Replies

1. 
   flairwoodworks | Apr 17, 2008 07:23am | #1

   Happy birthday Mike,

   I have used all three and find quite often that the best finish in the one straight from the plane, provided it has a sharp iron and is set to a fine cut with a tight mouth.  The biggest difference between the scrapers and your BUS is that the scrapers are much less prone to tear out, though I find that they sometimes leave a slightly fuzzier surface.  Between the two scrapers, I'd say that the biggest difference is length of sole (insignificant, if the board is already flat), mass, and the way you hold the tool.  Both are capable of taking heavy or light cuts.  I find that the Cabinet Scraper is easier to use and can more easily take deeper cuts.  Out of curiousity, what are you using to set the hook on the scrapers?

   The scraper will take more force than the plane, given that the depth of cut is the same because of the cutting angle.  You've probably noticed that you BUS with the 50-degree blade requires more force to push than with the stock 25-degree blade.

   I think that any of the three tools, set to a whisper-fine cut would be able to perform the task at hand.

   When building something like faceframes, where to adjacent surfaces meet flush and the grain runs perpendicular, I prefer to get the joint flush before gluing it up.  Afterwards, only a little scraping with a card scraper is necessary.

   Chris @ www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com

    - Success is not the key to happines.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer

1. 
   xmike | Apr 17, 2008 07:39am | #2

   Hi Chris,

   SUPER reply - thanks! 

   I have noticed that the scrapers both leave a fuzzier surface, but not tear out.  Right now I'm getting a heavier shaving with the Scraping Plane that with the BUS.  I set the hook with a free-hand burnisher at about 15 degrees, and tried not to over do it.

   I haven't yet mastered setting up the Scraping Plane so that I can take a whisper thin shaving.  I've initially set up the SC by just letting the blade touch the surface of my board and locking it in place.  Then I just BARELY tilt the blade forward with almost no turn to the adjusting knobs.  I haven't even added any camber to the blade, yet.  It goes from lightly scraping to taking a very aggressive shaving at less than a 32 of a turn to the knobs.  Perhaps my hook is too aggressive?

   It looks like I need to continue to work on my card scraper sharpening technique.  I really like the card scraper, but I kinda struggle making mine work consistently from one sharpening to the next. 

   Best Regards,

   Mike D

   Edited 4/17/2008 12:47 am ET by Mike_D

1. 
   flairwoodworks | Apr 17, 2008 07:45am | #3

   Birthday boy,

   I would start by setting the scraping plane angle slightly forwards (5-10 degrees), then dropping the blade into the plane on a flat surface, so that it is flush with the sole, not protruding in any way.  Next, add however much camber you desire, which probably isn't much.  Then test the depth of cut.  By changing the tilt forwards or backwards, you can increase or decrease the depth of cut as you already know.

   I don't think that your problem is your hook, but more likely that when you dropped the blade in, it protruded slightly.  Sometimes I find that I can drop the blade in and tighten it in place and, with out any adjustments, take whisper-thin shavings.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com

    - Success is not the key to happines.  Happiness is the key to success.  If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer

1. 
   xmike | Apr 17, 2008 07:48am | #4

   I will try that tomorrow.  Thanks for the tip!

   Mike D

2. 
   derekcohen | Apr 17, 2008 04:43pm | #5

   Mike

   In my opinion you are going in the wrong direction!

   The BUS is a fantastic smoother, one of the very best, and with the HA blade it will minimise tearout in the worst interlinked timber. But this does not work well for you on your face frame .... what part of the frame? The intersections? I am not sure why it is not working well .. perhaps the blade is not sharp .. no? Perhaps you are trying to plane across the grain? Soooo ... you get a plane with an even higher cutting angle (the scraper plane). All this will do is increase the symptoms of the plane that preceded it.

   Have you tried a lower cutting angle? Just try a second blade in the BUS, say 35 degrees (= 47 degree angle of attack). It may be what you are looking for.

