No. 7 vs. No. 8

Re: Derek's question-long boring answer

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I think your response is valid, but unfair to Dean. These planes were and continue to be marketed exactly as Dean has said. Early adopters here praised this quality that they only needed one plane and two or three irons. LV sells irons with various angle ground in, I have my grubby little hands on my catalog as we speak. With the utmost of respect, I think your indignation should be more appropriately pointed at LV's marketing department.

BTW, I agree with you while I also recognize there are folks who are happy switching plane blades just as they are happy switching table saw blades, setting up outfeed rollers or laying 10 additional feet of model railroad track. We're boys and we like our toys. LV has really upped the anty on gizmos offering new dials for us to twist. That's perfectly okay. It is my understanding that some girls like this stuff too. And I'm looking at an 8 yr old one right now!

You and Dean seem to both agree that marketing the versatility of these planes, a remark we hear frequently, is not a selling point for the grab it and go users among us. Got it.

Adam

Re: LA BU question

Alice Frampton, UK

>Adam, I don't know the answer either. You speak of geometry and my mind shuts down in self-defence, I'm afraid. I just camber the darn thing; if it's not cambered enough, I camber it a bit more. I couldn't tell you the degree of camber if you paid me large sums of money. It works, so I don't worry about it. I wait 'til things stop working before I analyse them, just in case analysing them first makes them stop working... You may laugh, but I used to sucessfully veneer balsa wood (don't ask) right up until the point I thought about it and realised how difficult it was. I've never been able to do it since!

Cheers, Alf

Giant jointer

Jim Brown

>If you get a chance, maybe bring us back a picture of it. Sounds interesting.

Italics

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>It's all in the html, so you start the quote with "" without the quotation marks, and end the quote with "".

Pam

Bevel up disadavantages

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>Hi Andy!

It seems a long time since I answered your query yesterday morning. You asked for some disadvantages to bevel up planes. Here are some.

1.Closed mouth. The bevel up planes rely on a rather closed mouth. This is all right if you are taking all thin shavigs or shavings of one thickness, but would be a bother for someone doing stock preparation by hand. It is best for someone surfacing a board that is all ready machined.

2. Wear Bevel. The wear bevel is an important component of blade dulling. The wear bevel is a flat spot worn on the edge parallel to the sole of the plane, and it needs to be removed in sharpening. On a bevel down plane the wear bevel occurs mostly on the bevel side; on the bevel up plane it occurs mostly on the flat side of the iron. Since you are doing most of your sharpening on the bevel side, when you sharpen, the wear bevel is removed from a bevel down smoother several times faster than a bevel up.

3. Bevel Angle. The literature says "Simply increasing the bevel angle results in higher cutting angles for improved performance in more difficult grained woods. Changing the bevel angle is not a one minute job. Some users have a pile of plane irons, some have a fleet of planes.

I hope this is helpful. As a practical matter it might be best to go with the type of plane your teacher friend uses.

Warren

Italics *LINK*

Jeff Schmidt

>Now, if I could only figure out how to get quotations into italics on this forum format...

Andy,

It is kind of hard to type the html command to get italics since it will italicize the text and disappear itself. :-)

So, I will just point you to a website


Simple HTML comands

Re: Italics

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Criminy, and I thought the quotation marks would tell html not to tranlate what was enclosed. Anyhow, before the start of the quotation to italicize, type less than followed by I followed by greater than. At the end of the quotation, type less than fb slash fb I fb greater than.

Pam

Re: Italics

VTAndy

>>i< okay I think I get the italics thing. >/i<

THANKS!

-Andy

P.S. sliding down that slope... yikes... I've gotta get dinner but then I'll tell of my adventure...

Re: Italics

VTAndy

> of course I mixed up the less than/greater than ...

One more point re 'wear bevel'

Wiley Horne--Glendora, CA

>Warren already defined the wear bevel. It is a critical to what we call 'dullness'--a point made by Brent Beach. When the wear bevel gets to a certain width, we're pushing on the plane to keep it in the work, we perceive that the blade is dull, and we decide to resharpen. Two people who are doing credible research on blades and sharpening, and also Leitz, the engineering firm, have found that when the wear bevel gets to a width of 0.0005" to 0.0008" (5 to 8 tenths), then the blade is dull.

