4 vs 164 both with 45deg cutting angle comparison?

To be Honest...

Steve Wargo

>I think it is because it's easier to push. There is no logical reasoning that a Low angle smoother would handle more difficult grain. Also with effective cutting angle set lower, in theory, you can get away with an iron that is not "as sharp". I think they're fine for end grain. I use my block plane all time for end grain work. But there is no way that anyone can tell me that a 62 produces a better surface than a 4 1/5 with 50 deg. frog. Just my $.02.

It all depends on the wood...

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>as on many woods, there is no discernable difference, with any of the planes mentioned. But on some woods, notably reversing grain cocobolo, there is a difference, sometimes strikingly so.

I like the L-N 4.5 with a 50 degree frog and their new chipbreaker, that's the way I keep mine configured. But, there are a number of planes that can out perform it on certain woods, and a L-N or LV Low angle jack with a 63-65 degree effective cutting angle can definitely outperform my L-N 4.5 at 50 degrees effective cutting angle on several woods. The LA and wood planes just do better at the extreme effective cutting angles than the traditional cast iron planes can do at the same or lesser angles. Can't say for sure why, but they do.

But again, on the majority of woods the average woodworker encounters, lots of quality planes will perform superbly if set up right.

Re: To be Honest...

deanj

>

But there is no way that anyone can tell me that a 62 produces a better surface than a 4 1/5 with 50 deg. frog. Just my $.02.

But, if you use an effective cutting angle of 50 degrees on the 62, how does the wood know it is being cut buy a bevel up or bevel down plane? So there should be no difference. Other than the 62 may be quicker to set up with a narrow mouth. (Having to only move the toe piece rather than the frog.) And if you really need to you can go higher than 50 degrees. Of course you can do that with back bevels on a bevel down plane as well...

Dean

Re: To be Honest...

Clay C in Miami

>"How does the wood know it is being cut by a bevel up or bevel down plane?"

Two factors seem possible. As mentioned above, the bevel-up can be supported closer to the cutting edge, and the LA planes do have the iron body more in line with the direction of planing.

This latter factor may not be one the wood can 'see' once it's already cutting, but it does seem it could have some effect on the user. Imagine you are pushing a rectangle, all 90 degree corners. It seems that pushing it with its largest face flat on the surface could be a different experience than pushing it while it's up on its smallest end face. Less likelihood of chatter maybe?

By the way, let me take this chance to join the chorus of thanks for Lyn, Bill Tindall, and all those who give of their time to do actual controlled-variable testing on these questions. I devour all the results I can find.

This week I (finally!) tuned up my new LN 164 with the standard-angle iron and a spare ground at 40 degrees, and as reported here, on any sort of reversing grain (some bigleaf maple and figured claro walnut was what was at hand) the difference was night and day - not at all a subtle distinction.

Clay

What about the Chip Breaker

Steve Wargo

>Isn't the Chip breaker missing on the Low angle planes?

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

Greg Sloop

>Why would one *need* a chipbreaker for a LABU (low angle bevel up) plane?

On a BD (bevel down) plane it's used to support the blade and dampen blade/iron flex. Flex and chatter is more likely to occur when the blade is closer to 90 deg to the cutting surface - in short it's easier to flex on the thin side than the thick side. One has say 1/8' thinkness and the other has many inches.

On a LABU plane, the iron is bedded much more closely in the same plane that the iron is going to try to flex in. Thus, IMHO, less prone to flex and chatter - provded equal bedding.

(That along with being able to support right up to the toe of the iron, except for that portion projected from the sole of the plane.)

Cheers,

Greg

Does that clear anything up?

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

Steve Wargo

>Yes, Thanks Greg. I guess that LABU planes are special. I just never saw how they could work as a smoother. Thanks all for turning me into a believer. And to think that for hundreds of years, Cabinetmakers had no idea what they were missing. Cheers.

You completely lost me Greg

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>I'm trying to understand your point, put I'm having trouble not being a total slowhead.

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>I tend to think that a if set for a thin shaving (eg less than .003) that the cap iron doesn't actually break the shaving ie: it doesn't prevent tearout because the shaving is to thin to cause a lever effect. Additionally, the LA plane has a thicker cutting iron and a heavier/thicker lever cap. The cutting iron bedded right up to the cutting edge would have the same flex as a thicker iron would allow as the fulcrum effect on the blade by the lever cap appears to be the same as the forces present on a traditional bevel down plane with a chip breaker, excepting the different angle of attack.

In short, the bevel up plane does not need a chipbreaker when set for a thin shaving. Has anyone tried to hog some lumba with a bevel up plane? I wonder if the absence of a chipbreaker when taking a 30 thou shaving would present a problem?

