Low Angle Smoother - am I doing something wrong?

[Derek Cohen]

I believe there is little difference in the finish between BU or BD planes. ...

When it is same cutting angles, and no chipbreaker, it comes down to bedding stability. A thicker blade helps here, as can a well-fitted wedge. All factors equal, there should be no difference in planing result between BU and BD. The orientation of the blade in a bench plane on face grain is irrelevant.

Here is the result from a Veritas BUS with a 45 degree cutting angle on Maple ...



The photo was taken about 15 years ago and the resolution was quite low. Still, you can see the reflection from the window on the surface of the wood.

Where there is a difference between the two plane types is planing end grain. The low bed of the BU plane will leave the higher bed angle of the BD plane for dust. It is not simply about cutting angle. I have tested this many, many times. Here is one.


Regards from Perth

Derek

[Prashun Patel]

I was intrigued by this. This morning I planed quarter sawn sides of a riven piece of white oak with my small bevel up smoother and my #4 bevel down. Both had a 25 degree fresh primary bevel and a fresh microbevel (whatever the Veritas MKII gives.). I sharpened to 8000.


I can't tell the difference in the two surfaces. My fingers can't tell and my eyes couldn't tell in raking light with or without a spritz of mineral spirits. I applied a waterbased top coat and both surfaces had equivalent (to my fingers) raised grain. I've heard people who say a planed surface eliminates grain raising. That's never been the case for me.

The jamming of the wood down / burnishing is new news to me.

[Charles Guest]

I was intrigued by this. This morning I planed quarter sawn sides of a riven piece of white oak with my small bevel up smoother and my #4 bevel down. Both had a 25 degree fresh primary bevel and a fresh microbevel (whatever the Veritas MKII gives.). I sharpened to 8000.


I can't tell the difference in the two surfaces. My fingers can't tell and my eyes couldn't tell in raking light with or without a spritz of mineral spirits. I applied a waterbased top coat and both surfaces had equivalent (to my fingers) raised grain. I've heard people who say a planed surface eliminates grain raising. That's never been the case for me.

The jamming of the wood down / burnishing is new news to me.

I haven't raised the grain with a water-based finish since 1972 ;-)

[glenn bradley]

This also got me curious. It is of no help to tell someone experiencing a problem that the problem isn't there. That is not what I am trying to do. Rather I am just trying to show what I experience. I went out just now, grabbed a piece of scrap out of the bin and my Veritas BU Smoother off the till and took a swipe. This piece of material has a reversing grain about 1/3 from the end and the shaving is not quite thin enough to read through.

BU Smoother test 1-r.jpg . BU Smoother test 2-r.jpg

This is the 25 degree A2 iron. I do not back bevel. The throat is open about 1/32". This does not solve your problem. It deos add credence to what some others are saying; the results are achievable with this plane without any extra effort.

[Josko Catipovic]

I have a sort of a similar question: I have a set of '80-s Record bench planes; I know them, and they know me, that is, I'm very comfortable with what I can achieve with them. Would I gain anything in planing performance by 'upgrading to a set of LV/LN planes? I did back-to-back tests only twice: my #7 vs LV BU #7, and had problems with tearout on the LV. The other time my #4 vs LV BD #4, and it was sort of, 6 of one, 1/2 doz of the other.
I've taken decent care of my planes. Frogs are bedded down right, gap is where I want it, they're flat, etc. I 'upgraded' a couple blades to PMV-11, but didn't see much of a difference.

So, would my planing performance improve if I replaced the Records with fancier brands? Would I be able to tackle a wider range of woods?

[Jim Koepke]

I have a sort of a similar question: I have a set of '80-s Record bench planes; I know them, and they know me, that is, I'm very comfortable with what I can achieve with them. Would I gain anything in planing performance by 'upgrading to a set of LV/LN planes? I did back-to-back tests only twice: my #7 vs LV BU #7, and had problems with tearout on the LV. The other time my #9 vs LV BD #9, and it was sort of, 6 of one, 1/2 doz of the other.
I've taken decent care of my planes. Frogs are bedded down right, gap is where I want it, they're flat, etc. I 'upgraded' a couple blades to PMV-11, but didn't see much of a difference.

So, would my planing performance improve if I replaced the Records with fancier brands? Would I be able to tackle a wider range of woods?

The only real 'performance' improvement would likely be in the depth adjustment or other design improvements. Some of my Stanley/Bailey planes take a couple revolutions or more of the depth adjuster to change engagement from advancing to retracting a blade. The LV/LN planes are built with tighter tolerances. The lateral adjusters on LN/LV planes are likely not going to be loose.

The difference most seen by swapping a blade to PMv-11 is the blade being able to maintain its edge though more work. My Hock 01 blades perform amazingly well. My Stanley branded blades perform as well but tend to need honing more often. They do seem to wear different than the Hock blades. The Hock blades tend to not chip as much.

