# Bevel Up vs. Bevel Down - Why buy a bevel down plane anymore?



## Jeff_F (Oct 8, 2009)

I recently attended a weekend workshop at the Marc Adams School of Woodworking on the use of hand planes. The workshop was presented by Thomas Lie-Nielsen and Chris Schwarz. Neither Chris nor Thomas needs any introduction, but just in case … Thomas Lie-Nielsen is the founder of Lie-Nielsen Toolworks and has revitalized the hand plane tool market. Lie-Nielsen hand planes are based upon the original Stanley plane designs but he has taken them to a new level in terms of construction and functionality. Chris Schwarz is the editor of Popular Woodworking Magazine and has re-energized the use of hand tools in woodworking.

After returning from the workshop I was talking to some friends about the class and mentioned that I walked away with the question of 'why would anyone buy a bevel down plane anymore?' I decided to put together a short write-up about this topic and post it on the forum to generate some discussion.

The workshop dealt with the use of hand planes. We learned how to sharpen a plane blade depending on its intended use - hogging off wood, jointing a surface or edge or smoothing a surface. We learned about the setup of a plane and how to tune a plane you might find at a flea market (a good old trusty early vintage Stanley) or one that is new right out of the box. We learned about the process to dimension a rough piece of wood to make it 4-square and ready for joinery. But, the best part of the workshop was the discussion about the types of planes, their components and construction, and the evolution of the hand plane. We learned about the relationship between the angle of the cutting bevel and the opening of the plane mouth and the size of shaving that can be produced and the quality of the cut. It was during this discussion that Chris made the statement "… the cap iron (aka chip breaker) on a bevel down plane was required to strengthen the thin blades used in the early days, but really doesn't play a role in creation of a shaving…" That got my attention … let me explain.

One of the key differences among planes is whether the blade is inserted into the plane with the bevel facing up or facing down. The most well known planes are the ones with the bevel down and shown in the first picture.










In this type of plane the blade and cap iron are screwed together with the edge of the cap iron 'somewhat' close to the edge of the blade and then inserted into the plane with the bevel facing down. The blade and cap iron rest on a platform called a frog which is set at a particular, fixed angle. This combination is held in place with the lever cap. The next figure is a close-up of this arrangement.










Finally, this whole mechanism can be moved forward or backward to adjust the size of the mouth opening by adjusting a set of screws as shown in the following picture.










The other types of planes are the ones with the bevel facing up. These have been around for a long time as well but have become more popular because of the improved quality that is available today. In this type of plane, there is no cap iron and the blade is inserted into the plane onto a fixed, non-moveable, platform with the bevel up. Here is a picture of a typical bevel up plane.










The plane's mouth is adjustable by loosening the front knob and sliding the base of the plane forward or backward. There is a small knob which can be set to limit the travel of the base.. Here is a close-up.










So, why is any of this important? It's all in the angle and it's all in the opening!!

As I mentioned earlier the thickness of the shaving and the quality of the cut are dependent on the angle of the bevel and the size of the mouth's opening. The normal (typical) cutting angle is about 45 degrees for most woods but this can cause tear-out in highly figured wood or wood with wild grain patterns. You can use a higher cutting angle, 50 degrees or even 62 degrees, to reduce the tear-out. Also, normal practice is to close-down the mouth of the plane to just greater than the size of the shaving that you are going to produce. (The size of the shaving and the type of plane to produce it could be a whole other article)

Well, this finally brings me to Chris's statement about the cap iron. I was always under the impression that the cap iron (aka chip breaker) broke up the chips and helped form the shaving. Not true! Chris's recommendation was to set the cap iron close to the cutting edge but far enough back from the edge so that it would not clog the mouth. If that is the case, why would I ever buy a bevel down plane again?

The bevel down plane is much more complicated to set up than a bevel up plane. You have the blade and cap iron that must be matched with no gaps to make ensure that is doesn't clog with small chips. The cutting angle is adjusted by replacing the frog with one of a different angle, at a significant cost (e.g., $75 for a new frog for my smoother plane) and the mouth size is adjusted by a trial-and-error approach by turning the screws to move the frog mechanism.

By contrast, the cutting angle of a bevel up plane can be easily adjusted by honing a secondary bevel on the plane blade. If the blade bevel is ground to 25 degrees (typical) a secondary bevel can be honed at 30 or 40 degrees very easily. You can also purchase additional blades (for less than half the cost of a frog) and grind and hone to whatever angle you desire and just switch blades as necessary. Finally, the plane's mouth is easily adjustable by sliding the base forward or backward. This type of plane is extremely flexible and easy to setup for various planning situations.

