L-N Low Angle Jointer

Re: L-N Low Angle Jointer

Robin Frierson

>I talked to him about it and he said the cost was prohibitive. But I would buy one if they had the adj. mouth. I thought about sending him the posts we had the other day, about how some didnt buy it because of the lack of an adjustable mouth.Go for it Ted, I am interested.

Re: L-N Low Angle Jointer

Mark Meier (Ann Arbor, MI)

>It would be nice to have.

I can understand not wanting to make a moveable part the size of the entire front of the plane like the 62 has (that's quite a large piece). I wonder if instead it could be done with a small piece that moves, perhaps 1" in length, right before the mouth. This is similar to what the Primus Reform Smoother has where there's that little block which moves back and forth to open and close the mouth. It�s locked in place with a screw from above.

Anyway, I'd certainly be interested in a retrofit :)

Mark

Good Idea � he's done that

Christopher Schwarz

>I think a big sliding toe piece would be really expensive and difficult to do. But Mark is definitely on to something. A couple years ago Tom Lie-Nielsen made a handful of his bronze block planes (a fixed-mouth tool) with a few different small-sized mouth inserts you could screw in place. One of them closed up the throat really tight. It seemed to work well on the example I used.

Just a thought for the person who approaches Tom.

Chris

Re: Good Idea � he's done that

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>Did Rob Lee not say that his LA jointer will have a new type of adj mouth?

Re: L-N Low Angle Jointer

Greg Sloop

>Toss me in too.

Add that it's not likely I'll buy any LA plane without this. (As an aside... As if the LN #8 isn't prohibitively expensive already! LOL)

Anyway...

Cheers,

Greg

Re: L-N Low Angle Jointer

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>This is a tough call. In principle , I want all my planes to have adjustable mouths, be it by movable toe piece, frog, or mouth plates. In reality I break that principle to have Tom's #140, the Mujingfang and HNT wood smoothers,most of my infills (the SMT being a wonderful exception as an infill), and a lot of my specialty planes (Record 778, compass, etc). There is not a plane that lacks some sort of mouth adjustment that I didn't encounter an occasion in actual use when I really wanted that ability.

So yes, I very much would like to see the L-N 7.5 have an adjustable mouth. But the question is, would I personally purchase one, and I must admit I probably still wouldn't, given the planes I already have and the new Lee Valley bevel up plane to come. Other than to complete a collection, I just don't have any need for a L-N LA jointing plane when I already have a L-N #6, #7 and #8 as well as the Lee Valley #6.

On the other hand, I would highly recommend such a plane to others thinking of getting their first high quality plane in this size range. The versatility of multiple effective cutting angles coming with the ease of a blade change, and the slightly lighter weight makes a bevel up #7 size plane very appealing. Who knows, I might still talk myself into it.

A retrofit would be great...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>I'm in the same boat Mark.

They are adjustable

Neal (San Jose)

>Just not conveniently. Hone a bevel on the back (down) side of the blade - 5 degrees or so should do it - don't get carried away because you need to leave some relief angle for the planned wood to spring back. This moves the cutting edge up and forward. You then move the blade down to compensate, and VOILA, the mouth is tighter than it was. You might want to try it on a more commom plane like a 220 to practice, and get a feel for how much back angle closes the mouth how much. I bought an old Ohio Tool block plane on the 'bay that had been sharpend that way, and it had a very nice, tight mouth, so I'm not going to try and take credit for thinking of this.

I just tried a VERY quick and dirty experiment using scary sharp to put about a 3/32 wide 5 degree back bevel on a little Ohio Tool 103. That closed it's mouth from about 38 thou to about 27 thou. Still not tight enough to get excited about, but it proves the method works, and the plane does seem to cut better on some very forgiving poplar. This increases the blade angle (not cutting angle, that remains the same) to whatever your bevel angle is plus the back angle, but that may be another good thing because it will usually result in a longer lasting edge, just be aware of it.

Nice tip!

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>