New Veritas low angle jack plane

(Message Deleted by Poster)

Re: New Veritas low angle jack plane

Which one did you get?

Re: New Veritas low angle jack plane

Nice plane. It's really nicely made and is nicer to use than the LN.

They call it a jack but I use it for fine cuts mostly.

Congrats!

Hi Eliot

The LA Jack is so versatile that all should have one: jointer for smaller pieces, smoother for larger, excellent shooting plane. Interlocked face grain to end grain.

Two bits of advice:

1. You need two blades, one with a high cutting angle (50 degree bevel) for face grain, and a second with a 25 degree bevel for end grain. The PM-V11 steel is excellent.

2. DO NOT PURCHASE the high angle bevel blades. You cannot camber them (too much steel at the bevel edge), and all blades should have a camber. Instead, only get those with a 25 degree bevel, and add the high angle as a secondary bevel. 

Come back to me later when you want to understand the best way to hold the LAJ when shooting.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Congrats!

"The LA Jack is so versatile that all should have one: jointer for smaller pieces, smoother for larger, excellent shooting plane. Interlocked face grain to end grain."

The idea that all should have one of these planes is somewhat overblown; I abandoned bevel up planes in 1976.

Re: Congrats!

Warren, somehow I very much doubt that you used either a Veritas or LN LA Jack up to 1976 (They did not exist for another 20 years or more)

I am not sure why you feel you always need to disparage someone's new hand plane or new passion when their choices differ from your own? Indigestion? Low blood sugar?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Congrats!

Just that someone is buying a new tool, doesn't postulate you or anyone else should do that, too.

Re: New Veritas low angle jack plane

If it leaves behind a surface that meets your requirements, and you enjoy using it, then do just that:  enjoy it.

Re: Congrats!

It's not about bevel up or down, it's really about the weight, length and width. And the design of course. Actually I think whether a bevel is up or down is irrelevant. 

The LV jack is I think equivalent to the 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 in width, I like it for the final planning where a translucent continued full width shaving is taken. It has set screws so I can repeat the blade position very precisely, usually I have to mess with a lever for a bit and find a previous blade position. At the same time it's not heavy for its size, a Bailey pattern plane would weight like #7, this one is not too bad. And it has adjustable mouth so setting cutting depth can be very precise. The center of gravity is low (essentially this plane is just a sole) so it kinda finds a plumb position itself when jointing. 

There's a few things I don't like about it, like the way the sliding mouth is tightened always make me feel I'm about to strip the threads. A tote and a knob shapes could have been better, the tote feels like an axe handle, this is fixable though. And this is one of the latest purchases, so I still have dedicated planes that can cover what this one does, but probably if only I would get the LV jack first, some of those planes would have never been purchased. 

Re: Congrats!

whether a bevel is up or down is irrelevant

Then you have totally missed the point of a plane with a chip breaker/cap iron/double iron. A bevel up adjustable mouth is only a temporary workaround, because with use, the trailing edge of the mouth block eventually wears, providing less and less downward force where it matters to inhibit tearout.

Re: New Veritas low angle jack plane

The LAJ by LVT is sorta a cure-all plane. But all my blades are not cambered, maybe slightly pressed on the corners in the final honing for a couple of them. 

Re: Congrats!

Derk, I just ordered another blade as you suggested -- 25 degree PMV-11. Now I hope you can tell me all about sharpening it and, also, about how to hold the plane when shooting.

I know that Veritas makes a plane specifically for shooting. What do you think about it?

I saw an amazing video about a Lie Nielsen shooting plane, but it cost a small fortune. I don't see it on their site any more. I remember that it looked very rectangular, like a brick. I have a vague memory that it was a No 9, or 10 --something like that. I believe the cost is over $600 if you can find it. Wow!

Re: New Veritas low angle jack plane

"Slightly pressed" at the corners is more or less what Lee Valley describes for the small amount of cambering they recommend. They advocate some extra pressure at the outer edge, somewhat less pressure part of the way toward the center, and less still at the center. Actually it's not pressure they describe but simply more honing strokes toward the edges and fewer toward the center.

Noooooo

“Slightly pressed" at the corners is more or less what Lee Valley describes for the small amount of cambering they recommend. They advocate some extra pressure at the outer edge, somewhat less pressure part of the way toward the center, and less still at the center. Actually it's not pressure they describe but simply more honing strokes toward the edges and fewer toward the center. 