Therefore, I pose the question *…"Why would I ever buy a bevel down plane again"?* 
Jeff


----------



## doordude (Mar 26, 2010)

Don't know why? why didn't you ask while you were there?
now this question will haunt me all week…


----------



## swirt (Apr 6, 2010)

1) tradition
2) need the higher iron to shield your knuckles from low hanging branches in the shop
3) easier to find on the used tool market


----------



## 280305 (Sep 28, 2008)

Jeff,

This does not really answer your question, but keep in mind that the cutting angle of a bevel-down plane can also be increased by creating a back bevel on the blade:

The instructions for the Veritas® Mk.II Honing Guide explain it like this:
On a bench plane (where the blade is mounted bevel down), a back bevel is used to increase the effective cutting angle from the otherwise fixed 45° of the plane bed. This is useful when working wood with highly figured and/or reversing grain. The back-bevel angle will need to be tailored to the particular situation.

Here is the drawing:


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

I suppose it is just like shooting flinklocks. You put the flint in which ever way works the best ;-)) Buy which ever plane works the best, if you can afford a Lie-Nielsen!!! Or do enough wood working to justify buying them.


----------



## swirt (Apr 6, 2010)

One advantage that occurred to me last night while I was planing, with a standard bailey bevel down design is that you can adjust them while they are actually in use. The depth wheel can be run fore or aft in the middle of a cut as can the lateral adjuster. I'm not aware of any bevel ups that have adjusters that would allow that.


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

I read a blog post today that inspired me to do a search on Lumberjocks to see if the subject matter had already been covered here. Thankfully it has so I decided to try and revive what I consider to be an excellent thread.

http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/Important+Differences+Between+Bevelup+And+Beveldown+Planes.aspx

I've been thinking about buying a plane(s) and I have not fully worked out many of the issues that being an informed plane purchaser require.

I would appreciate any comments on this subject matter as I'm leaning toward going with low-angle bevel up planes because to this woodworking newbie their benefits seem to far outweigh their drawbacks.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Chris Schwartz is a pretty bright guy but he's young and arrived on the scene with little real experience. He learns pretty quickly and his views have changed a lot over the last few years. I know, for example, that his "Coarse, Medium and Fine" video on stock preparation would be very different if he were to do it today. I haven't asked him his opinion on the differences between planes today, when we've talked we had a lot of other things to talk about. You could e-mail him and ask or you could post the question on his most current blog entry.

You might also be interested in Konrad Sauer's blog on this topic and the comments discussion that followed:
http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.com/2010/07/up-down-bevels-that-it.html


----------



## Gofor (Jan 12, 2008)

With a bevel down plane, you have a lot more metal behind the edge to keep it from deforming. This is a big plus when taking off a lot of wood, or when you run into a knot, etc. A bevel up plane has the meat metal in front of the cutting edge, giving it no support. Yes, finer attack angle which is good at shearing, but fails when hitting hard obstructions.

Today we have a lot of machines that do the rough work, so hand planes are used more for finishing work by most people. However, if you are scrubbing, or taking deep cuts, particularly in knotty or hard wood, and you get your shoulder behind a bevel up plane, expect to be repairing a badly chipped edge as opposed to just a dull one if the bevel is down.

JMTCW

Go


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

Would it be possible to deal with quicker wearing blades by preparing multiple blades in advance and quickly switching them out?


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Are you talking about disposable irons? If not, you still have to sharpen them eventually and planes with excessive wear on the flat face require a lot of grinding or an awful lot of labor intensive flattening.


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

I wasn't aware that disposable irons even existed.

I'm trying to determine if there is a decent compromise that can be made if I choose to go with low angle jack planes.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

I have a conflict of interest here. We do make and sell traditional jack planes. I suppose all irons could be disposable if you don't care about cost.

One thing is that a jack plane is traditionally used as a roughing plane. Using a bevel-up jack is difficult, at best, for use as a roughing plane because it requires a significantly greater amount of curvature to the edge to get an identical cambered profile presented to the wood. Also the spring back of the wood fibers will serve to limit the depth of cut.

One of the real issues for me is that all this nonsense is further obscuring the rolls of hand planes. If every plane, to you, is a smooth plane perhaps you should give a bevel-up plane a shot and just deal with accelerated edge wear and greatly increased sharpening issues. But then, if all planes are smooth planes in your world, you're missing out on about 99% of the capability of hand planes.

BTW, the instructions above for putting a back bevel on the iron, as shown earlier in this thread, only serves to make the clearance angle problems worse. When I'm talking to customers or out conducting workshops almost all the sharpening problems I see originate on the flat face of the irons. Dubbing, rounding of the edge on the flat face, is something to be avoided regardless of whether that dubbing is accidental or intentional. Back bevels like the one illustrated are a perfect example of intentional dubbing.


