York Pitch on 4 1/2

Re: York Pitch on 4 1/2 *LINK*

Adam in Kingston

>I've got the LN 4.5 w/ York pitch. I went for the york pich because I have other planes with the standard pitch frog. From what I've noticed the decision depends on the wood you most often use. On mahogany they york works very well but on cherry the standard pitch shines. It's a tough call, but with LN why not get both?


http://www.adamkropinski.ca

Re: York Pitch on 4 1/2

David Miller from Iowa

>Depends upon what you mean as rehab. All planes requiring sharpening skill. If I were to have only one smoother, that might imply I didn't have grueling demands in mind. If so, I'd get a decent Stanley #4 on eBay and use as is with a sharpening. Most economical way to get into the smoothing business. If you get to the point where the sole is not flat enopugh or you need a tighter throat or whatever, you still have money in the till to make the next step.

David

Re: York Pitch on 4 1/2

Steve Kubien

>Well, if I could have only one smoother and I had my heart/head set on a Lie-Nielsen, I would the standard pitch, purchase an extra blade and put a back-bevel on it. If I understand things correctly, that would give you the higher effective cutting angle of the York pitch frog.

This way, as has been stated, you are set for a wider variety of species and situations (straight grain, curly, birdseye etc).

Cheers,

Steve Kubien

OTOH...

Steve Kubien

>I think you should be directing your attention at the bigger picture and the root of your problem...Only one smoother? You're speaking some language with which I am not familiar.

I suppose I could get an extra iron or two for my Knight smoother but I think with a woodie I'll be better off with extra plane bodies as well. Ya, that's it, I gotta have the extra bodies so I don't lose the irons! Yup, SWMBO'd will believe that!

Steve Kubien

Veritas

Hoa Dinh in Alameda

>"If you could have only one smooth plane, and you didn't want to rehab an old one, which would you buy?"

Veritas LA smoother, with a extra HA blade - best of both worlds.

-- Hoa

Re: York Pitch on 4 1/2

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>Hi Dan,

I have the York Pitch in a 5 1/2 and love it. If I was to get a Jack of All Trades plane I would buy the LN 62 Low Angle Jack with a second blade.

Set one up as a Low angle blade (standard 25 degree bevel) and the other at something like 55 to 60 degrees for that gnarly grain.

Good Luck,

Dan Clermont

Re: Veritas

Alice Frampton, UK

>Or the L-N. Although waiting for the wider Veritas mightn't be a bad idea if the jack's anything to go by. Certainly bevel-up of some sort would be the first thing I'd consider; but then I'm a recent convert and there's nowt so bad as the recently converted :~)

Cheers, Alf

What a dilemma...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>Only one? The shame of it all. Depends on what your working on large or small projects.

My go to smoother is a LN 4.5 with the high angle frog for most things. I also use a no. 3 (std. pitch) on smaller pieces.

I don't find it harder to push a plane with a HA frog, so that isin't a problem for me anyway.

A no. 4 is a good "middle of the road" choice, but I hardly ever use mine now that I have the 4.5.

The swiss army plane gang is sure to tell you different, it's just a matter of choice.

You can't go wrong with a LN plane IMHO.

Re: York Pitch on 4 1/2

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>As was noted, I think for a wide versatility plane, bevel up is the way to go. (I think they make great narrow application planes too.)

Bevel up allows you to change the effective cutting angle easily. This can be accomplished with an extra iron on a bevel down plane and a back bevel, but that will require more work, generally, than a bevel up plane. (Move the chip-breaker, grind the back bevel etc...)

IMHO, Advantage Bevel up.

Bevel up also allows the cutting iron to be supported all the way to the end of the iron, except for the small portion that is extended below the sole of the plane. Bevel down planes like the 4.5 have support for the blade much higher up the iron.

Advantage, at least in theory: Bevel up.

Now, you said you want a smoother. That kills the LV 62.5 and LN 62, unless you reconsider.

That leaves the current LV LA smoother, and the LN 164.

Both are lighter than the 4.5 I believe, and that may impact your decsion.

I don't exactly love the 164 because the adjuster has to have an attachment to the iron to work. This means that you can't switch irons as quickly or as easily as you might, though it's no real deal-stopper - more like a minor nit-pick.

I also have greatly wished that the LA set of planes from LN would use the same irons - you could interchange between them that way.

So, given where I see things going in the relatively near future, I would recommend a hold for a few months at most and get the LV smoother that's due out.