This is bad advice. It simply will not work for higher/high cutting angles (which is where the BU plane rules when planes interlocked grain).

All bench planes, whether BU or BD, need some camber. In particular, a smoother uses camber to prevent tracks from the edge of the blade. The aim is to provide just enough camber to feather in the sides of the shaving. If one instead rounds the edges of the blade, what you will end up with is a rounded track, but a track nevertheless.

So, if we accept that one must camber, the next question is “how much camber”. To the point - a BU plane requires a great deal more camber than a BD plane. This is pure geometry. I am sure that you recall the illustrations of a coin (simulating a cambered blade) at different angles (simulating different bed angles). The bottom line is that you cannot just “slightly press” the ends of a BU plane blade and expect that this will be enough. It may be for a BD plane blade, but not a BU plane blade.

I wrote an article about this in 2008. http://www.inthewoodshop.com/WoodworkTechniques/TheSecretToCamberinBUPlaneBlades.html

The background to this may be recalled by a few old codgers here who also frequented Knots, the forum on FWW. Larry Williams and I used to have regular “debates” about setting up planes. He was adamant that one could not camber a BU plane blade. As he found, correctly, the effort was high and off-putting. My answer was that one needed to see the two systems as different, owing to geometry, and BU plane blades just needed to be treated accordingly.

Here is the relevant extract from that article link:

The Way to Camber Bevel Up Blades.

I must admit that I avoided cambering my BU plane blades for a very long time. Coming to terms with the issues involved forced me to accept two rules of using BU planes:

1. For high angles, it is preferred that the cutting bevel is created as a secondary bevel on a straight grind. 

Generally when preparing a blade, particularly BD blades, my preference is a hollow grind. I also grind the hollow at the same angle as the cutting angle to facilitate ease in freehand sharpening. The hollow allows one to balance the blade at the desired angle. However, with BU blades the hollow grind must remove too much steel when the cutting angle is high to make the process practical. 

2. For high angles, where a secondary bevel is used on a lower primary bevel, a honing guide is preferred to freehand work.

What ever the honing guide used, a secondary bevel, particularly one in the form of a microbevel, will need to remove significantly less steel to achieve the desired angle.

Here it is in a nut-shell … grind the primary bevel on all plane blades to 25 degrees. Don’t try to camber any blade that is greater than this, such as one with a 38- or 50 degree primary bevel. Add the camber via an appropriate secondary bevel.

One of the factors that has unwittingly perpetuated the distraction from this methodology has been the availability of blades with 38 and 50 degree primary bevels through Veritas. These blades are offered as a convenience and perceived to be a shortcut to honing, but this is an illusion since they require one to hone cambers at higher angles and, thus, have to remove large amounts of steel to do so. They continue to be appropriate for those wishing only to use a straight bevel, but for those wanting to add a camber .. my advice is to purchase only those blades with a 25 degree primary bevel and add the necessary secondary bevel. 

BU planes blades are best prepared with a micro secondary bevel. There is no difference if this is added to a 25-, 35, or 45 degree primary bevel. However, the steeper the primary bevel, the more steel to remove when honing/grinding a camber. With a 25 degree primary bevel there is relatively little waste to remove. With a 50 degree bevel … well, you’ll drive yourself insane trying to do so..

Regards from Perth

Derek

Shooting with the Veritas LA Jack

Eliot, a little background. There are two parts in your comments, and so I shall reply to both.

I was an early adopter of the Veritas LA Jack (2004). Not long after I restored a Stanley #62, its predecessor, Rob Lee offered me one to compare. That was my introduction to Veritas. Review: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasLAJack.html

Along the way I acquired a Stanley #51/52 Chute Board and plane. The plane was fragile and repaired, and when Lie Nielsen proposed making a version of the #51 plane, I told Tom LN I wanted the first one. It duly arrived as a birthday present. Fantastic plane! My review: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LN51ShootingPlane.html

I was a very happy camper, and then Veritas began designing their version, and I came to road test it before production, which is how I ended up with one. My review:  http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/LVShootingPlane.html

Summary: both shooting planes work on the Stanley #52 chute board, and of course, they would work on any shooting board one makes. I love the traditional looks of the LN, which is an excellent performer, but the performance of the Veritas is just a bit higher. This must not be seen to detract from the LN. I use both planes (and know I am very fortunate to be in this position).