Take two planes with the same blade material attacking at 50 degrees. A BD plane with clearance of 20 degrees and honing angle of 30 degrees; and a BU plane with clearance of 12 degrees and honing angle of 38 degrees. The geometry of the situation says that the wear bevel on the BU plane will more rapidly reach the 'dullness' value of 5 to 8 tenths, because less metal needs to be worn away before this limiting value is reached. The lower clearance angle ensures that this will happen.

Couple of implications flow from this. One is that BU plane users would be well advised to protect their blade backs--back bevels, while ordinarily useful, reduce the usable clearance, give the wear bevel a head start, and shorten the window of 'sharpness'. Secondly, the wear bevel will develop and widen more rapidly at higher attack angles, so it is desirable for BU users to be careful with their honing angles and not let them drift up by rounding over--this will noticeably cut into the time that the blade is perceived to be sharp, because of the interaction with the low clearance angle.

Wiley

Re: Italics

VTAndy

>OK, so I went to visit a very nice man who is selling tools out of his home workshop. We spent a good amount of time chatting and he showed me a lot of interesting tools, including the stationary jointer. (I might return for it someday...)

Which planes did I take home with me?

A number 7 and a number 5.

Now, the seller gave me some idea of how old they are. Just now, I used a website flow chart to date them and know what I've got. The no. 7 is probably a type 4, 1870s. The no. 5 has a corrugated sole and is probably a type 19. Neither are cosmetic cherries; however, they are in very good, working condition, and I'm quite pleased with this as a start! I also look forward to trying out some of the other suggestions: hopefully I'll get to try out a BU plane soon, and some wooden planes as well.

Thanks for all your help and suggestions!

For now it's time to figure out how to clean these babies up somewhat...

A question to both of you Adam, Derek....

HC Sakman @ Victoria, BC

>Why do you need to radius the blade in a jointer plane, especially in a LA-BU Jointer? My logic says flat cutting edge = good glue joint. Am I wrong?

Of course, using jointer on a panel for leveling is a different story.

...or have I misunderstood you?

Thanks guys,

Chico...

Re: No. 7 vs. No. 8

paul womack

>You use the jack plane in place of a scrub plane? Or is it that you have a wooden jack plane set up as what is essentially a long scrub plane?

There is no absolute boundary between the two. As a jack plane becomes shorter and narrower, and the blade becomes more cambered, it becomes more "scrubby". It's a spectrum.

I have a VERY scrubby jack.

BugBear

Re: No. 7 vs. No. 8

paul womack

>I've watched people joint an edge while holding only their hand under the jointer and it blows my mind that it ever trues the edge.

They're not doing what you think. The finger-pseudo-fence is only controlling direction of travel. The squaring of the edge is done as per this technique

BugBear

Re: No. 7 vs. No. 8

paul womack

>the added length makes for more accurate work, reduced weight and friction make for easier planing and they are often cheaper to boot! So that's an easy choice. You can find these in flea markets throughout new england and readily on ebay for $20 + shipping.

IME wooden planes over 22" (AKA #7 length) are rather rare, and not so cheap, unless you can show me otherwise.

22" woodie jointers are indeed common and cheap, but are no longer (and hence no more accurate) than a #7.

BugBear

Re: Derek's question-long boring answer

Alice Frampton, UK

>Adam, I think I could reasonably argue that there's a difference between saying different bevel angles give a plane versatility and saying you can only use the plane if you swap between one bevel angle and another every time you use it.

As far as boys and their toys goes, allowing for those folks who like to faff about with this 'n' that, you're quite right, they have no problem with it at all. Making that argument against BU planes even more of a non-starter I'd have thought?

I have zero problem with people having arguments against BU planes (there's nothing in it for me if LN or LV sell one more or one less plane) but they really need to be better than this "blade swapping" one. You'd not be impressed if someone were to jump in against wooden planes and reel off a "warped soles, patch mouth, hard to adjust" spiel, would you? I imagine you'd feel it rather missed the point. It's kinda like that.

Cheers, Alf

Re: LA BU question

paul womack

>Camber on my jack plane is probably 1/8"-3/16".

I don't think anyone uses a BU plane for the sort of purposes were a BD plane blade is cambered by that much.

Unless someone knows otherwise...