As I hear it, the whole set of LV LA planes will use the same irons, though this doesn't include the currently sold LV LA Smoother! (There is an addition or replacement coming I hear.)

I had the LN 62 and sold it for the LV 62.5, and plan to obtain the new smoother as soon as I can. The new smoother will be wider, and heavier - in short, a close cousin to the 4.5 in low angle bevel up.

I can get perhaps two irons for each plane, and then have a couple at each angle - say 62, 50, 37 total effective angle. Then when one dulls etc, I don't have to stop and sharpen. I can switch and do two at once when needed. (Or alternatively, I can be a cheap bastard and buy fewer irons in the first place!)

Advantage, IMHO, LV low angle planes.

I think first would be to decide: bevel up or bevel down. Clearly I think bevel up is superior.

I think you have to decide between smoother or jack. I think a jack is better for a first plane, but smoother can work too. (Actually many think a block plane ought to be first.)

If you choose smoother, and bevel up, wait to see the new LV LA smoother. I think it will be *very* nice - on the order of the 62.5, which I think is quite superior to the LN 62. You can also choose the LN 164.

In either case, get at least one extra iron and if you're going to skip end grain work, have one at 45-50 degrees, the other at 60-65. (Total angle, bed plus iron angle)

If you might consider a jack sized plane, look at the LV and LN. I highly prefer the LV one, but LN also makes a very nice LA jack. Both will do you well, but if you might consider the family from jointer to jack to smoother, I'd strongly advise you to consider LV.

(Proviso - we need to see how LV delivers on the planes - I've not seen the smoother or the jointer that are supposedly coming, but if past track record is any indication, they should be good.)

Sorry for the length.

Cheers,

Greg

So what's you point, Greg? Bevel up or down? ;-)>

Hoa Dinh in Alameda

>

So, you are ...

Hoa Dinh in Alameda

>the culprit of the money I recently "lost" buying LV planes. Your reviews on planes pushed me over the edge and now I can't stop......

Thanks for the nice works, Alf.

-- Hoa

Yep, you got it right

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>on almost every point.

We shall soon see available a simply wonderfully cost and functionally efficient system of planes. The new Lee Valley bevel up smoother (164.5) chassis, the Lee Valley bevel up Jack (62.5) chassis, and the new Lee Valley bevel up jointer will all use the same width blade. You could bevel one to 25 (effective cutting angle of 45) one to 35 (effective cutting angle of 55) and one to an effective cutting angle of 45 (effective cutting angle of 65) and interchange them between planes as needed. Thus with one set of three plane bodies, with no additional blades, you would have the versatility and functional abilities of 9 different planes.

I'm really impressed with the significance of this for newer as well as experienced hand tool users.

Re: SAPG

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I usually stay out of this sort of thing, and I probably should now, but everytime I see this phrase it grates on me. I perceive it as dismissive and subletly demeaning without need or merit--if I'm seeing this wrong, please show me why.

I don't consider myself part of any "gang," yet its hard for me not to have been lumped together with those who must be referred to by such a phrase, given that I was one of the first to discuss the versatility as well as performance advantages of the bevel up plane design.

Anyone who knows me has a good idea that I own a very large number of planes (with well over 80 percent being of the bevel down style), have used even more (including some of the finest examples on the planet) and tend to draw my conclusions based on design analysis and the empirical data derived from controlled comparative testing.

If you know my history, and it's out there in my reviews and forum comments, I wasn't initially a fan of the bevel up plane as it was typically and traditionally configured for a low effective cutting angle. It was only when I began actually testing the bevel up design with higher bevel angles that I came to find what an exceedingly good (and yes versatile) platform a bevel up chassis provides. Before most others had given much consideration to bevel up planes being used in a high effective cutting angle configuration, I shared my findings, as did Chris Schwarz. In large part due to those reports, others have experimented with such an approach and have discovered for themselves the advantages of the bevel up design.

The bevel up plane not only is capable of the highest levels of performance (and yes that includes woodies and almost all infills), but it can be so simply and easily tuned to the specific demands of various woods. As any experienced hand plane user soon learns, no single effective cutting angle will leave the best possible finish in all woods. Now those who just like to collect lots of planes (and of course I do) may find having a dozen or more bench planes appealing, but I don't think I am presuming too much to say that the vast majority of plane users, will find merit in a single plane what can be inexpensively and easily reconfigured to perform the task of 4-5 individual planes. It saves storage space, money, time tuning, and time maintaining.