Okay, to the Veritas LA Jack …

There are two methods to use this plane. The first is to build a Hotdog Handle. LN offered one for their LA Jack (#62), but Veritas do not, and so I designed and built one. The plans/method are on my website. Actually, I designed two, one made with a mortice chisel and the other with a tablesaw. Both require a lathe. The tablesaw method is easier:  http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/Building%20the%20Hotdog%20Mk%20II%20for%20the%20LV%20LA%20Jack%20pics.html

The hotdog places the grip over the blade, and this adds a great deal of control when shooting.

However, if you hold the plane correctly, the hotdog handle is unnecessary. The background to this came when I was invited to a Lie Nielsen Hand Tool Event in Perth in 2011. In this I offered all the opportunity to try out the LN #51 plane (on the Stanley #52 cute board), the LN #9 shooting plane, and a Veritas LAJ. Here is a summary of the second method. Article: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ShootingPlanesCompared.html

The #51/52 combination was in a class of its own. Even a novice could easily produce clean edges without fail. The #51 is captured by the rails of the #52, and this guides the plane so that all the user needs do is push the plane forward. 

The advantage of the #9 over the LAJ is twofold: there is better registration for the base of the plane, and this encourages a user to push the plane in the ideal manner. When a novice was given the choice of the #9 and the LAJ, they would inevitably plump for the #9.

However … when the user was taught how to push the LAJ, and/or the LAJ was used with a hotdog handle, very frequently this choice was reversed. The factor here is that the LAJ is potentially more tippy because it has a smaller footprint, it. I recall one person thrusting the LAJ forward .. and bouncing it against the fence at a canted angle. 

The correct way (in my opinion) of holding the LAJ (and shooting planes generally), is to exert downforce at a central point while simultaneously exerting low lateral sideforce. One must not attempt to simply push the plane against the sidewall to the shooting board. This will unbalance the plane and cause it to cant over.

Downforce is applied by the thumb directly into the dimpled fingerhole. Sideforce is applied by the four fingertips pushing from under the levercap.

This handhold is quite comfortable and makes the LAJ a practical user without a hotdog. Indeed, there is the potential for someone to grasp a hotdog (whether on the LV or LN LAJ planes) and attempt to push it against the fence from high (and not use their fingers to maintain sideways pressure from low).

Contributing to “tippiness” is the amount of “run up” to the board that is used. Many – both experienced and novices alike – would draw the plane back to the start of the runway, and then push it forward fast in an attempt to create momentum, as if this was necessary to power through the end grain. Shooting in this manner would lead to user losing control of the plane. 

What is necessary for control is minimum run up. Place the plane with the blade nearly touching the near edge of the board, and then simply push the plane forward, with even pressure and firmly. Since the shaving removed is very fine, a plane with a sharp blade will cut without much effort. Once this was understood, the extra mass of the LAJ was an advantage over the more stable #9.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Shooting with the Veritas LA Jack

Derek, I have only begun to take in all of what you say here.  I plan to read and re-read all the reviews, etc. Right now I'm still practicing and enjoying making shavings with my new plane. When I get the new iron, I hope you will explain the best way to sharpen it to create the high angle.

I see that for you these planes are like musical instruments that have their own special tones and tuning requirements. I'm trying to get there. I do have this brand new LAJ, the Veritas DX60 block plane, a LN 4 1/2 that I purchased years ago in Main -- and because of a really good discount,  I recently got a Bridge City HP8 Mini Block Plane. I didn't realize until I git it that it has a mini thickness planning feature. Incredible!

Re: Noooooo

"Noooooo"???

So Derek, have you told Lee Valley about this? I, for one, not knowing any better, assumed that they knew what they were talking about -- especially considering how beautiful the plane is. And I was impressed that they took the time to send me an email explaining how to do it. (I have to assume that others in my position will do the same.)

I don't suppose that I have ruined the blade following their method ( it seems to work well enough.)

But now that I have read what you have written, I will have to think it all through. And I will certainly not try any of it on my new blade(s). Instead , I'll practice on some old blades until I get the hang of it.

Did I get even a slight camber following their approach?

Re: Noooooo

I see a divergence of practice here.

On one hand there is the practice of high bevel angles on BU planes and the other is the method use for getting a camber.

