LN Low Angle Jack?

Re: HIJACK (all puns intended)!

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>Somewhere, probably here or Badger Pond, I read the theory that Stanley was building planes for carpenters working softwood, so they selected the 45 degree bed as that's the suitable angle; while British infill makers were making planes for hardwoods, so they tended to a higher angle.

Don't know, I'm just passing along what I heard as accurately as I remember it.

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Greg Sloop

>"but is still trying to understand the LA smoother thing. I can imagine that the angle of attack on a LA might suit some woods, but as an all around smoother...really??"

So, what don't you understand? (Not mocking, just asking...) You can pick any angle you choose to gind at. The 12 deg angle of attack is likely to produce better results than say 45 deg.

It's all fine and good if one wants to pick bevel up to me - it just doesn't seem to do as much as easily for what I do.

I've not yet heard a decent argument against bevel up LA bed planes.

Re: I agree with Todd...

Greg Sloop

>One can hardly say one needs 18 blades.

But I must say, four blades is lots easier than four frogs or four different planes. If you're going to use back bevels, you'll have to have "18 blades" too.

It�s loads cheaper too for an apples to apples comparison.

Compare the LN 4.5 & 5 vs. the 62.

4.5 or 5 = $300 + extra frog $75 = $375 for 45 & 50 deg

4.5 or 5 = $300, + 2 blades and a toothed $110 = $410

62 = $225 + 2 extra blades and a toothed blade $110 = $335

That's about 10% and 20% cheaper respectively

And the 4.5 or 5 will never do end grain well.

I don't have a boat-load of planes I never use. I plan on getting one or two more, perhaps three for a total of 4-6. Then I can spend my time doing some wood working, rather than buying a whole stable of planes, housing them and the accompanying accoutrements.

If one already had 23 planes, perhaps it wouldn't make sense. But that wasn't the question asked, as far as I could tell.

Enjoy the bevel up variety � I have no problem with that. Just come up with some real reasons why bevel up isn�t at least equal if not superior before you convince yourself its not.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>As for the why a finely tuned Jack?, it is not for use to follow a scrub plane, but to use as a large smoother (i.e., panel plane). I have lots of small smoothers and like them. Indeed, I have the #4 in bronze and have said many times that I find it the most beautiful and moving of handplanes. But there are many times when a large plane is desirable for smoothing, either because of the extent of the surface area, or because the added mass makes it easer to deal with dense woods using a very high effective cutting angle.

I really wish folks would be a little less defensive about the bevel down planes, and just objectively consider the advantages the bevel up planes offer, particularly for a new woodworker starting out. Blades are a lot cheaper than planes, and while it might seem cute to refer to Swiss Army planes, it actually isn't necessarily such a terrible analogy. The bevel up planes use the same quality of blades as the premium bevel down blades. Indeed, in many instances they are even thicker, not to mention that they are supported much closer to the cutting edge than almost all bevel down blades. That a bevel up plane body can allow for such easy interchange of blades of such a wide range of cutting angles I see as a plus.

I surely have about as many premium bevel down planes as anyone out there, as well as having used even more than I own. But there are technical and convenience advantages to the bevel up planes that I don't ignore, but instead appreciate. I still enjoy using my bevel down planes and do so regularly, but there are very few circumstances where such a plane is inherently superior to a bevel up plane properly configured.

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Jonathan Peck -N.Y.

>I quote:

"Generally the more acute the bevel angle, the more easily the iron will penetrate and cut, but at the risk of a more fragile cutting edge that can chip."

"Most bench planes have a 45 deg. pitch, which is a compromise between good all around performance and reletively low cutting resistance.........Lowering the pitch has the advantage of easier cutting, but unless the throat is very tight or the wood easily cut, some splitting rather than cutting of the fibers is going to happen. For highly figured or hard woods where tearout is a concern, a higher pitch, 50, 55, or 60 works noticably better. The higher pitch curls and breaks the fibers more abruptly before they split. "

i believe to get a 50 deg pitch with a LA plane (12 deg bed angle) you would need a 38 deg bevel. A disadvantage of a 38 deg bevel is that the cutting edge will drag more and cut with a scraping action that can heat and dull the iron more quickly. How many passes can you make before you have to stop and sharpen? With a standard pitch plane (25 deg bevel) you can simply hone a 5 deg back bevel giving a 50 deg pitch and not increase drag (more time with the plane planing instead of sharpening).