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

I believe it's extremely difficult to be unbiased even without the appearance of conflict of interest so I hope this won't deter you from posting.

I feel very comfortable in stating that I don't know enough about planes and that I have zero experience using planes. I don't think I suffer from a major plane use bias at the moment. If it turns out I do I'll try very hard to be realistic about it and to deal with it fairly. I have read blogs, books and viewed videos on planes and planing by Charlesworth, Schwarz as well as many others. I feel that doing so has really helped to give me a broader view but I don't feel that it has helped me to feel confident in a direction that would be best for me to move in.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Edit: I think I had that backwards ) Why were all the old planes from the days of hand work bevel up?


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Jon,

See if you can find an old Stanley #5. Tune it up and make it work well. Simply doing that will teach you as much as you can get from any basic hand plane video I know of. My guess is you can find a pretty decent one for about $20. You'll end up spending more than that on sharpening stones. Learn to grind, I think good grinding is the key to success with hand tools and sharpening. I also have strong opinions on sharpening stones and grinders but I don't think you'll have good success with hand planes or even chisels unless you get good at grinding and sharpening. You're going to need a decent sharpening system regardless of which way you go with the bevel-up question. Get your skills up with a $20 #5 and you'll be ready for which ever step you take next.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Top, they weren't all bevel down. Early miter planes were bevel down and were called strike block planes. Then the strike block plane was replaced by the wooden miter plane which was bevel up. The strike block was bedded at around 40º and the wooden miter plane was bedded at 20º. Making the miter plane required a mouth closing stop because the plane maker had to work through the mouth with his floats which leaves a mouth that's too big for fine work. Here's a photo of the two from an old David Stanley Auction catalog:








The extra long bed of the miter plane and the mouth stop made the miter plane cost three times as much as the strike block. The miter plane had a serious problem, the wedge pressure was just too close to the natural cleavage lines of the grain of the plane body. Wooden low angle planes just don't handle the structural problems. I looked at a lot of old surviving low angle wooden planes and never seen a single one that didn't fail structurally. So why did a structurally flawed plane that cost three times as much replace a sound plane? I believe our experience with strike block planes we've made answers this. If we sharpen the iron at about 30º the plane acts dull and needs to be forced. Even when taking very fine shavings on end grain 10º of clearance isn't enough. We've found we need to grind and hone these irons at 25º for the plane to work properly. When strike block planes and wooden miter planes where in use grinding was done on sandstone grinders with no tool rests. Angles were set by eye and, if one didn't understand clearance angles they'd lose clearance when grinding and sharpening.

Gee, this is exactly the same issue that today's 12º bevel-up planes have and they're used on face grain where more clearance is needed. Necessary clearance angle depends on what wood is being used and how much distortion is being caused by the cutting edge. Obtuse bevel angles, dull irons, depth of cut and other things determine how much the wood fibers distort before they're severed by the edge. With a 12º plane you might have enough clearance, depending on the wood, if the iron is ground and honed at 25º and is very sharp while taking a very fine shaving. Anything else and you're sure to run into the kind of problems Konrad Sauer described in his blog that I linked earlier.

BTW, the wooden miter plane was pretty quickly replaced by metal miter planes which could structurally handle the wedge pressure.


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

I think your advise on picking up an old Stanely #5 is excellent. Thank you! I would also appreciate your recommendation on what to start with for a sharpening system because just like planes I'm not sure what my starting approach should be. I very much like the Shapton stone holders and pond which seem to me to be the best made but that's about the only firm decision I've made on sharpening. It seems to me that sharpening is as expensive and almost as complex as planes are.

I have Ron Hock's sharpening book and have viewed several sharpening videos which show different techniques such as side sharpening, different types of fixtures, a slow speed bench grinder being used, etc. Based on my machining background I don't see how you can not use a slow speed grinder for bulk material removal despite claims to the contrary by some that claim you don't need to use one.


----------



## MarioF (Feb 6, 2009)

I work with my planes day in and day out and over a long period of time I found out that bevel up planes will do everything bevel down planes can. Changing the bevel according to the type of wood or cut is done in a matter of minutes or even better, by purchasing a spare blade with the desired bevel angle you can have a more versatile plane for far less $$$. Have not seen different wear or damage on the blades either so I would say it is basically a matter of personal preference.


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Who is BU?


----------



## TopamaxSurvivor (May 2, 2008)

Never mind ) base up not a brand! Just reread it :-0


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

Hi, Top. I think Jorge is using BU to refer to the Bevel Up type of plane.

Larry:

"I know, for example, that his "Coarse, Medium and Fine" video on stock preparation would be very different if he were to do it today."

