Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane

Re: Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane

Greg Sloop, Portland OR

>I've used both the LN 62 and the LV (lee valley) 62.5 - You'll find a review of the LV 62.5 in comparison to the LN 62 down the page.

In short the low bedding angle and higher effective cutting angle planes are really *very* versitile planes.

Personally, I'd rather have one or two planes and adapt them to the task. Others want a fleet of planes that are very narrow task planes, and just grab the exact tool for the exact task.

If you're of the latter persuasion, then I don't think the low bedding will be as versitile as they might be. (With all regards to Adam C.)

Even if you're not going to use it with many blades, I do think it would excel on end grain (low effective cutting angle) and high effective cutting angles (>55 deg) for wild exotic grain.

Unless you have another smoother/jack with very high cutting angles, the LABU (low angle bevel up) planes are the easiest to configure for very high cut angles. (You can put back bevels on bevel down planes, but IMHO, this is significantly more difficult to do well.)

I use the lowest effective cutting angle that will result in a good finish.

If I were to recommend a first plane, I really think the Lee Valley would be a great choice. I do like the LN 62, and even have one with multiple blades I'm looking to get rid of - if interested, email me....but I'm not as fond of the LN as I am the LV.

I've done a number of wild grain things with my 62 and/or 62.5. QS Lacewood, QS Sycamore, Curly hard maple etc. The higher effective cutting angles, where needed, really perform wonderfully. (Though be aware that the effort to push a 60 deg effective cutting angle is much higher than 45-50 deg.)

As far as comparison to bench (bevel down) planes, I don't think any particular style is vastly better than another - though I think a bevel down style plane is harder to manufacture properly. The most important factors to the finish left, at least for well constructed planes, is cutting angle and sharpness of the blade.

Since it's trivial to change the angles in bevel-up planes, I think they are superior. (Further, it's easier to support the blade closer to the end of the blade too, and the body of the blade is more in-line with the cutting force - both of these factors, IMHO tend to make the LABU design "better.")

Chris Schwartz has even claimed to put a square end on an iron and used it as a < 90deg cutting angle plane - and says it works very nicely. (Now you don't need a scraper plane either!)

In short, go for it. I think you'll love it, and I think the choices you're thinking about are excellent.

PS. A smoother might be a good choice. Both LV and LN make a very nice smoother. I think a Jack (longer) plane is a better first choice, but that depends of exactly what you want to do with your first plane. For me, the longer jack was a better choice.

Cheers,

Greg

Some other reviews here...

http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/archives_handtools.pl?read=40383

http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/archives_handtools.pl?read=35936

(These start at posts by Lyn Mangiameli - IMHO, the "god" of plane reviews. [How many folks use SPSS for stat analysis for such things! What a guy!]

Re: Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane *LINK*

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>In addition to Greg's excellent post, here is a link to another recent article and discussion.

Regards from Perth

Derek


Bevel Up Plane Discussion

another choice

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Greg,

It's been interesting to watch your posts on the LA jack evolve over the past year, keep up the good work. I spent a little time with Joel down at Tools For Working Wood this afternoon ( a very enjoyable diversion from the work day) and tried out the 55 deg Clark & Williams smoother on some cocobolo rosewood. Gotsta say....there was no great effort needed to push this plane....sorta effortless the same as any other smoother....and lighter too. The finish left was good enough to see my smiling face in the reflection left by this plane:-) I'll definitely try it out on some more challenging wood once I get one home.

Greg posted:

"I've done a number of wild grain things with my 62 and/or 62.5. QS Lacewood, QS Sycamore, Curly hard maple etc. The higher effective cutting angles, where needed, really perform wonderfully. (Though be aware that the effort to push a 60 deg effective cutting angle is much higher than 45-50 deg.)"

Re: another choice

Greg Sloop, Portland OR

>Just curious what ideas you think have "evolved" in the last year.

Personally, I don't think they have much at all. But perhaps I'm delusional.

No flame fest - at least from me - just curious.

On your subject:

I can't say I have lots of exp at 55 deg, but I can tell you that the force required at 60-65 is just a bunch more than at 45-50. If you're taking super wispy shavings, then you may not notice the difference however. Thicken that shaving up a bit and you'll feel it.

I have ground mine at ~53-57 deg before and it still was harder. I seem to notice the jump at around 60 deg. Perhaps that's just psychosomatic - just some thoughts.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: another choice

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Greg,

You've done a good job of listing the attributes of the LA jack plane. I don't know if it's "the best" plane for all bench plane tasks, but it's right for you.

Regards

Jonathan

Re: another choice

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>I see you avoided the question...

*grin*

...and setup what appears to a straw man...

I don't think I've ever advocated it as the "best" - just that it's very versitile, IMHO, more so than BD planes. And it loses nothing to any of the BD designs of equal quality. Versatility is a big thing if you only have a few planes...and intend to stay that way...

Anyway - no reply required. Just wanting to make sure my "position" isn't misunderstood.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane

Mike G

>Greg and Derek - I really appreciate your responses. I'm going to give the LV and LN low angle jack a hard look. My thought is that which ever I order I should also get a second blade with a steeper bevel for the wild grain.

Thanks, Mike

Re: Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Hello Greg,

I have come around to understanding your investigations of using a low-bedding-angle smoothing plane with a bevel that produces a high effective cutting angle, so that one can use it for difficult woods. I have an LN 164, and will be getting a spare blade or two to try it on figured wood.

What I do not fully understand is the choice of an LBA plane for a jack plane. I have observed and read of no particular demand for a high-angle jack plane. Is it not usual for a jack plane to be used for rougher, intermediate shaping, in which whispy tearout-free planing is irrelevant?

Re: Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>I'm sure that a dedicated smoother would often be a better choice. More expensive too... *grin*

I find that I may have to "flatten" an item more with the Jack to use it as a final "smoother" but that's just extra work if the item is not already quite flat.

A "real" smoother would be able to work between the "waves" to smooth a section without having to remove the waves. You can smooth with a jack, you just have to remove more "waves." (As a side note, I will sometimes, when required, use my low angle block with high effective cutting angles to act as a really tiny smoother.)

I've used mine (the Jack) for tables, boxes etc, and using the jack, though some extra work depending, has worked quite well for me.

I'll probably get a smoother sometime, but until I feel the other higher priority tools have been obtained, it will probably be a while away.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>Buy *two* extra's, IMHO.

One at 25 for end grain. (37 deg total angle)

Another at ~33/38 deg for a standard bench plane total angle of 45/50 deg.

Finally more more, the hard to push one for the most wild grain, at ~50 deg - for total cut angle of about 62 deg.

If you're not interested in using the plane in one of those configurations, then obviously you can skip the iron.

Cheers,

Greg

Re: Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane

Derek

>Don,

I have "leveled" quite a few panels by hand. I found that my "standard" jack gave me quite a bit of deep tearout in figured wood (birseye maple, to be specific). This was difficult to "smooth" out with my dedicated york pitch smoother.

I have some mor of this to do soon. I plan to use the LA jack to level a table top of similar wood. I will take deeper cuts and hope that the LA jack's weight and great iron support will help me use a higher angle iron to level it with, I hope, less tearout or at least less deep tearout. I will also have the option to reduce/increase the depth of cut and quickly open/close the mouth as well as quickly clean out the mouth if I do clog it and put it back exactly where it was almost instantly.

Re: Advice on Low Angle Jack Plane

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Ahhhh. My bad. I thought you had a LBA smoother-sized plane, too.