The standard bench smoothing plane also has the advantage of having a chip breaker, which the bevel up plane does not. I also like the 8 & 9" length of #3 & #4 size smoothers as opposed to the 14" of the jack sized plane. I'm not sure what the weight of the LA plane is, but my LN #4 brass smoother has nice mass at 4 1/2 lbs. I keep the mouth tight, but I don't have to keep the mouth rediculously tight as to choke the escapement (as I suspect you might have to with the LA) and cause clogging. Inother words, I don't have to stop planeing to clear the throat...Anyways, this is my personal preference and I'm always glad to have the opportunity to exchange ideas...thanks for the question

Regards

Jonathan

Todd Great minds...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>Ahhh... you know. Snicker...I'll take the rest;)

My Swiss Army Plane has a spoon, fork and fillet plane too... Oh nooooo.

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Greg Sloop

>"i believe to get a 50 deg pitch with a LA plane (12 deg bed angle) you would need a 38 deg bevel. A disadvantage of a 38 deg bevel is that the cutting edge will drag more and cut with a scraping action that can heat and dull the iron more quickly. How many passes can you make before you have to stop and sharpen? With a standard pitch plane (25 deg bevel) you can simply hone a 5 deg back bevel giving a 50 deg pitch and not increase drag (more time with the plane planing instead of sharpening)"

So, are you saying that 12 deg is not enough clearance? I'm out of my depth here, but I'd think that the effects on the blade in either case should be pretty similar. Perhaps someone can show me some physicis that might explain otherwise. (It would seem to me that on bevel down the angle of attack is across the edge - more likely to tear it off and make it "ragged" sooner. But I don't really have any basis for this assumption.) Anecdotally, I don't have to sharpen all that often, but I don't have a good comparison set. Perhaps Lyn will pipe in here...he'd be more authoratative on this aspect.

"The standard bench smoothing plane also has the advantage of having a chip breaker"

There isn't a need for a chip-breaker on the bevel up planes. Other than support for the blade, I don't think bevel down planes need them either.

As for mouth opening. The effective cutting angle is of much more importance than the mouth size. (As per TLN) This is my exp as well. Unless I'm doing really wild stuff, I don't worry much about mouth size. I just move to a higher angle blade to get better performance. For my last few passes, I tighten it way down, but I'm taking shavings you can easily see though,

The one and about only one point that may be more applicable is mass. I think that the LN LA planes are often about 10% lighter (less mass) than their bevel down counterparts. I haven't noticed it to be a problem at all, but perhaps it could change the feel and heft enough for some to notice.

As to length, I could get a 164 too, and probably will someday. There are a few places I'd like to have one, but I can usually get by.

Best,

Greg

Re: HIJACK (all puns intended)!

Rob Lee

>Patrick -

My suspicion is that a century ago, most woodworking was done with clear, straight grained, old growth lumber. In addition, widespread use of woods like mahogany just didn't "challenge" tools as much...

Cheers -

Rob

Should also say...

Rob Lee

>...that 45 degrees allows for the manufacture of a moveable frog. As the whole mechanism has to fit in the included angle, there are practical limits to how low it can be. Typically - mouth adjustment is addressed on a LA plane by providing a sliding sole plate ahead of the mouth for adjustment.

Cheers -

Rob

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Let me take your points in order:

You first comment "i believe to get a 50 deg pitch with a LA plane (12 deg bed angle) you would need a 38 deg bevel."

Yes that is correct.

But then you go on to say, "A disadvantage of a 38 deg bevel is that the cutting edge will drag more and cut with a scraping action that can heat and dull the iron more quickly."

The wood is cut in the same fashion, for the same effective cutting angle, blade extension and orientation of the plane (i.e., not skewed), irrespective of whether the blade bevel is located up or down. Simply, a 50 degree entry into the wood is a 50 degree entry into the wood, and the resultant cleavage will generate the same forces on the wood.

