Two questions about the LN 4.5

Re: Two questions about the LN 4.5

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>The LN#4.5 with 50 degree frog is a fine plane. I have one and have used it a lot. One of the reasons I got mine with the 50 degree frog is that I already had a bronze LN#4 with a 45 degree frog and I wanted both angles available to me.

However that was before I began experimenting with back bevels. A five degree back bevel, though a little bit of a hassle to develop a setting for with most honing guides, will function comparably if not identically (one of these days I'll come by another LN body and compare the beds and back bevels directly, as I'm doing with infill planes right now).

Since a back bevel will allow you to increase the effective cutting angle beyond the bedding angle, but that you can't go in reverse (i.e reduce the effective cutting angle below the bedding angle), suggests in my mind that it is wise to obtain a plane with a relatively low bedding angle, and then add to it's range of effective cutting angles but picking up one or two (relatively cheap) extra blades and putting on a back bevel. For example, with a LN#4.5 you could have the stock 45 degree bed, an extra blade with a 5 degree back bevel to give you a 50 degree effective cutting angle, and an extra blade with a 10 degree back bevel that will give you the option of using the plane as a 55 degree plane.

The down side of back bevels is that they require an adjustable mouth (easily achieved via the L-N bedrock frog) and leave you with two bevel surfaces to maintain. The latter is more than compensated for by eliminating the need to engage in extensive blade back flattening.

So, my specific answers to your questions are

1. The LN#4.5 is a great plane with either bedding angle

2. The LN#4.5 with the 45 degree frog is a more adaptable plane, if you are willing to pick up a extra blade or two and use back bevels

3. Yes, you are likely to benefit from having smoothers at more than one effective cutting angle, but you can easily achieve that within a single plane, though I'd never discourage anyone from obtaining more planes.

Re: Another option

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>Lyn, instead of getting another smoother body, why don't you use a 45� frog from a L-N #7 on your 4-1/2 for your tests? It's hard to believe you don't already have a #7 (or a #5-1/2 or #6), or are not actively looking for a good excuse to acquire one :^)

Other ways to look at the issue

Christopher Schwarz

>I own many planes old and new, so I'm not going to talk you out of buying the high-angle LN 4.5. I love mine.

But for the sake of discussion (and because not everyone saves their change for a year just to buy a plane like I do), here are some options:

Turn your #164 into a high-angle smoother by purchasing a second iron (or two). Grind a higher bevel angle on the iron. A 43-degree grind will get you a 55-degree pitch plane. A 38-degree grind will give you a 50-degree plane. Keep your original iron with its 25-degree grind for end grain, trimming dovetails and really straight face grain. I've done this; I am really pleased with the results.

As to the LN 4.5 with the 50-degree frog. While it's true you cannot then go back to 45-degree pitch without ading a frog to your toolbox, I have never experienced the desire to go back to 45 degrees as I work. In fact, I wish my 50-degree frog was a 55-degree frog and am probably going to put a back bevel on an iron to see if that's where I really want to be.

So buy the LN 4.5, or the extra irons for your LN 164. Or do both (an excuse to spend more, actually).

Chris

Re: Another option

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I actually have an extra 45 degree frog (and yes, also all the bigger L-N iron). Its the extra 4.5 body I don't have so I can do back to back planing between a 4.5 set up with the 45 frog plus 5 degree back bevel and an 50 degree frog with no back bevel. Probably not essential I do it that way, but it makes the comparisons more direct and easier.

Tangentially, what we really need, is an all purpose commercial honing guide that will set, establish, and maintain bevels from 5 degrees on up to 45 degrees. And if it would allow one to precisely establish and maintain 30 to 45 degree skew angles as well, that would really get me excited.

Re: Other ways to look at the issue

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Ah, I somehow missed it was a 164 (even though it was identified as a smoother) and read it as a 162. I agree with Chris that the approach of getting extra blades and putting large bevel angles on them (I'd even go to a 45 degree bevel) is a very valid alternative.

I'll have more to say on this soon.

Re: Other ways to look at the issue

Dan clermont in Burnaby

>I don't have the LN 164 but o own the LN 62 with two blades. One blade is sharpened at 26 degrees and the other blaed is sharpened at 38 degrees. It works well!

So I would probably go with the LN 4 1/2 with the 45 degree frog and maybe buy a 5 1/2 later with a higher angle Frog.

My 2 cents,

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

62!

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Oh my, now it's become a 162. Some days it's good I'm not the subject of my own testing.

Heads up LN & Lee Valley

Scott Post

>I'd guess that the majority of users of the new crop of low angle smoothers and jacks are not using them for endgrain, rather for gnarly face grain. Why not offer irons already ground at 38 degrees as an option? It takes quite awhile to re-establish the bevel and what makes it particularly bad is going to a higher angle means the user has to grind from the tip towards the heel, giving more chance of drawing the temper on the edge.

Re: Other ways to look at the issue

Brian Sullivan - Montreal

>I second buying another iron for your 164. I just did this for my Veritas L-A smoother and my first test strokes were very nice. I now have a high angle smoother for the cost of an iron.

/Brian

Or you could do this...

John K in Hastings, MN

>Get TWO planes from Steve Knight for the price of your one L-N, one with a 45 or 50 deg bed angle and the other at 55 deg for the really gnarly stuff. This is a 50.



This ain't your daddy's smooth plane, that mouth is both adjustable and tight, and the planes are a blast to use.