I have full respect for your finding the LN #4.5 with York frog to be to your liking--that's how I have mine configured and I have always liked mine, though I must admit I don't use it nearly as much now as I used to. But again, I see "SAPG" as an empty phrase that is dismissive and diminishing though connotation, and does nothing to promote any reasoned analysis of the relative merits of plane design and configuration.

Re: York Pitch on 4 1/2

paul womack

>If you could have only one smooth plane, and you didn't want to rehab an old one, which would you buy?

On the assumption that money is not unlimited, I'd buy a LV 4 1/2, With a spare blade, to be back-bevelled.

BugBear

Re: Yep, you got it right

paul womack

>...system of planes...

The very fact that such a phrase can be used indicates that Lee Valley are doing something genuinely new.

BugBear

Guilty

Alice Frampton, UK

>If it's any comfort I've ended up on a fresh area of the Slope myself! Glad they were helpful :~)

Cheers, Alf

Re: York Pitch on 4 1/2

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Ah, another one. I just got an email from a fellow whose tough, problem-wood smoother is a Lie Nielsen 5� with the high-angle frog. What is your experience, so far?

Lie-Nielsen Blade Adjustment Plate

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>It should be mentioned that extra Blade Adjustment Plates and Screws for the Lie-Nielsen #164 Low-Angle Smoother can be obtained for $5.00USD per set. They are quite useful for blade switching amongst various angles of grind.

Re: York Pitch on 4 1/2

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>Hi Don,

At first I was concerned that the length of a 5 1/2 would not work well as a smoother but I wanted a plane that had heft similar to the Infill Panel Plane's.

So far I am really happy with it and use it all of the time.

Dan Clermont

Re: Yep, you got it right

Ted Shuck, Centennial, CO

>I hate to quibble with Lyn, since his posts are usually such well thought out works. I learn from every one of them.

However, the bevel angles and cutting angles that are shown imply a 20 degree bedding angle for these planes. They are bedded at 12 degrees, not 20. Makes the planes even more versatile.

Humbly,

Ted

Thank You

Dan S in NC

>Thanks for sharing your experience.

As for "having only one," I'm sure there will be several in my future. I'm simply trying to develop the most smoothing versatility in a single plane on my next purchase.

BTW, I'm already the happy owner of a LN low angle Jack. Maybe I'll go with a steeper bevel. That'll get me through some gnarly stuff until I can purchase and build an infill kit.

BTW, any comments on the Shepherd infill kits? Anybody been to one of their workshops?

Re: Thank You

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>Hi Dan,

If you've got a LA Jack get a second iron and try bevelling it for 60 degrees or so.

I believe on the LN site soemwhere is a writeup by Christopher Schwarz on how versatile this plane is and hiow it can even be used as a scraper plane.

Dan Clermont

Re: Thank You *LINK*

Ted Shuck, Centennial, CO

>I received a kit as a present just before Christmas. I have nearly completed it, still need to finish sanding the sole and sides. I took a few test shavings with it last night and I am very happy with the performance. They say that 8-10 hours is a reasonable amount of time to build one, but I have at least 30 hours in this one already, but I have not used power tools.

I think I managed to get the mouth under 0.005", although I have not yet measured it. I left the filing of the mouth until the final stage before installing the lever cap. I spent over half an hour just filing the mouth.

The procedure I used:

Flatten and polish the back of your iron first. Flatten the bed, installing the iron periodically to make sure the bed is a smooth flat plane. Flatten the sole of the plane. Mine was seriously convex after draw filing it smooth. I am an advocate of the BugBear school of sole flattening. (see link below).

Once the bed is flat, the sole is flat, and the mouth has not been opened enough to install the blade through the mouth while bedded properly, install the iron through the mouth and sight through the gap between the blade and the front of the mouth. The gap will almost surely not be even across the mouth. You want to even the gap before opening the mouth completely, otherwise you will have an uneven mouth opening. I sort of stumbled across this and I am very glad I did, otherwise I might have filed a much wider mouth than I did. Continue filing the mouth evenly, testing the blade fit every few strokes. As soon as the blade fits through and beds properly, stop. Slight adjustments may be needed.

Everything else was pretty well explained in the instructions.

Regards,

Ted


Bugbear's sole flattening page

Re: Yep, you got it right

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>I suspect Lyn was completely ignoring, rather than forgot, the potential of using the plane for end grain, perhaps because the OP (orig. poster) was asking about a 4.5 which wouldn't be capable of that low angle anyway.

But the point that you could also do end grain or otherwise have a very low effective cutting angle is true.

Cheers,

Greg