#7 vs. #8 planes?

Re: #7 vs. #8 planes?

mikew

>Hi David,

There are a couple reasons one gets choosen over the other. One is the length of material or its width. Longer, can be good.

The #8 is heavier, but not much and there's not much length difference.

I recently got rid of my #7, kept the #8. I figure if I need something that long and heavy it might as well be the #8, otherwise I use a #6 where others may choose a #7.

Personal preference, really.

Mike

Re: #7 vs. #8 planes?

Dean in Burlington

>David,

Don't let your wife tell you otherwise....Bigger is better!!!!! :))))

Because

Jim Reed @ Tallahassee

>you need both a #7 and a #8 to fill out your collection. That said, I reach for my #7 often. It seems to be just the right size for what I want to do at the time.

Re: #7 vs. #8 planes?

Friedrich Kollenrott

>David,

a #8 is simply more fun to have. Maybe it depends on your size: I am relatively tall and heavy, a #8 fits better. I own a pre- war Bailey with Hock cutter, ist not my best but my most loved plane. I sold my #7 Bailey and got a LN 7 1/2 for precision work. The #8 is for rough work, this being done i switch to the 7 1/2 which will be replaced by a LV low angle jointer at about christmas....

Friedrich Kollenrott, Extertal (Germany)

Re: #7 vs. #8 planes?

Dean J in MN

>

What are the advantages/disadvantages to choosing a 7 or 8 for a planer? If you had to choose, which one, and why?

David --

I think you have to tell us what you want to use this #7/#8 for to get a better response... For example, do you do stock prep by hand? Or is this planes job cleaning up edges?

If you are going to use it as a jointer, then I would go with the longest/widest plane.

If you are going to use it as a try, then you may want to consider its weight. Some folks like the extra mass of the #8, but for face jointing (here the plane is set up as a try plane) the extra mass and power needed to push that wider blade may just wear you out. A #7 is long enough for most try plane work. A #6 is a nice try plane as well. Or just pick up a woodie... Oh wait, I'll refocus...

On the other hand, for working edges (here the plane is set up as jointer), I'd take the wider of the two. You can match plane thicker boards that way. You don't spend as much pushing the plane around in this operation, so the extra mass isn't going to wear you out. As an added bonus, the wider of these two planes is also longer! A plus for edge jointing.

My 2 cents...

-Dean

Re: Jim's right, but...

Glenn Madsen in the SF Bay area

>it's NOT a collection. They just happen to be stored in that nice cabinet on the wall - the one referred to as 'the tool shrine'.

The #8 I have feels better to me than the #7 (both vintage Stanley's, not Bedrocks). I love the heft of the #8 for large projects, stubborn woods, and general curly therapy. My #7 seems to have lived a hard life, but was a gift from a close friend, and keeps a place of honor for that reason.

Seriously, what you use most will depend on what you build, what materials you use, the shop fitments(or lack of thereof) in which you work, and your physical stature and strength.

Re: Changing LN for LV??

paul womack

>I am intrigued. Whilst there have been many (sometimes heated!) debates about the relative merits of LV versus LN products, I can't imagine changing one for the other once I'd bought. The new-for-old value loss is too great.

What advantage do you see in the LV low angle jointer that makes it a "must-have", given that you already own a very fine, and very similar plane?

BugBear

Re: Changing LN for LV??

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>LN's often sell on ebay for greater than new prices; but they always command almost-new prices. There's no real new-for-old value loss.

Pam

Re: Changing LN for LV??

Friedrich Kollenrott

>Hi Paul,

I've been using the LN 7 1/2 for about two years now. Really a remarkable tool, works precisely and in most cases cuts perfect surfaces. In many cases, the surface cut by this jointer can be left as is- no more smoothing, never any sanding. The built- in limitations are firstly the not adjustable mouth- mines mouth ist about 2,5 mm wide and secondly (not that important) the blade adjustment mechanism, which pushes the blade sideways whenever you just want to feed - poor design, imho. To overcome the first apect, I hone the blade to 40°(to avoid tearout in spite of the wide mouth) but sometimes thats not enough and I spoil readily dimensioned stock. The behaviour can be improved by putting thin cardboard (0,4mm) under the blade, this will narrow the mouth. But thats troublesone and reduces the overlap of (between?) the cutters groove and the collar of the knurled nut that does the feeding.

Now I expect the LV LA- jointer to be as precise as the LN but without the mentioned disadvantages. And I won't keep two of that kind.

Friedrich

Re: wow...

paul womack

>Those are well thought through reasons.

I wonder if Rob Lee and/or TLN will see them... ?

(and Pam's point is well made too)

BugBear

That's the reason ...

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>...I held off on buying the LN 7 1/2.

Having the LN 164 and LN 62 with adjustable mouths, I learned quickly of the value of that feature. I recall when LN announced production of the 7 1/2 and was disappointed to find that it lacked the adjustable mouth.

Re: Changing LN for LV??

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>The LV BU Jointer has a few notable features:

1. An adjustable mouth

2. The ability to take a high angle blade

3. The mouth is set 1" further back than my Stanley #7 (Type 11), which gives it a longer bed, closer to an #8.

The cutting ability of the BUJ far surpasses my #7 (with a Japanese Smoothcut blade). One of the important factors for me is the ability to minimise any tearout on difficult timber. Any tearout = more planing. This is as important when flattening large surfaces as when edge planning.

Below is my current project, a hall table top in Jarrah (the remainder with be in Blackbutt). My #7 is a superior worker, but the BUJ is several steps up the ladder.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: wow...

Greg Sloop, Portland Oregon

>I expect Rob already knows and that's why he designed the LABU Jointer the way he did.

I know TLN knows that we'd like an adjustable mouth - I'd heard he was working on a prototype, but none materialized.

The final reason I'd swap (and did - LN 62 for LV 62.5) is that the whole line of LV BU planes also use the same irons, which isn't true for any of the LN ones. (LN 62,164,7.5 vs LV Heavy smoother, 62.5, LABU Jointer)

I've now got all three and I'm really very happy I swapped out the LN 62 for the LV 62.5 - even at a loss. I like the LV plane's functionality a lot better.

I've got 6 irons now across all planes. I've got one toothed at 25 deg, one regular at 25, and two each at 37 deg, and 53 deg. (I'll probably ask for an iron or two for Christmas too...)

Cheers,

Greg

I don't get it?????

Bob Dodge

>Why would you need an adjustable mouth, when all you have to do is adjust the frog forward?

Bob

Re: I don't get it?????

paul womack

>http://www.lie-nielsen.com/catalog.php?sku=7_5

Quote:

"The mouth opening is not adjustable."

BugBear

Re: I don't get it?????

mikew

>Hi Bob,

The low angle planes do not have a frog...whether a LN or LV mor Stanley.

So if one wants/needs to close the mouth/blade relationship it is either shims, or an adjustable mouth.

An adjustable mouth is quick. The other issues raised are also valid. The LN blade adjuster can be a pita. The LV blades are interchanable, etc.

Mike

tks Mike

Bob Dodge

>OK Mike,

Gotcha. I thought we were talking about a Bedrock, not a L/A.

Bob