John

Almost the honing jig you describe

Steve Elliott

>With an easy modification, I've been able to make a Millers Falls #240 jig do most of what you describe. (While this model is no longer in production, it is available on ebay at a reasonable price.)

Here are some pictures that show the jig with its original roller replaced by wheels that don't ride on the stone itself.

This set-up is easy to modify for small angles by moving the jig to the very top of the blade and placing a block under the stone (or lapping plate, as shown here) to raise it up as required. With the top of the stone higher up, the axle of the jig won't clear the stone, but since the jig is at the very top of the blade, a stroke length of 5 inches or so is still possible.

I tried rotating a 2" blade in the jig to produce a skew angle of 30�, but was only able to get 27� because the edges of the blade hit the side bars on the jig. With a little double-stick tape and an extension of some kind, I'm sure I could get the skew angle I wanted. In this configuration, a longer axle would be needed to make the wheels ride outside the stone, but cutting a 1/4" steel rod to length and adjusting a few stop collars would be all the work needed.

My goal in modifying this jig in the first place was to make it possible to hone thin blades for Bailey-style planes at a precisely controlled angle. It works well for that purpose, but for the thicker blades used in infill planes, I still prefer to hollow grind and then hone without a jig.

Re: Other ways to look at the issue

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>Chris,

Do you feel that the LN 164 with a bevel giving an equivalent cutting angle is the equal of the LN 4.5? (or is it perhaps better?)

Have you used the new, heavy cap iron?

Don

Tough call, but here goes

Christopher Schwarz

>Don,

I have the new cap iron for my smoothers and my jointer (a bit excessive for that plane, but I'm worth it). It is, in my opinion, far superior to the humpback springy one found on most planes. Not only does the thick cap iron add rigidity, but I think it contributes to smooth blade movement forward and back. If you don't hit that hump with the center of the lever cap, you can make it tough on yourself either advancing the iron or retracting it.

So yes, I like the new cap irons.

As far as comparing the LN 164 to the LN 4.5, if I had to have only one of them, I'd probably choose the 164 because I can easily change out the function of the plane by changing to an iron with a different bevel (end grain, smoothing, difficult smoothing). Plus the mouth is so simple to close up. The 4.5 has some added mass and width, which is a plus in some situations. But overall the 164 is probably the more versatile of the two.

I know some people will roll their eyes at that because the 164 was such a rare plane so it probably wasn't regarded as versatile in its day. Well I've only examined one 164 and one 62 in the wild, and I have to say the modern low-angle smoothers (don't forget the Veritas, it's also a great tool and for less money) are made much better than Stanley ever did. More bedding. Thicker sole. Thicker iron. And now we grind steeper bevels on our irons.

There are some things I'd change on these tools if I were building them myself. But that's another topic for another Sunday night.

Chris

Already planned...

Rob Lee

>...for both the current LA plane, and the next one.

Cheers -

Rob

Re: Almost the honing jig you describe

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>Steve, I think your photos are not showing because they're too large. Can't exceed 40k. Try reducing the larger dimension below 400 pixels, 350's even better.

Sorry, it's not something I can fix for you.

Best, Ted

I see them

Dan Donaldson

>

Re: Or you could do this...

Mark Hooper

>I'm a proud owner of two Knight cocobolo smoothers; standard weight @ 55 and a heavy @ 47, and they are superb! They will tame the tough woods.

Mark

Thanks - I just ordered...

Mick Foley

>the high angle LN 4 1/2 with the improved chipbreaker from FTJ.

I had concidered getting more blades for my 164, and I may still do this. I do want the lateral adjustment that the 4 1/2 will give me. That lack is the only complaint I have with the 164 - it's a great plane.

As for the Steve Knight planes, I don't have any of his planes - yet. I suspect that I will be ordering some from him this year... (not nessasarily smoothers, but you never know...)

Thank for all the advice!

Mick

Pics are smaller than 40k

Steve Elliott

>Ted,

Thanks for alerting me to the fact that the pictures aren't showing up for all users. They come through just fine for me using the preview function and after I've posted the message, using both IE and Netscape.

The sizes of these images range from 22k to 36k, so file size dosen't seem to be the problem.

Can anyone explain this?

I see them, using Mozilla

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>

Re: Almost the honing jig you describe

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>The 40K limit is only applicable if you are using the WC picture posting feature and putting them on the WC website. Otherwise, they can be much larger. These don't use WC webspace.

BTW, I can see them on a Mac with MIE 5.

Re: Pics are smaller than 40k

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>Thanks for letting me know. I still can't get them, not even if I cut-and-paste into the browser (IE). Dan Donaldson sent a couple emails and indicated he can get them both at work and home.

Sounds like, in view of Pam's and William's posts, very few readers are having a problem with it. Can't imagine how yours are different from the graphics in all the other posts here on WC. But it's not worth trying to track down.

Best, Ted

Re: Pics are smaller than 40k

Don Thompson, Cutler Ridge, South of Miami FL

>IANAE, but looking at the source, the only thing that I see that is not what I would put there is the operator NOSAVE in the image source statement.

Maybe that upsets some browsers? (I am ten years out of date with HTML)

Repost of Pictures

Steve Elliott

>Here are the pictures with the operator "NOSAVE" removed.

If this works with more browsers, I�ll post this way in the future. The �NOSAVE� is added automatically by the HTML editor I�m using.