The difference between planing performance of a well tuned and maintained Record planes versus LV/LN planes will not be discernible. The feel in one's hands may be different. The esthetics of using a finely finished tool may affect the user's senses in a positive manner. In the same way as using a century old refurbished tool can also be a satisfying experience.

jtk

[Philipp Hawlitschek]

Thanks for all your feedback.
Today I got a few hours of shoptime and did a bit of further testing. I had some scraps of straight grained oak and there's no discernable difference between the two planes there. On white pine I can get about the same shimmering surface, but it's easier with the bevel down. On Douglas fir I can't get a shiny surface with the bevel up. It's smooth but it looks a bit "mushy". On end grain the bevel up works really well, even with the 40° microbevel. I have to take into account that the bevel-down plane has been in my hands for years and the bevel up only for a few days. GUess I need a second blade as well and follow Dereks advise to play to the strengths of each plane.
Cheers,
Philipp

[Prashun Patel]

For giggles-sake, try planing your doug fir the other direction with both planes. Do you still detect a difference? The bevel down is better at resisting tear out against the grain, which might be what that mush is.

[Eric Danstrom]

...The bevel down is better at resisting tear out against the grain....

Interesting. I have come to understand than the actual orientation of the bevel doesn't have any effect on the cut. Rather it's all about matching the cutting edge angle to the wood species that is to be planed. And that matches my results.

Years ago I was attempting to edge glue some 24" Chechen planks (2250 Janka hardness) with a Bailey #7 with a well sharpened Hock O1 blade. It was a disaster. The tearout was in such large chunks I couldn't imagine the glue joint wood be reliable. A 45* cutting angle on 2250 janks hardness will deliver that result every time.

Fast forward to last month when I set out to duplicate Derek C's results. Drop a 50* blade into a 12* BU jointer and I can plane Chechen plank edges with a glassy surface perfect for gluing. Change out to a 38* blade, which with a 12* bed, has almost the same cutting angle as a Bailey and I have the same chunky tearout.

The Bailey 45* cutting angle and the Norris 50* cutting angles were designed in to match up to the woods most users were seeing in the local market and plane without tearout (less than 1000 janka). Those tend to be relatively softer woods as per the Janka hardness scale compared to Chechen and the Aussie Jarrah (1860 janka hardness).

As I understand it, it's all about matching the cutting angle to the wood species. The harder the wood, the steeper the angle required to prevent tearout.

[Graham Haydon]

Josko, keep those Records and use them. If you want "nicer gear I would completly get it but it wont help your woodworking.

Alan Peters made world class furniture with a Record #7

To the OP. If the grain is mild there will be no difference in surface quality.

[Prashun Patel]

I was implying my BD resists tearout vs my BU because it has a close set chip breaker, and my BU bevel angle isn't particularly high.

[Robert Hazelwood]

I don't do much work with a bevel up plane but I've noticed that woods like Douglas fir and SYP require a sharper edge to get a pristine surface, at least the second growth stuff I can get a hold of. Sharper than you can get away with for something like cherry, oak, or maple. With a slightly less than perfectly sharp edge, what happens with Doug Fir or SYP is that the dark growth rings take a nice polish but the light rings are left a bit fuzzy, which makes sense because the dark rings are quite hard and the light rings are like balsa. To get a really clean cut on the soft rings requires a freshly sharpened blade, and you need to keep sharpening every few minutes because the hard rings wear the blade about as fast as a hardwood. So these woods are the worst of both worlds in some ways, though I still like them. Just more work to finish plane.

Incidentally, I've left some cleanly planed Doug fir outdoors long enough to get dark grey and weathered, but the surface was still smooth with no grain raising. It was obviously smoother than the surfaces which came off a planer which had gotten fairly rough from exposure. I was impressed.

To the OP, I can't think of anything that would make the BU and BD plane perform differently, if the cutting angles are about the same, except for a difference in sharpness or that one is generating tearout. I assume you'd know if you were getting tearout, so for me Occam's razor suggests one blade is getting sharper than the other.

[Rob Luter]

I'm working on a project that uses Curly Red Oak for some of the parts. To say this has difficult grain is an understatement. There is no grain direction, It goes in every direction. My LN 4 1/2 struggled a bit and required the lightest of cuts. I did an experiment last night just for laughs. I sharpened the A2 iron of my LN 62 Low Angle Jack to 35* and added a scant backbevel. Resulting cutting angle was about 49*. I closed the mouth up very tight. It produced Oak tissues you could read through and left a very smooth surface. Tuning to the wood helps.

[Charles Guest]

I'm working on a project that uses Curly Red Oak for some of the parts. To say this has difficult grain is an understatement. There is no grain direction, It goes in every direction. My LN 4 1/2 struggled a bit and required the lightest of cuts. I did an experiment last night just for laughs. I sharpened the A2 iron of my LN 62 Low Angle Jack to 35* and added a scant backbevel. Resulting cutting angle was about 49*. I closed the mouth up very tight. It produced Oak tissues you could read through and left a very smooth surface. Tuning to the wood helps.

A higher angle and a tight mouth? Blasphemy. The cap iron gang has their torches lit, nooses tied and ready. They're on their way. Run.

[steven c newman]

Plane Til Drawers, front planed #2.JPG

Now..whatever gave you that idea.....