BugBear

Re: Andy's slippery slope

paul womack

>Everybody goes up the learning curve. There's no way to short cut it.

If there's no way to "short cut" the learning curve, there's (logically) no benefit in good advice or teaching. Doesn't sound right to me.

Saving someone a few blind alleys, advising techniques that work, sure sound like short cuts to me.

BugBear

Neither of them, but still...

Alice Frampton, UK

>As BB references above, this link explains the why. The camber is very slight, but enough. It doesn't appear to effect the glue joint at all, at least with modern glues. Now Adam and others will argue about glewing planes (have I got that right?) and try planes and straight edges and such, of which I know nowt, but this 20thC woodworker with metal planes and modern glue does it all the time with (touch wood, so far) no ill effects.

Cheers, Alf

Adam, I am not.....

Jeff Schmidt

>but I would surmise that Adam would agree that you should not use a radiused blade on a jointer plane, assuming that by jointer plane, you are talking about the plane used in match planing two edges to be glued together. (See Dean's post above.)

Planing an edge to be "square", but not for the purpose of a glue joint (which need not be square if match planed), then the cambered approach which Alice identified would be more appropriate, though Mr. Gorman's recommended 0.004" camber is too small.

calibration on the learning curve

mike recchione

>It has sort been an undercurrent in this thread that setting up and learning to use a jointer plane like a Stanley #7 or #8, or a wooden jointer to be able to edge joint boards is a big deal. Did either of you find it to be so? Or is this difficulty being blown all out of proportion.

Whether you have a traditional jointer or one of the new BU ones, you need to know how to sharpen the iron - so that's a given, no matter what you get. You need to learn some tricks, like match planing the two boards so that minor deviations from square cancel out. Again, a given no matter what plane you use. And you need to learn to start in the middle and work your way towards the ends so that when you take your first full length shaving, you're basically done. Once again, not a function of the plane.

After those basic skills were learned, I don't remember learning to set up and use a jointer being a big deal - I think the first set of boards was kind of a pain, but by the time they were done, I'd learned how to do it so it's been pretty easy since then. I think the entire learning curve took about an hour to climb. Have others had different experiences?

BTW - my jointers are Stanley Bailey pattern #7s, one probably from the late '40s, early '50s, the other pre-war. I had to make a new tote for the older one because the horn had broken off and the bit that was left was giving me blisters, but other than sharpening the iron, I didn't do any special tuning or anything like that.

Re: calibration on the learning curve

Steve Kubien

>I'm with you Mike in that I don't see the great trouble. My first long plane was a #7 and my current one is a 24" Knight. I haven't found either to have a steep learning curve. As long as the iron is even relative the sole, it's a nice flat cut. I occasionally have issues with keeping the plane sitting evenly on the board but that is my technique, not the plane.

Neat thread.

Steve Kubien

Re: Why I can't see getting a....

Cameron

>Which planes did I take home with me?

A number 7 and a number 5.

Well it seems that everyone else is preoccupied so I'll chime in....Thanks for the update, Andy. You did well - and I'll tell you why...

Because the Bailey (Stanley) type plane is somewhat of a "standard" bench plane - and has been for 100 years or so - you will find a wealth of information in many many books and magazines on tuning it up and using it. If you paid a good price for it and it's in reasonable condition then you'll probably get the money back again should you decide to sell it at a later stage. If it's missing a part here or there then you can easily pick another up as these planes are so plentiful. If it's an absolute dog then you will still get a few bucks back on it either as a whole plane or for parts. I'd have to say that, for the most part, its a no-brainer. Hopefully you will have a good tool at a reasonably inexpensive cost. With the money you saved on NOT buying a Bevel Up plane, a C & W jointer or a Bedrock, you can buy a cheap functional woodie if you so desire. Even better you might want to buy some wood, buy a good blade or two and make a few planes. There's some good info about on that as well.

Now I don't really want to get controversial but I think we sometimes lose the plot a bit when it comes to certain questions here on the forum. While I don't post much at all I have been coming here to Woodcentral (and before that to The Pond) for eight years or more and it always amazes me how such a simple and straightforward question becomes "lost" from time to time.

