mujingfang, which remains one of my favorite users. Also, note one thing here:

"6. Lee Valley Low Angle Smooth plane, adjustable mouth, single A2 iron, Norris style adjuster, lateral blade support screws, 12 bed plus 20 degree bevel for 32º overall effective angle, $139"

He was using the LA smoother with the lowest angle - 32°. It does so much better with a higher angle blade. And besides - an LV LA Smoother for $139?

Good point about the LV bevel angle - that's what I get for skimming the beginning and reading the results I don't think LV even offers a 20 degree grind, I assumed he was using a apples to apples grind.

[David Keller NC]

"The job in question is in cherry, so most well tuned smoothers should do a good job, but I wanted a wider blade than my LN #4, hence the 4 1/2 question. I was also looking to use the new smoother with a higher angle (50 or 55) - either by grind or frog. I was all set to buy a BU but then second guessed myself with the lack of chip breaker (and that review posted above)."

This is just my opinion, and I suspect they're others that have different ones, but I personally don't think a chip breaker does much of anything, except provide a convenient mounting attachment for the blade adjust mechanism in some planes. I'm basing this on woodies - I've ones with and without the chip breaker, all at the same (common) pitch of 45 degrees. Provided that the blade's sharp, I see little difference in performance, whether in straight or highly figured grain.

If you've an active local WW club, you've likely got someone local that has both BU and BD designs that might be willing to let you try them out, that would be the best of all possible worlds to determine what fits your preferences best.

[Robert Rozaieski]

"The job in question is in cherry, so most well tuned smoothers should do a good job, but I wanted a wider blade than my LN #4, hence the 4 1/2 question. I was also looking to use the new smoother with a higher angle (50 or 55) - either by grind or frog. I was all set to buy a BU but then second guessed myself with the lack of chip breaker (and that review posted above)."

This is just my opinion, and I suspect they're others that have different ones, but I personally don't think a chip breaker does much of anything, except provide a convenient mounting attachment for the blade adjust mechanism in some planes. I'm basing this on woodies - I've ones with and without the chip breaker, all at the same (common) pitch of 45 degrees. Provided that the blade's sharp, I see little difference in performance, whether in straight or highly figured grain.

If you've an active local WW club, you've likely got someone local that has both BU and BD designs that might be willing to let you try them out, that would be the best of all possible worlds to determine what fits your preferences best.

I've had similar results. In fact, my home made wooden smoother does best with the chipbreaker pulled way back to prevent clogging of the throat. All is is basically doing is providing extra weight to the plane. I'd remove it completely if it wouldn't require making a whole new wedge.

Chris Schwarz actually referenced a good article by a professor at a university in Japan that proved the chipbreaker does in fact work as claimed (for breaking chips).....when it's placed 0.004" from the cutting edge. Hardly practical in real use. I think more of a marketing gimick to sell folks back in the day that 2 irons were better than 1.

[Joel Goodman]

One explanation for a benefit of a chipbreaker in a BD plane is that it supports the cutting edge near the bevel and if it is thick beefs up the rigidity of the iron. In a BU plane the bed extends almost to the cutting edge so the issue is not there -- and the irons tend to be thick. I assume that's the logic of the LN and Hock chipbreakers. Even a Stanley does add support near the cutting edge. I have no idea if this works out in practice!

[Matt Wilson]

One explanation for a benefit of a chipbreaker in a BD plane is that it supports the cutting edge near the bevel and if it is thick beefs up the rigidity of the iron. In a BU plane the bed extends almost to the cutting edge so the issue is not there -- and the irons tend to be thick. I assume that's the logic of the LN and Hock chipbreakers. Even a Stanley does add support near the cutting edge. I have no idea if this works out in practice!

hmm, you got me thinking about this and that is never a good thing .
To me the chip breaker was always more about adding rigidity to the iron. Most of our BD irons are pretty darn thin so the chip breaker help support it.

(this is the part where I just started thinking)
Was it really more cost effective to product a chip breaker,screw, and added assembly rather than just beef up the blade? It seems to me that it might add to the over all production cost. Maybe the rigidity theory doesn't hold as much water as I thought it did?

[Robert Rozaieski]

One explanation for a benefit of a chipbreaker in a BD plane is that it supports the cutting edge near the bevel and if it is thick beefs up the rigidity of the iron. In a BU plane the bed extends almost to the cutting edge so the issue is not there -- and the irons tend to be thick. I assume that's the logic of the LN and Hock chipbreakers. Even a Stanley does add support near the cutting edge. I have no idea if this works out in practice!

Yeah, I've heard that arguement too but I never really bought into it. Afterall, any planing forces are going to want to bend the iron away from the chip breaker, not into it so the chipbreaker really isn't providing any additional support against planing forces.

[Wilbur Pan]

Yeah, I've heard that argument too but I never really bought into it. After all, any planing forces are going to want to bend the iron away from the chip breaker, not into it so the chipbreaker really isn't providing any additional support against planing forces.

The only thing I can see is that if the iron is going to bend, the chipbreaker "prebends" the iron, so that the act of planing will be less likely to bend the iron any further.

[george wilson]

Regardless how thick the blade is,if both thick and thin blades are ground at the same angle,they'd be the same thickness near the cutting edge,wouldn't they?

Our Cooper's shop always ground extremely acute angles on their long cooper's jointers. I have wondered how those blade's very thin edges kept from springing down,and back up,while cutting those tough oak staves,producing chattering. I mean,their bevels were 1/2" long. They seemed to work,though. By making the bevels very long,the blades were easier to hand sharpen for many more sharpenings,is what I suppose their reason was. I never remembered to ask them about it.

[Matt Wilson]

Regardless how thick the blade is,if both thick and thin blades are ground at the same angle,they'd be the same thickness near the cutting edge,wouldn't they?

Yes, but the thicker iron will be more rigid and should be less likely to flex or chatter...