What bothered me about the Coarse, Medium and Fine video was that in the demonstration he started with a board that was already in pretty decent shape so I had no way to judge how long it took to get from Coarse to Medium and no way to know if the jack plane could actually do the job.

I wonder if I'm the only one who noticed this or found it objectionable.


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

Mario and Jorge,

It's impossible for me to not take actual user opinions very seriously and I really appreciate what you both are saying to me. As I work this through I'm sure I will have plenty of questions to ask both of you. Thanks!


----------



## Jeff_F (Oct 8, 2009)

Thanks all for reviving this thread and making some great posts… It is still a very interesting topic.

One additional item to consider is the blade of today vs. the blade of 50 years ago. Not only are the materials different (A2 vs O1/O2, etc.) but the thickness of the blades is much thicker. Most people I know throw away the 1/8" thick blades that you see on older planes and get a Hock blade that is double the thickness. This greatly reduces the flex and chatter from the thinner blade. The newer planes on the market come with the thicker blades.

Jeff


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Mario,
In my world you're working with three smooth planes of varying lengths. Your comments remind me of when a guy walked into our booth at Wood Working in America a little over a week ago and picked up a plane to use it on some stock we had clamped in the bench. I could tell by his grip on the plane he didn't understand the plane he was getting ready to use. "That's a fore plane," I cautioned. "Yeah," he said just before the iron engaged the wood and he came to an instant halt. I handed him a trying plane, which is longer, telling him it might be more what he was expecting.

Jon,

I think I can explain the steps Chris would go through today if he were doing that video today. First he would start by developing a strategy to end up with a flat, straight piece of stock at a uniform predetermined thickness. Getting to uniform thickness with true faces and edges is what it's all about but the predetermined thickness is critical. For instance one usually tries for 7/8" thickness with 4/4 stock. Chris was following Cosman's lead and started out by whacking away at the wood with a scrub plane. Scrub planes are way to aggressive for this and one is very likely to end up removing stock in places that will make it impossible to get 7/8" or even 3/4". The Anglo/American woodworking tradition didn't even include scrub planes and I'm not sure exactly how they were used in Europe. Perhaps it was, as the Stanley instructions for scrub planes state, for removing stock from the edges when there was too little there to remove easily with a saw.

Select your stock and you need to know where in a project it's going to be used. The first step is cutting it to rough dimension. You're not planing whole boards, you don't want to put a lot of effort into wood that'll end up in the scrap bin. Using a straight edge and maybe winding sticks develop a plane for getting the first face flat. This is going to be your reference face. Depending on where in the project this piece is going the reference face may be the show face or not. More often as not it won't be the show face. Not only is the final thickness going to be established from this face but it will also be the face from which you do all your layout for joinery. A piece that'll be part of case work, for example, will have the reference face on the inside and not as the show face. This moves any irregularity to the outside where slight variations won't effect squareness, drawer fit or other critical dimensions.

Make sure you can get the thickness you need from this piece and, using a fore or jack plane, start removing the high spots while checking progress frequently with a straight edge and winding sticks. On a piece the size Chris was working you can forgo the winding sticks and use a straight edge corner to corner diagonally. The jack or fore plane will range from 14" to 18" in length and have a cambered iron, though not as cambered as one would have a scrub plane. The combination of length and cambered iron allows for very controlled stock removal but is still plenty aggressive. Both the plane and straight edge will tell you when it's time to switch to the trying plane. When you're taking full length uniform shavings and the straight edge reveals no deviation in wind or straightness switch to the trying plane.

The trying plane will be about 24" long and have a very slightly cambered iron. Once the trying plane is taking full shavings, check for straight and wind. Correct any problems and get this face true because your whole project depend on how accurate you are. Once this is true, mark the face with a reference mark so you can easily tell it's the reference face. If you have slight tear-out this can be cleaned up with a smooth plane but it's usually best to do this clean up after the joinery is laid out. The smooth plane won't leave a surface as true as the trying plane.

Pick your reference edge and plane it straight and square. Start with the fore plane and finish with the trying plane. Make sure and put a reference mark on this edge so all layout can be done from this edge.

Mark your second edge by referencing off the reference edge and plane to the gauge line you use to mark it. Get this straight and square right at the gauge line.

Use a marking gauge set to the final thickness of your stock and gauge a line on the edges and ends of the stock, referencing off the reference face. Use the fore plane to get close to those gauge lines starting by removing the high spots. When you get very close to the thickness gauge lines switch to the trying plane and plane to the gauge lines. When you get to the gauge lines, you'll see a feather edge appear where the wood right next to the gauge line deflects out of the cut line. This looks like a fine narrow ribbon of wood. When the feather edge drops free or very nearly free, your at your thickness.