Just my 2c, completely refundable

Never mind, got it now

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

Greg Sloop

>Well, I don't need to do much hoggin' but occasionally I've got a board with twist/cup/bow etc, that needs some handplane hogging.

Since I haven't yet had the neander conversion experience, I use a power thickness planer to thickness my stock.

In these cases, I generally use a toothed blade and just ram it through. It sure doesn't leave a nice surface, but it does hog off the material. Once I get it roughly flat by knocking down the high corners, I flip and run through the planer. Flip again and it's parallel and flat.

So, I can't exactly say what it does to surface finish, but I really don't think it makes any difference - chip breaker or no.

IMHO, at least for me - when I'm trying to really take off a lot of material, surface tearout isn't very important - I'll worry about that later - I just want the job done. When I get close, and want a good surface, I back off the cut depth and close the mouth some.

On softer even grain woods like poplar, my 45 deg angle hogs off wood just fine. It leaves a reasonable surface - though certainly you're going to need to clean it up with a light cut etc. On hard stuff like Jatoba, the surface isn't as nice. I doubt that this is related at all to the chip-breaker however.

IMHO, the chipbreaker is mis-named. I think it's there in purpose for modern planes in modern useage fine wood-working only for support and dampening.

But what do I know...my experience in really ripping off lots of material is pretty limited simply because of the way I work - namely power tools.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>"The cutting iron bedded right up to the cutting edge would have the same flex as a thicker iron would allow as the fulcrum effect on the blade by the lever cap appears to be the same as the forces present on a traditional bevel down plane with a chip breaker, excepting the different angle of attack"

Oooops, what i mean is that I think the flex in the blade caused by the lever cap would be the same as with a traditional plane with a chipbreaker. I think the flex on the cutting edge should in fact be less because the blade is supported right up to the cutting edge and the cutting angle is lower.

Anyways, now that I think about it, I'm probably just repeating what Greg has already said

Later

Jonathan

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>What I'm curious about is if thick shavings (30 thou. or so) ramming into the lever cap without a chipbreaker breaking them would make the plane more difficult to push.

Re: Never mind, got it now

Greg Sloop

>I suspect it was this sentance that was unclear...

On a LABU plane, the iron is bedded much more closely in the same plane that the iron is going to try to flex in. Thus, IMHO, less prone to flex and chatter - provded equal bedding.

I should have clairified...

On a LABU plane, the iron is bedded much more closely in the same plane (as in geometry, not hand *plane*) that the iron is going to try to flex in. Thus, IMHO, less prone to flex and chatter - provded equal bedding.

Think of bending your iron on the long axis. Now try to bend the 1/8" think side. The force required to flex or bend a 1/8" thick piece is much less than trying to flex or bend a 6" thick piece.

This is what having the iron bedded more parallel to the surface you are planing does. (low bedding angle) High bedding angle, frog or no frog, will be much more likely to flex or deform the blade/iron.

ASCII Art follows...

This will bend more than the second, given the same force.

-----------

^^ (<- That's the force)

>>-----------

(^ That's the force)

Ok, hope that makes up for my lack of literary skills.

(Nothing's gonna' do it for the spelling though, I know. Oh that WC had a spelling checker.)

Cheers,

Greg

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

Greg Sloop

>Heck if I know. Someone more knowledgeable would be helpful. I'm only 5'7" and ~130lb, so I'm practically throwing myself at the plane some of the time anyway.

I suspect that better than 95% of the energy is related to cut angle. Lower angles, easier to push. Higher angles, harder to push. That a chip-breaker would make it easier doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Again, perhaps I'm wrong.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

Brad in Ottawa

>I really think that a 30 thou shaving really can ram into anything and have a dramatic/traumatic impact on my capability to plane comfortably.

Sorry I have no basis to back up my claim... other than the assertion that both styles are just as easy to use. (That and I really have a hard time thinking a 30 thou shaving would slow me down.)

Brad

Re: What about the Chip Breaker

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>I also used to think the chipbreaker was misnamed. For finish work in hardwoods, I still think it's just a cap iron, useful for stiffening, forcing the blade to bed solidly on the frog, etc. However, when considering other uses to which the very versatile Bailey design was applied, especially when shaping SPF* for rough carpentry, with the frog backed off and the blade extended, the chip breaker acts more like a back bevel, in that it changes the cutting action from a type 1 to a type 2 chip. In these applications, with soft, flexible framing timber, it really does act as a chip breaker as well as a cap iron.

I have commented previously and favorably on the versatility of the #62 and #164 design, but that versatility is optimized for a different mix of tasks than the versatility of the Bailey design.

YMMV, depending on whether your are mostly driving in the city or on the highway :^)

* spruce-pine-fir, A.K.A. framing lumber.