I own 2 BU planes and would not choose to use either as a tool for heavy stock removal, which would necessitate a heavy camber. Maybe, if I had a lot to do with difficult grain I would consider tossing some money at a toothed iron bit I consider the BU's as limited use tools. While I have not completely rejected them as Warren has I would not recommend them as a panacea.

For getting a camber, it would depend on the level of camber being sought. For smoothing, i.e. a small camber, the method Eliot describes is the method I use successfully. Because of the geometry of BU irons it requires a lot more honing bias at the edges than with a BD iron. For heavy cambers used for roughing you better have a rough stone or a grinder. That is a lot of metal to remove and a doing some number of strokes heavy on one side or the other isn't going to cut it.

I can see situations where the iron presentation and camber desired call for different methods. Sometimes Eliot's method is appropriate and sometimes not so much.

Re: Noooooo

You say,'Eliot's method", but I don't know much. I got the procedure in an email from Lee Valley right after I received the plane. I did what they instructed on the secondary bevel. I'm afraid to grind a large camber on my nice new blade.

Re: Noooooo

Derek, David Charlesworth loves the Tormek camber jig for his cambering of plane blades -- including BU. Would you concur?

It's my method too

The extra pressure method from side to side is what I use for very subtle cambers. FWW had articles describing that years ago and I found that it worked for me.

When the camber is more pronounced its precision becomes less important. Whether it is perfectly symmetric or centered doesn't really matter since the main purpose is to keep the corners of the edge off the stock. For a heavier camber I would not invest in a Tormek or a jig for a Tormek, just mark it out with a sharpie and have at it. Rough work uses rough tools while fine work uses fine tools. It's understandable to fuss over blades for fine work but a roughing blade only merits so much effort in preparation.

I like my low angle jack but I think it's a tool that doesn't know what it wants to be. Jacks are rough tools but this tool is far more precise that the name suggests.

Do you have something you want the plane to do for you or do you want to experiment and find a niche for the tool? I approached this from the second viewpoint and find the tool more suited to finer work, lighter cuts. I stick to my beater #5 for rough work and a scrub for really rough work (like a chainsawn log).

Re: Noooooo

No. I purchased one on David's recommendation. I found it crude and difficult to set up for the subtle camber needed for smoothing planes. David was a man of great patience. I am not David (sigh).

In any event, if one freehands blades, as I do for BD planes, then cambering is simple and quick. Even for BU planes, where a honing guide is recommended, again it should be simple. But this probably reflects the mindset I have as preferred-free hander. David likes to use jigs, and the Tormek jig was right up his alley.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Noooooo

So Derek, have you told Lee Valley about this? I, for one, not knowing any better, assumed that they knew what they were talking about -- especially considering how beautiful the plane is. And I was impressed that they took the time to send me an email explaining how to do it. (I have to assume that others in my position will do the same.)

I don't suppose that I have ruined the blade following their method ( it seems to work well enough.)

Eliot, LV (and Rob Lee) were quite aware of my article and recommendations. I assume that some in Customer Service follow the catalogue and are not necessarily woodworkers. Their pre-angled blades no doubt have a customer base and demand, and this is more likely the woodworker who is wanting as much set up for them from the get-go. For example, there are many who expect the blades from a new plane purchase to be sharp and ready to use. They are "sharp-ish", but I would not be satisfied with the edge. Even when I was sent planes and blades for road testing (prior to production), I treated them as a kit and re-ground and sharpened them. How else can one assess the potential of a blade or plane?

No, you have not ruined your blade. That would be impossible. It has many years of grinding and sharpening ahead of it. If you have to re-grind 1/16" or even 1/8", all this would do is reduce its length a little.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Noooooo

Steve, one can take heavy shavings with a BU plane such as the LAJ. But to do so the blade must be heavily cambered - a little more than the equivalent BD plane blade. When challenged by Larry Williams (back in 2007), I responded with a demo how it can be done ...

8 1/2" radius ...

However, I think that the BU plane is wasted if this is what you are after. It is best used with the shaving thickness usually reserved for smoothers and jointers. With smoothers, especially, the camber is fine - just a little more than a BU plane. But even this becomes harder work if the bevel angle is single and high - hence the method I outlines to only use 25 degree primary bevels and add the camber on a secondary, micro bevel.

Regards from Perth

Derek