LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

Re: LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

Russell Seaton

>I bought a spare iron for my LN 62 and reground a secondary bevel to provide an effective 47 degree cutting angle.All I can say is WOW.It works great,much better than the stock iron for face planing.I have only tried it on your basic hard maple,cherry and some gnarly walnut,but I am very pleasantly surprised.

47 degrees? Wouldn't a regular old normal plain jane run of the mill stock standard common as dirt number 5 bench plane at 45 degrees work just as well for normal American hardwoods like walnut, maple, and cherry?

I'm not arguing either way on whether it works better or worse than the standard 30 something degree angle on the 62 from the factory.

Re: LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

Greg Sloop

>Sure, but if like me, you only have a 62, then it's several hundred dollars cheaper than buying another plane.

And, I can and have gone to ~60 deg of total angle to get, IMHO, even better results from highly figured wood. This is something that even your York pitch bevel down bench plane can't do.

This will probably break things into all out warefare between the bevel-up crowd and a few of us experimenting with bevel up planes, but for me, it allows me to have fewer planes and accomplish more with them. The end result is that I can do it cheaper and easier.

I'm strongly considering getting the #164 and the #7 (bevel up, LA) too, and leaving bevel up planes out of my shop all together. Call me crazy, but it's looking more and more do-able every day.

Anyway, just my depreciated $0.02.

Cheers,

Greg

Typo - oops. sorry

Greg Sloop

>Oops..

Should have been...

This will probably break things into all out warefare between the bevel-*down* crowd and a few of us experimenting with bevel up planes, ...

Re: LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

Rob Lee

>Greg -

Agreed. At 60 degrees effective angle (thereabout) you're dealing with a type II chip - at 40-55 degrees you're still dealing with Type I.

A plane is just a fixture for presenting an effective bevel angle to the wood - really a "blade holder" with adjustments.

The basic difference between the HA holder, and the LA holder are some of the geometry constraints inherent in the design (i.e. not enough room on the LA holder to have a frog - hence the use of a sliding shoe for mouth adjustment), the complexity of manufacture (affects pricing/acheivable tolerances), other "holder" characteristics - i.e. center of gravity, resolution/transmission of forces, ergonomics, appearance etc.

Wood will fail the same way given the same effective bevel, rigidly held, irrespective of the holder...

I agree with you that it's a question of value too. People who prefer a "york pitch" can acheive it by replacing the frog, or by adding a backbevel to the blade - my bet would be on the back bevel as a better performer, as intuitively, the blade is more in-line with the applied force than with a high angle frog. Certainly, a back bevel is easy to try on an adjustable mouth plane - and won't cost anything but some sharpening time to try...

One thing to remember too - is that preferences ARE still an important factor that can affect the use of any tool... whether they make a "real" difference or not.

Cheers -

Rob

Re: LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

deanj

>I have to agree -- I was dealing with some "everyday" cherry, and all the cherry I've run into has areas of less than perfect grain. So, my trusty #4 with the hock blade wasn't doing a great job. So out came the LV Low Angle smoother -- with a blade honed to 40 degrees -- Low and behold -- Pretty shiny planed cherry...

It's nice to have options.

-Dean

Re: LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

Greg Sloop

>Very excellent point...

My paraphrase..."Better the devil you know..." LOL

Just thought I'd say I appreciated the clairity of your response.

Thanks,

Greg

Is a 1" blade be available as a "preference";-)

Eric Hedberg

>

For you...

Rob Lee

>.... we'll even make it carbide!

:)

Cheers -

Rob

Re: LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

Michael Campbell

>> Sure, but if like me, you only have a 62, then it's several hundred dollars cheaper than buying another plane.

I think when he said "regular old normal plain jane run of the mill stock standard common as dirt number 5 bench plane at 45 degrees" he didn't mean a[nother, multi hundred dollar] LN. =)

Re: LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

Greg Sloop

>Oh, sure, there you go beating up on my straw man again! *grin*

Ok, I'm sure you could do it for less...but it would cost you something anyway. (By the time you add on a hock blade and your time, I'll bet it's not that cheap...)

I guess I could use it as an excuse to buy yet another LN though. (Why didn't I think of that! Methinks this must be why everyone thinks this is a bad idea!) :)

Cheers,

Greg

Re: LN 62 + higher angle bevel works!

Mike Agee

>Like it has been said before,it would be nice to have a dedicated #4 or #4 1/2 smoother,Stanley,LN,Veritas or otherwise.A while back (after getting my 62 for Christmas) I emailed Thos Lie Nielsen about buying a new smoother with a few questions.I told him I have a #62 and his emailed reply was NOT to buy the new smoother just yet but to get a second iron for my 62 and grind a higher cutting angle.Imagine that - turning down a sale! I was skeptical but the cost of a new iron was only $35 so I gave it try with great results! I have three kids with a lot of related expenses and spend my ww allowance very carefully. While an old Stanley may be better I don't think I could have gotten one for $35 that cuts this nicely and without the hassle of fettling one up to par.