Cut one end square and clean it with the trying plane if necessary. Mark to length and again clean up the cut if necessary.

If you're going to try to do this with bevel-up planes set for fine cuts, pack a lunch and a lot of patience.

I've probably left something out because I wrote this in three sessions starting before work this morning, a little at lunch then finishing this evening. If so, I hope people can cut me some slack.

BTW, a York pitch (50º) plane can easily handle most woods but, if you work some difficult grain hard woods, you may want a middle pitch (55º) trying plane. I wouldn't even suggest a jack or for plane at anything other that York pitch unless one always works very soft woods.


----------



## MarioF (Feb 6, 2009)

lwllms: interesting post, I´m following your answers, then if blade projection, length of the sole, angle and camber are the same in a bevel up and bevel down planes what would make the difference then? 
Those are quite nice planes btw


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Can I lose clearance on my bevel down plane? You bet. At times I've been in a hurry or someone else was at the grinder when I needed to reduce the size of my secondary bevel and I lifted the iron a little more than I should have, I've ended up with a bevel angle of about 35º. On a middle pitch (55º) plane 20º of clearance isn't enough in the hardwoods I normally work. Those times the plane balked, chattered and acted dull even though it was sharp. Could I make it work that way? Yeah but it's a lot of extra effort, takes away control and it leaves a burnished surface on the wood. Burnished surfaces impair adhesive or finish penetration and should, at the very least, be sanded before any adhesive, stain or finish is applied. Some suggest this kind of cutting geometry for a 12º bedded plane which by its design has clearance limited to the bed angle?

The necessary clearance angle varies according to things like the kind of wood being planed, effective cutting angle, how sharp the iron is, depth of cut and how obtuse or acute the bevel of the cutting edge is. Less dense woods deflect more and need more clearance but it's easier to force the plane into the cut with inadequate clearance. On more dense woods there's less deflection but it takes more downward force on the plane to overcome clearance angle issues. The more you have to force the plane down into the cut, the faster the wear bevel develops and grows.

If you want to take a heavy shaving with a 12º bedded plane, like one would with a traditional jack plane, you'll have a much easier time with a 25º bevel on the iron. This may allow a heavy cut without clearance issues depending on the wood. One problem is that this results in a 37º cutting angle which tends to cause tear out. The camber on the edge of the 12º bedded plane has to be a lot more radical than one bedded at 45º or 50º to present identical amounts of curvature to the wood. Most bevel-up enthusiasts I've met depend on honing guides which simply can't handle that amount of camber.

I really don't care what plane you use or even if you use one. I just get frustrated to hear the claimed "versatility" touted when that versatility encompasses such a narrow range that it's effectively meaningless.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Jorge,

Yes; if you're willing to work harder than necessary fighting lack of clearance and deal with too frequent sharpening I suppose you can hog off material the way you do. I learned a long time ago that when I find myself fighting my work it's time to reevaluate what I'm doing. I would rather not make work for myself fighting inadequate clearance or dealing with burnished surfaces that complicate finishing.

Woodworking isn't rocket science, one can learn it pretty quickly. I learn stuff all the time from people with a lot less experience than me but I've also made my living at this for more than 30 years. I was on Lie-Nielsen's waiting list for a couple years waiting for release of the #2 which was the second of their bench planes with the #1 being the first. During the wait for the #2 I used to call Thomas and request the #164. I may have been the first on the waiting list for the #164, I'm not sure but I do know mine was in the first shipment that went out. I'm pretty familiar with the capabilities of low angle planes. I don't know how many planes I've owned and tuned but I'm sure the number is in the hundreds. I don't even know how many thousands of planes I've personally made, I stopped keeping track years ago when I reached 500. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the principles involved in hand planes. When we started this, no one was even thinking about steeper cutting angles-the reintroduction of this very old technology started on my bench and with what I was trying. When I first tried to explain steeper pitches and the increased performance to Thomas Lie-Nielsen he said, "You'd have to be pretty subjective to see the difference." I'm sure he wouldn't say the same thing today.

Give me just a little credit, Jorge, I know a few things.


----------



## swirt (Apr 6, 2010)

I want to thank both JorgeG and lwllms for taking the time to carry out this "less filling / tastes great" discussion. To some it may simply sound like another internet pissing contest, but it is really containing some great information and really is a good discussion. So thank you for keeping it going and not letting it turn ugly.

JorgeG can you clear something up for me? It sounds like you are saying you can get as deep a projection of the iron (regardless of bevel angle) on a bevel up plane. Can you really get something like a 1/16" projection on a bevel down plane. It was my prior understanding, perhaps wrongly so, that this was not possible.