However, there are at least theoretical differences on the blade, and they are all in favor of the low bedding angle bevel up plane. First, on a bevel up plane, the blade edge is fully supported all the way to the sole, with only that portion of the blade which is extended past the sole for entry into the wood being unsupported. In contrast, many bevel down blades lack blade support far above the sole level, and by the bevel being down, the leading edge of the blade has lesser support from the blade itself due to the width of the bevel (one of the disadvantages of very wide blades is that the leading edge of the blade sits forward from the bedding area because of the width of the bevel).

This would suggest that if there are any actual issues with heat dissipation, they would actually be in favor of the bevel up plane, particularly for those that do not employ a closely set chip breaker that can serve as a heat sink.

There is also the issue of the direction of the forces as they are directed through the blade itself. The lower the bedding angle, the more closely the blade is aligned with the direction force is applied (both driving and resistive), assuming the plane is not skewed in use. This means that forces are directed more along the length of the blade on a bevel up plane, while the forces are directed relatively more across the width of the blade in a bevel down plane. The latter, particularly when coupled with the lesser support behind the blade edge, makes the bevel down blade more susceptible to chatter. Granted, the latter can be at least partially compensated for by other factors such as chip breakers, wooden wedges, etc, but the closer you get to the blade edge, the better the forces are controled by the bevel up plane.

You then raise the issue of sharpening, though based on the faulty assumption that a bevel up plane will generate more heat and that there are differences in drag, " How many passes can you make before you have to stop and sharpen? With a standard pitch plane (25 deg bevel) you can simply hone a 5 deg back bevel giving a 50 deg pitch and not increase drag (more time with the plane planing instead of sharpening)."

Again, there is no difference in "drag" for the same effective cutting angle, so there is no increase erosion. Empirically, I have not found any difference in edge retention for the same blade type and effective cutting angle between the bevel up and bevel down planes.

Then you assert: "The standard bench smoothing plane also has the advantage of having a chip breaker, which the bevel up plane does not."

I don't think you have offered any evidence or reasoning that would suggest that a bevel up plane is disadvantaged by lack of a chip breaker. Bevel up planes consistently offer superior blade support, so any strengthening and mass effects of a chip breaker are not required (I would call this a more elegant design, rather than the added complication of including a chip breaker to compensate for other weaknesses in the bevel down design). Furthermore, as LV has done with their new Jack, and L-N has done with their two LA bench planes, a bevel up plane often has greater thickness, which in and of itself provides added mass (interestingly, I don't think this is really required, as the direction of force advantages and superior bedding support should actually allow for a thinner blade).

It seems to me that most modern thinking is that chip breakers actually do very little if anything to "break chips" (though I think it may indeed serve this function for taking rank cuts with the grain in softwoods like pine), but rather that the principal service a chip breaker preforms is to help stabilize the edge and add mass, both factors that are necessary compensations for inherent weaknesses in the bevel down blade design that the bevel up blade design does not share.

You go on to say: " I also like the 8 & 9" length of #3 & #4 size smoothers as opposed to the 14" of the jack sized plane."

Of course there are circumstances where the shorter planes are preferable for smoothing, just as there are circumstances where the longer planes are desirable (at least to me and those who have long chosen panel planes for some smoothing tasks). Whether a bevel up or bevel down design, one will select a plane on a variety of considerations as they interact with ones type of woodworking and personal preferences one has. For many who desire a first or bare minimum number of planes, a Jack may well be a good choice as a multifunction plane. If memory serves me, Ian Kirby actually prefered a #7 for almost all tasks.

You also comment, " I'm not sure what the weight of the LA plane is, but my LN #4 brass smoother has nice mass at 4 1/2 lbs."

Yah, I really like that plane and find it has a nice overall balance to it. However, plane mass is not clearly associated with plane performance. My last study showed that planes of a wide range of different mass could perform excellently, or poorly. The current investigation has revealed the same thing both objectively and in the subjective experiences of using all those planes. Again, there was no correlation between weight and performance when compared across different plane designs. Do I like a massive plane?, Yes. Have I found excellent performance and ease of use in a low mass plane?, the answer is equally yes.