Here you have a guy starting out with hand planes - KISS. Sure, the bevel up planes are freaking GREAT - no matter which company makes them - but their cost is substantially more that a stock standard Stanley. Sure, they work better for many situations and its easy for even a newbie to get a good result straight out of the box using them....but you could basically buy five or six Stanley planes for the same price.

Similarly many woodies are very cheap and can be great planes as well, but they're a little harder for a newbie to adjust and tune, and that can initially turn a new user off hand planing.

ALL the arguments for and against are valid - but that's NOT the issue. The issue, as I saw it when I first replied to Andy, was essentially "what is a reasonable plane at a reasonable cost?". If we get down to personal preferences and have our own agendas to push - valid agendas I should add - then we've missed the point somewhat on this question. Usually the point for any beginner is "what's the biggest bang for my buck?" As I see it there is only one answer Stanley - or Stanley type planes (of reasonable quality). Anything else can be learned, and bought, at a later stage - woodies, BU's, Bedrocks, Holteys or whatever.

I know everyone has good intentions here on the forum and I also know that with what we know now we would gladly have traded for what we knew when we all started out with woodworking....but you really have to go through the basics first. You have to have a starting point so that you build upon and learn from there. That starting point should be "the basic" and "standard" plane for most people and that plane is the Stanley/Bailey plane. You need to know that before you can find out how much "better" things can be later on down the track.

Re: Derek's question-long boring answer

Dean J in MN

>Alf --

I actually tend to agree with you. Even if it didn't sound like it. I really don't have anything against BU planes at all, I even own a BU smoother and quite like it. I have two blades, and everything! :)

My point rather was, in my view, in the end you are going to end up with a set of planes tuned to the task at hand. Yes woodies require different tuning, and yes you can change pitch (don't forget back bevels) if you have several blades with either plane.

Only an extreme minimalist would use one bevel-up plane for everything if they had any kind of regular requirement for different pitched planes. They'd do the sensible thing and have a dedicated plane for the job.

I agree, and that message needs to be more clear on the BU conversation. Yet a second BD blade and a back bevel is a higher pitched plane, no?

Please find a better argument against bevel-up planes; this one's dead in the water.

I wasn't really trying to argue against BU planes, rather the way they seem to be touted as the do all plane. As I see it, the wood could care less how the blade is put in the plane, up, down, whatever.

P.S. Nothing personal, Dean; you just caught the point of maximum exasperation :~)

Not taken personal Alf, I understand your exasperation. I feel the same way about the quest for shavings so thin they float. I want to know how thick a plane can take a shaving! :)

-Dean

Re: No. 7 vs. No. 8

Stephen Kirk in Quakertown PA

>I just had this odd urge that I should say something, anything, since I've gone through a lot of this recently. This is a tad long, so just skim, and bear with me, I'm going somewhere - I promise.

Lets see, I started with a vintage metal plane that was my great grandfathers - I knew little about them, including the fact that while it's a family heirloom, it's pretty crappy as planes go.

Then I picked up a little Stanley block plane - new one. Several hours later the sole was flat, a few hours on the blade and it is flat and honed. Now it works great, but there's some definite time invested there.

Then my dad found me an old Razee jack woodie. I still need to make some new parts for that, and i've had it a year. You could drive a horse and buggy through the mouth right now, the wedge block is almost usesless, and the blade still has some pitting to get through.

Then I found a little Millers Falls smoother. Decent shape, little rust, work pretty well. Blade needs some truing, and I don't have a grinding jig for my ginder, so I make due with lateral adjustment. But, it gets the job done.

About a week ago I got the LV Low Angle Jack. After returning a dinged one, I got a new one that is perfect. About a half hour to lap the back, and a few minutes to hone the micro bevel. Everything works great, and now I can get to work.

Now, for the point. While I spent all that time messing around with planes, trying this, that and the other thing, I wasn't making a whole lot. I kept worrying I wouldn't have the right tool for the job. I'm a novice too. I don't even have a jointer or bandsaw yet, so I make due with what I have. Generally speaking, a good wooden plane, a LV or LN jack or jointer plane, or a good vintage plane will all work, they just require more or less of your time. If you want to get to work on furniture, then buy new and use that equipment as a reference for when you pick up some vintage planes in the future. I wish I would have simply bought one or two good planes a while back and saved myself a lot of frustration.

My .02