----------



## swirt (Apr 6, 2010)

JorgeG thanks for confirming my understanding on that. I'm not taking a side here, I'm trying to sort it out too as I am planning my next plane purchase and seriously considering a bevel up plane. No bevel up scubs is a good way to sum up the discussion I think. You and lwllms are talking the same thing here but coming at it from different angles (bad pun, sorry). You are saying bevel ups are best at smoothing regardless of bevel angle and that the bevel can be ground differently to give different smoothing cuts for different types of wood. But that doesn't make them adjustable in the same manner for different types of cutting. Larry seems to be saying why have a jointer and a jack that both take the same 1/32" shaving.

For me the lack of cambering is an interesting issue. You say it is no big deal that the tracks get removed when smoothing, but that is because the tracks being left are being left from a previous pass which was also essentially a smoothing cut (not very deep). If the BU jack were set as a jack and used that way, the tracks left might actually contain a bit of tearout which would require more than a simple pass with the smoother to remove. This is definitely making me lean more toward a bevel up smoother as opposed to a bevel up jack

The issue of burnishing from possible lack of clearance could be tested by anyone with both a bevel up and a bevel down plane of similar style, sharpness and setting. Though I have to say that the burnishing being from the sole vs the trailing edge of the blade is less likely by a factor of at least 200x and realistically more like 1000x for a plane the size of a #4 double or triple that for a jack and quadruple it or more for a jointer just based on the areas involved. It would make an interesting test though. It could actually be tested by anyone with both a BU smoother and a BU Jack or Jointer. Using the same blade and same projection, there should be less burnishing (half as much) with the longer plane IFF the burnishing is caused by the sole. If it is caused by the trailing blade (too low a clearance angle) then it would be essentially the same from both planes.


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

What follows are some conclusions I've made in the last few days.

A frog is rough adjusting mechanism. It's fine for a roughing plane where a precise adjustment isn't mandatory but has real drawbacks when you need a precise, small adjustment.

Tapping on a blade in a wooden plane is the exact same kind of adjustment that a machinist often has to make when setting up a fixture for a milling machine. You tap with a brass or lead hammer to get your fixture square to the head (flat) and you use a dial indicator to check your progress. This is a very precise adjustment mechanism / system.

My conclusion: A wooden plane offers a precise adjustment that a metal plane doesn't offer.

To be continued…


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

Replacement bench blades offered by Hock Tools:

Wooden plane blade thickness = .1875

Metal plane blade thickness = .093

My conclusion: I think I'm better off with a thicker blade.


----------



## Jon_Banquer (Sep 17, 2010)

Wooden planes are simpler than metal planes. 15 years as a machinist has taught me that the simpler you can makes something the better off you are.


----------



## swirt (Apr 6, 2010)

LOL I don't own a jointer or a planer so count me in the 1940s camp (few home workshops in the 1940s had electric thickness planers and jointers.) I have no intention of owning either of them. Technically using an electric planer and jointer, you are in the 1850s. That is when they were both patented. In essence, your bevel up hand plane is more modern in design. (just a bit of fun history)

I flattened a 2" by 6" board today that had more than a 1/2" of wind in each end and it was less than 4' long by hand. If i had tried to do that with a jointer and planer i would have wound up with something less than an inch thick (unusable for what I needed). By working it by hand, I got it to come in at closer to 1-3/8" which was usable. The hand planes can split the difference on the wind in a way that long bed jointers can't. I also did it with no loud noise, no cloud of dust and with my 2 yo safely in the shop with me and my skiddish chocolate lab lounging in pile of shavings near by. Sure it is a choice I make for my time with my hobby. If I were doing this for money, the story might be very different. There is no tool in my shop i would call "kick ass" as I do not do battle with wood. (there was a time when I approached woodworking as a battle….but I don't anymore).

lwllms makes period planes. The people that buy his planes are looking to do pretty much what he describes. They aren't looking to have multiple planes that all take the same shavings the same way.

I do appreciate your explanations of how the bevel up planes work for you. It helped me quite a bit. A bevel up smoother is in my future …. I can see it now.


----------



## jsheaney (Jun 25, 2007)

I own the Lee Valley set of BU planes: jack, smoother, jointer. All three use the same blades, so I have 5 blades (including the toothed one) and can swap them in any of the three planes. I also have the Lie-Nielsen #7 (bevel down, standard angle), which is the same length as the Lee Valley BU jointer.

In my experience, the blade in the Lie-Nielsen does not need to be sharpened as frequently and is also faster to sharpen. The BU planes can all produce better results (less tear out), but typically get dull faster and take longer to hone. It is also easier to get a camber on the bevel down blade.