Finally, you comment: " I keep the mouth tight, but I don't have to keep the mouth rediculously tight as to choke the escapement (as I suspect you might have to with the LA) and cause clogging. Inother words, I don't have to stop planeing to clear the throat...:

I think you would do well to actually spend some time using a LA plane rather than speculating from afar. My investigations have shown that optimal mouth size definitely makes a difference for hard to plane woods, but that the optimal mouth size is not always the smallest one. For an equivalent effective cutting angle, there is nothing about a bevel up plane that requires a smaller mouth than a bevel down plane. Part of the problem here is the fallout of nomenclature. Alas, low bedding angle, bevel up planes are often viewed as synonymous with low effective cutting angle planes. While manufacturers may tend to deliver them in the later configuration, a bevel up plane is not limited to those low angles and indeed, an increasing number of woodworkers are using their bevel up planes primarily as high angle smoothers.

There is indeed much room for personal preference, and one of the things I've found through a lot of objective investigation is that most premium planes, irrespective of design and cutting angle, actually perform very well with a wide range of woods. To the extent that is the case for the woods a particular woodworker primarily uses, than personal preference is really the dominant factor, and there is nothing the matter with that. I only take exception when personal preference is confused with the actual physics of how planes work.

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Tony Z.

>Is it possible for all of us to agree that the way we use planes, tools, etc. may not be the way the manufacturer intended them to be used? I would be lovely to own every tool in the L-N catalog, however for most of us, that is not practical.

What it boils down to, is what works for you. The most up-to-date whiz bang plane ain't worth a damn if you don't spend the time to learn its quirks AND USE IT.

Look at Roy Underhill and how much he accomplishes with a limited handful of chisels, etc.

Maybe what it comes down to is assessing what we are: users of tools or accumulators of tools. Are we after the getting a project done or are we simply after getting another toy to fiddle with until the next toy comes along.

Re: I agree with Todd...

Todd Stock

>The cost argument is interesting, and I agree that if you can put up with the blade swaps, just about any plane can be pushed into other rolls.

The ultimate bottom feeder approach to this might be to pick up a user #5 from Ebay and a few spare blades, back-beveling one for 60 degree high angle smoothing work, radius another for scrub work, and keep one with slightly broken edges for all the other stuff that a jack ends up doing. I think $40 is plenty for an Ebay plane, so my guess is that we can kit someone out for work at under $130, assuming that we pick up a user 60-1/2 to handle the little jobs.

The left over $130 (vs. buying new) can be used for a primo #8 for those times when a long plane is an absolute necessity

We're not the first to explore minimizing tool kits - Aldren Watson suggested that a bench rabbet (about jack size) might substitute for nearly everything but a block plane to handle end grain, and Mario Rodriguez had a pretty good article in FWW on a traveling kit.

Realistically, the reason why I don't go for the musical blade routine is that a) I keep certain planes set up for certain tasks, and b) I can afford it.

Re: Got to Have...

Todd Stock

>But does it have a 3/8" beading blade? Got to have one for doing baseboard, railings, and the like.

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Todd Stock

>Wow...what a read! Now that we've identified woodworking's next great religious controvery, let me offer this faith-based argument:

I agree that the geometry suggests that a LA can do everything between 37 degrees and scraping cuts (who has not turned an edge on a plane blade in a pinch when lacking a card scraper, eh?); however, FOR ME (in caps), better results on really nasty wood can be had with a #4 (York pitch) than with my #62.

As they say in all those 'enlarge this' and 'shrink that' emails, your results may vary.

You'all do get the 'shrink' SPAM, right?

No?

Man...I've got to get off those military pilot list servers...

Re: I agree with Todd...

Greg Sloop

>Just remember, blade swaps are about 5 seconds, maybe 10 - at least on the 62.

No chip-breaker etc.

Just remove the cap, one turn of the tightening screw with your fingers. Gently remove the iron in the plane, place new one in, replace cap, one turn to tighten. Job done.

I can put up with that easily.

Again, the origional question was about LN planes. Also, I simply don't want to "tune up" a Stanley. Call me a wuss, whatever, but I'd rather buy one that really works right out of the box. Given those constraints, the bevel up LA sets really give me the most for my dollar - and they do really well.

Best,

Greg

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Greg Sloop

>Not to beat the dead horse...

For me, it's not a controversy.

Everyone is welcome to use whatever works for them.