Mike

Low angle jointer

Robin Frierson

>"I'm strongly considering getting the #164 and the #7 (bevel up, LA) too"

Be aware the low angle jointer doesnt have an adjustable mouth, something which caused me NOT to buy it.

Re: Low angle jointer

Greg Sloop

>Interesting. That certainly could be a problem, though most likely one would finish up with a smoother and thus get a more pleasant surface. Thanks on the heads-up!

Hmmm... Has anyone actually used the #7 LA out there? I'd be interested in some feedback!

Thanks,

Greg

Re: Low angle jointer

Russell Seaton

>Robin Frierson wrote:

Be aware the low angle jointer doesnt have an adjustable mouth

Greg Sloop responded:

That certainly could be a problem, though most likely one would finish up with a smoother and thus get a more pleasant surface. Thanks on the heads-up!

But isn't the main purpose of a jointer, low angle or regular, supposed to be used for the final pass of jointing an edge? You start with a jack or fore plane and get it close, then use your long, heavy, precise, mouth so close you can't even see light through it jointer to get that ultra smooth cut for gluing. Why on earth would you ever use a smooth plane after a jointer? Seems like you would defeat the entire purpose of using the jointer, to get a perfectly straight glueable edge. A smoother smoothes, it doesn't flatten. Jointers flatten, which is what you want for gluing. And with a close mouth, the jointer will smooth too, also needed for gluing.

Re: Low angle jointer

Tim

>perhaps it is a different way of working.....

I make final passes with a jointer plane, not a smoother...assuming the stock is large enough for jointer plane.

smoother is used to smooth the surface, jointer is then used to make it completely (well, as flat as can be) flat.

'least, that is my way....and Russel's too from his post.

Seeing as that is the way I work, an adjustable mouth would be nice, but for most work wouldn't be necessary once I shimmed the blade to get the mouth clearance I wanted.

Re: Low angle jointer

Greg Sloop

>Agreed. After posting that, I also thought about it more and had similar thoughts. At least on the glue-up parts.

As for finishing a panel/table etc. I can see jointing it to get it as good as practical, and then using a smoother to finish.

But, clearly an adjustable mouth would be a *highly* preferred option!

Cheers,

Greg

However...

Russell Seaton

>If you get a bit more tearout when edge jointing boards before glue up with a wide mouth on the low angle, it will likely be so minor that it won't deteriorate the strengh of the glue up enough to matter. Board edges properly glued up are strong enough to rip the wood apart instead of the joint. So a bit of tearout on the edge before gluing might reduce the ultimate strength a few percentage points. So what.

Can you shim?

Robin Frierson

>Can you shim a low angle jointer? Wouldnt raising the blade cause the depth adjuster to cease making contact with the blade. Or is it big enough? I really wanted to get that plane but wanted a way to tighten up the mouth if needed. But LV is coming out with a new plane, a 62 1/2 which is wider and heavier than the 62 and does have an adjustable mouth.

Tom told me they didnt put the adjustable mouth on the LA jointer as it would have added a lot of cost to the plane.

Tearout when jointing

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>It all depends on where the tearout or roughness occurs. While isolated areas of tear out won't matter significantly with respect to the integrity of the glue joint, it will matter if the areas become visible at the joint edge in the finished panel. Alas, I know this from experience, and there is nothing you can do after the fact to effectively disguise this. It is worse with denser woods that don't compress significantly all when clamped.

I have most of what L-N has produced, but I don't have their LA jointer because of its lack of an adjustable mouth. Yes, you can effectively shim the mouth, but I really don't think I should be having to resort to that with a plane of that cost and otherwise excellent manufacture. It seems to me that L-N didn't have to make the entire front sole movable, they could have just had a small section before the mouth adjustable, much like is done with the Primus Improved Smoothing Plane.

Re: Tearout when jointing

David Barnett - Venice, FL

>You said it better than I thought it, Lyn. When I discovered the L-N LA jointer would not have the adjustable mouth, I too decided not to purchase it. I truly believe this may be the first real misstep by L-N. Time will tell. I'd reconsider if they'd produce a model with your suggested fix, though.

Thomas L-N enjoyed this thread

Ted Owen, Moderator

>He feels the 7 1/2 is a good value and a great tool for heavy stock removal, especially in soft woods.

Unfortunately, making an adjustable mouth is not cheap. Tom wonders whether it would do well enough if it cost almost the same as a No. 7--which it would have to with an adjustable mouth. Even a small one like the Primus.

If enough folks are interested, we could ask him to fiddle with an adjustable mouth, and I believe he'd be willing to try. Don't know what it would cost. I'll start a new thread about it, as this one is scrolling quickly.

Best, Ted