I use the Lie-Nielsen as the goto plane for flattening and jointing, along with the BU jack with a standard angle or toothed blade. Then I switch to a higher angle BU blade, as needed, in whichever size BU plane makes the most sense. This is to take care of any tear out and get the final level of precision that I want.

Note that the discussions are meaningless without some frame of reference with respect to the material you are using. I am usually using difficult woods: Brazilian Cherry, wenge, figured maple, QS white oak and other exotics. I generally don't have problems with pine, cherry or walnut. I'm just using mahogany for the first time on a small project. It's like using balsa wood by comparison. I haven't had to even re-hone any of my edges. Basically, these issues only matter if you are using difficult materials.


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

love the craftsman who can shave a beard with a plane


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

most certainly a person i can trust with expensive timber and a hand tool


----------



## Brit (Aug 14, 2010)

Interestingly enough, Chris Schwarz said in one of the three hand planing videos out on YouTube that he prefers bevel down planes because you can adjust them as you're planing. If you haven't seen these yet here is a link to the first one. At the end of it, you will see a link to the 2nd and 3rd as well as a short video comparing Bevel Up and Bevel Down planes.


----------



## srjaynes49 (Nov 1, 2010)

I don't know how I get into these old threads, but somehow I do. A friend asked me the VERY SAME QUESTION over the weekend and referenced this thread he found here on LumberJocks.

With 50+ years of woodworking, and after making firewood in over two dozen exotic species, here's my definitive advise: BUY THE ONE THAT FITS YOUR HANDS, ARMS, BODY, and TYPE OF WOODWORKING you do! For example, if you use a power planer and jointer for flattening and thickness, don't spend $500 on a #7 or #8. If that's your work style, use your money for the best "smoother" you can afford which will eliminate hours of sanding. Likewise, if you are planning to go sans-electricity, budget for a comprehensive set of planes accordingly.

I have an extensive stable of both types of planes, from Lie-Nielsen, Lee Valley/Veritas, Stanley, Footprint, Woodcrafters Wood River, several I inherited from my grandfather which have NO NAME, only Made In USA (likely from Montgomery Ward since there was no large Sears store in our home town), and even a couple Sears Craftsman. I also have a complete collection of E.C.E. wooden body German planes and some esoteric planes from Bridge City and others. So my hand plane experience is from a wide range of manufacturers, quality, and heritage.

To clarify, I build furniture, cabinet work and built-ins, do extensive home remodeling and DIY required for a couple of rental properties, as well as restore antiques.

After owning all those choices with the experience gained from my types of tasks, my investment strategy for a well-rounded general woodworking arsenal would be to buy a quality new or used:

1) Bevel-up Jack Plane with a low-angle blade (37-40 degree total cutting angle) and a York-Pitch blade (50-52 deg total cutting angle). The angle of the blade's grind PLUS the bedding angle equal the cutting angle. This is IMHO the best all-around plane you can buy.

2) Low angle block plane with an adjustable mouth.

The mostly power-tool woodworker can stop here…. For the others of a mixed or mostly hand-tool strategy, you should add:

3) Bevel-up Fore Plane (#6) or medium Jointer Plane (#7). Very few hobbyist need a #8. Again so you can have choice of angles for end-grain, normal planing, and high-angle for figured wood.

4) The # 3 to #5 smoother that is most comfortable and accommodates your typical projects our most commonly used species of wood. (Yes Virginia, a #5 Jack Plane can be used as a very capable smoother!) When choosing a smoothing plane, you need to determine if you want a bevel-down plane an extra blade with a back-bevel for highly figured wood or want to go with the bevel-up strategy and have "normally" ground and honed blades for your various planing chores. Neither is the BEST ANSWER for EVERYONE. Your type of projects, your comfort, and your budget will be the determining factor.

5) Maybe #7 or #8 Jointer Plane. Again, bevel-up or bevel-down choices are of equal merit for their own reasons and your personal comfort. IF you can't get your glue joint's straight or your panels flat with the #6, you may want to add one of these. Otherwise spend the money on more wood!

Regarding smoothing planes specifically, I personally have a #4 bevel-up smoother for the extremes in my woodworking. I use it with a 25 degree bevel blade for shooting small end grain parts and a 50 degree bevel blade for highly figured wood. If I only had one smoother, this would be THE ONE!

I also am fortunate to have a #5 bevel-down Jack Plane and a #4 Lie-Nielsen Bronze, both configured with a tight mouth and a flat blade I use for the other 70% of my smoothing operations. The #5 and even the bronze Lie-Nielsen are too heavy and too tiring my wife's tastes. She uses either my Veritas #4 Low-Angle bevel-up with a 38 degree blade, our #3 Wood River (Bedrock style), or infrequently, the #4 Lie-Nielsen for smoothing. My Veritas Bevel-Up Smoother (a #4-1/2) is also too large to be comfortable for her, but I love it for softer woods when I have a large panel to tackle.