But when someone asks about plane choices, and the few of us that are very happy with the LA variety speak up, the bevel up traditional crowd all seem to snicker as though we're trying to plane with a screwdriver.

It's perfectly fine if everyone who likes bevel down want to plug it. But if they're going to knock the bevel up side, at least have some real reasons it's bad rather than the "your momma's ugly" variety.

In short, I've seen very few really thought out answers as to why a LA isn't at least as good, if not better.

Anyway...

Have a fine Friday!

Greg

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

deanj

>I'll help you beat the horse... :-)

I agree, you have to use what works for you, and people tend to get stuck in their ways. Myself included. But I have a LA Smoother, and really like it, with a few blades I can handle all the wood I've come across, something my #4 (tuned up with a Hock blade and chipbreaker) can not touch.

So I pondered geting the LV 62 1/2, and not to have a new toy, to have a flexible usable tool...

Most important thing in the end is to go to the workshop and make something. I'm off...

-Dean

Yes...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>I agree. No need for a high end plane here. I admit my jack is a flat side 605 sweet heart bladed with the plain ol' chip breaker. Its sole has a few gouges/rough spots in it, but its flat/planer in the front/back and around the mouth. It doesn't look like much but it's one of my best performing planes in its roll.

Well there's more than one

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>Way to beat yourself with a dead horse;).

Well put Lyn. I agree a jack plane can be tuned to make a nice smoother. IMO its too thin (wide) to make an effective panel plane.

I'm not dissing LA planes although, it probably sounded like I was. I have a LN62 and it's a great plane, in its suited environment.

I'm not big on blade changes, adjusting mouths or frogs. I want to grab the needed plane and go to work (really its play;).

That said it all comes down to what you like and your methods of play.

Re: Leaned something new

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>I shudder to thik of grinding the mouth of a plane to match a consumable item like a plane blade. Seems wrong somehow. And non reversable.JR

Re: LN Low Angle Jack?

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Hi Lyn and all,

It's not my intention to get into a point for point debate on the merits of one plane over the other as my basic philosophy is....if it works, use it. I was going to mention the bevel up/blade support all the way to the sole advantage of the LA smoother in a previous post, but decided not to as I haven't had any problems with chatter on my bevel down smoothers so I'm not real sure that it is an advantage to mention.

I would also like to say that I have fettled my LN smoothers, and have spent much time to do so meticulously. For all you "right out of the boxer's" I can only say that fettling/tuning a plane can only enhance a planes performance and it's worth learning how to do. Only, you might not want to experience the learning curve on a 200-300 dollar plane. If you go slow with the assumption that you can always take more off, but you can't put some back approach, you should do fine.

Interseting thread...Thanks. I'll be curious to here more about the LA smoother as you continue to get the word out and more people try them

Regards

Jonathan - who is not plane challenged and likes to grab a plane already set-up for the task at hand and go......(probably not the last word on this subject).

BTW - .....this is a panel plane. Not quite an ugly duckling eh?

Darn you Lyn, now I need both LA jacks

Russell Seaton

>I was hoping to begin and end my low angle plane experience with the Lee Valley low angle jack. But now you say I really need it and the Lie- Nielsen 62 because they are really different planes. Darn you.

Re: Leaned something new

Todd Stock

>Naw...the LN mouth is a separate piece that moves...buy a few extra and go for it!

But seriously folks, a year ago, I'd have agreed with you on the LA thing, but then LN came out with HA frogs...and now my LA is back to doing far less than the #4.

WOW - What A Response

Bart Goldberg

>Folks, What can I say - I'm floored by the amount of responses to what I thought would be a simple question. The depth of responses is amazing, as is the experience of all who have responded to my question. All of you attest to the virtue of this forum and I thank you all.

BTW - After reading all the pros and cons, and after talking to the folks from LN directly (who by the way did not recommend the #5 over the #62) I think I'm gonna get that #62 after all. For someone who is a fairly new hand tool user like me, I think its the better choice. Also, it is a bit less expensive.

Man, I love this place.

Bart

Re: WOW - What A Response

deanj

>Great Choice -- And I had the same talk with Thomas not too long ago.

Good luck, have fun making some shavings, and be sure to post a pic of a project!

-Dean