So here's the real scoop without all the marketing hype. Each of the metal body planes mentioned above is a out-and-out copy or a slightly modified version of a Stanley Bailey, Stanley Bedrock, or Stanley Low Angle design. The devil is in the details! There a many other fine (and expensive) planes, including inlet designs, specialty designs like Bridge City's limited editions, etc.. These models and the wooden German planes are in the "5% club", meaning only about 5% of hobbyist woodworkers will every buy or especially use them. For that reason, I'm not going to cover them here.

ANY of the above "95%" plane versions, equipped with a crappy blade, misshapen lever cap or chip breaker, sole that's not flat, other "killer" defects will perform miserably. ANY of the above "95%" plane versions with ALL of those problems resolved will perform admirably. My $35.00 circa 1985 Footprint, my 1930's #4 Stanley Bailey, my 2012 Wood River #3 (I don't have their #4), or my $350 Lie-Nielsen #4 all produce the same shavings on any given piece of wood. The difference is the Lie-Nielsen did that OUTOF THE BOX, and the others took up to several hours and/or replacing parts, especially blades and chip-breakers, to get them to that condition.

The Bailey style are miserable to adjust the frog to get the appropriate mouth opening. This was the failing for virtually every plane I used in woodworking classes in public school. They might have been sharp, but were NEVER properly adjusted. The Bedrock style (Lie-Nielsen and Rood River) are easier to adjust since you don't have to remove the blade to loosen the frog hold-down screws or make the adjustment. However, you can only adjust the cut-angle of these styles of planes by replacing the frog or by adding a back-bevel to the blade. Keeping a second blade with the back-bevel and perhaps a second chip breaker for convenience is somewhat cheaper and MUCH quicker to change than a second frog. This, ability, after all, in my mind, is the primary benefit of the bevel-up designs.

With the the Bevel-Up planes you can get the same exact performance as the bevel-down designs and have the option of having multiple blades to quickly change from low-angle for end grain work to high angle for highly figured wood. I own only Veritas bevel-up planes so can't comment on the Stanley or Lie-Nielsen versions. However the physics remain the same irrespective of brand. The difference may lie in the fit and finish.

HOWEVER, my experience is the bevel-up versions of the same size of plane have a little less mass. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. More mass makes it more likely your stroke will carry though the cut, thereby not leaving a boo-boo near the end of the stroke, but more mass means more work and may tire out a woodworked of slight build. I'm a big guy, and it makes little difference for me. My wife appreciates the heavier planes for smoothing where the best finish comes from an even and complete stroke, but also prefers the lighter planes for roughing where you a more likely to take shorter choppier strokes. For her more arms and less "bode motion" in roughing vs. smoothing.

My favorite, general purpose plane for shooting is my Veritas Low-Angle Jack Plane, which is a12 degree bedded, bevel-up design with a 25 degree blade.

My favorite Fore Plane, which I use much more than my Jointer Plane, is my #6 Bedrock style by Woodcraft Wood River. I'm CERTAIN the Lie-Nielsen would be even better, but the Wood River plus about an hour tuning the excellent plane fit my budget much better. I am comfortable saying you'd prefer the fit-and-finish and the smoothness of the adjustment wheel on the Lie-Nielsen as I have used one in the past. however, I'm also doubtful if there would now be an once of difference in performance, but the tuning was essential to get the Wood River to that state.

Parting shots: Buy the plane style that is the MOST COMFORTABLE, has a decent fit-and-finish, and has a TOP NOTCH blade. The rest can be fixed by tuning. Special purpose planes like Shoulder Planes, Rabbet Planes, Plough Planes, Moving Fillister Planes, etc. Require a discussion thread of their own.

LEARN TO SHARPEN! Understand it! Master it. You'll not be sorry!

Your milage will most certainly vary.


----------



## OSU55 (Dec 14, 2012)

The cap iron or chip breaker serves to reinforce the iron by adding mass and rigidity, but it also serves to prevent tear out - much better than a tight mouth in my experience. Closing the mouth way done has only served to clog the plane for me. However, creating a 70°-80° bevel on the chip breaker about .020-.050" high makes the chip curl, creating a force through the chip back into the wood, not allowing the wood fibers to lift ahead of the blade edge (which is tear out), preventing tear out. The chip breaker distance from the blade edge is adjusted depending on depth of cut, from .010" or so for feathery stuff up to 1/16" or more for thicker stuff. I find this works as well as higher angles of cut. If you haven't tried it, it's eye opening to see just how well a BD down plane can tackle difficult grain.


----------