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

1. 
   Napie | Apr 17, 2008 05:25pm | #6

   I would agree, I was planning a panel frame in walnut flush last night and my L-N 4 ½ <!----><!----><!---->York<!----><!----> pitch is the right tool for the task, for me at least.

2. 
   xmike | Apr 17, 2008 08:42pm | #8

   Hi Derek,

   "In my opinion you are going in the wrong direction!"  Well that is certainly a possibility!

   ".... what part of the frame? The intersections?"  Yes, at the intersections.  The plane is requiring so much force that I'm racking the frame unless I get very creative with my clamping.  Also, as I attempt to "sweep" around the corner, I'm shoving the plane so hard that if I inadvertently tip it at all, I jam the leading edge into the edge of the opposing rail (or style) as I cross the corner.  Now THAT makes a ding!  

   "l .. perhaps the blade is not sharp .. no?"  Humm... It's certainly possible that it could be sharper, but it cuts nice wavy, thin shaving on the straight.  If so, my sharpening technique is in need of change, as I'm getting the little dear as sharp as I know how.

   "Perhaps you are trying to plane across the grain?"  Oh, absolutely.  That's what happens in the transition as I sweep around the corner to level a rail to style joint.

   "Soooo ... you get a plane with an even higher cutting angle (the scraper plane). All this will do is increase the symptoms of the plane that preceded it."  O.K., that was dumb on my part.  What was I thinking?  Actually, I was thinking, just it came out "....duh!".  Edit: I'm not whining at you here, by the way.  It should have been obvious to me that increasing the cut angle would naturally increase the resistance, since I've read Leonard Lee's The complete Guide to Sharpening and he makes that point, as well as the case for the necessity for relief angles pretty clear.

   "Have you tried a lower cutting angle? Just try a second blade in the BUS, say 35 degrees (= 47 degree angle of attack). It may be what you are looking for."  No, but I'm about to.  I sure hope that it is the solution to this problem.

   I also clearly need to practice with the Scraping Plane on some scrap to learn how better to set it up and use it.  But perhaps it's simply not the tool for cleaning up the slight unevenness at my rail to style joints. 

   Thanks very much for your input.  I always appreciate your insight into these problems.

   Best Regards from Louisville, KY,

   Mike D

   Edited 4/17/2008 5:39 pm ET by Mike_D

3. 
   Ray | Apr 17, 2008 07:20pm | #7

   I use the LN scraping plane, their advice was not to put a hook on the blade.  A hook on the blade is a bit too aggressive.  Of course, proper blade depth setting is even more important.

1. 
   xmike | Apr 17, 2008 08:43pm | #9

   No hook?  I may just try that as well.

   Thanks,

   Mike D

4. 
   lwilliams | Apr 17, 2008 09:03pm | #10

   Hi Mike,

   You're struggling with the very thing that I've written about a number of times here. The fibers of the wood resist cutting and actually deflect ahead of the cut. Increasing the angle of attack increases resistance of the wood to being cut and also increases the deflection. Another thing that adds to the cutting resistance of the wood is an obtuse cutting edge and, as you'd expect, this also increases the deflection of the wood.

   In lower density woods the resistance to cutting allows for more deflection. The resistance can and often does become greater than the strength of the wood fibers and you get tear out when they break. You'll also have this same thing happen when you plane across the grain in woods that have much density variance between early wood and late wood. This is just one of the problems you're dealing with and only part of the reason you notice it takes a lot of force to use your plane.

   After the wood fibers are severed the deflected wood is cut it returns to where it was. When this happens, it's actually taller than it was when it was cut. This is why those using low angle planes set up as you have report excessive wear on the back of the iron. The wood fibers return with enough force that they actually control the depth of cut. You'll find you can't effectively increase the depth of cut because of this. If you try, the plane will balk and chatter as you try to use it.

   These 12º bedded planes just lack the necessary clearance angle to be used as some suggest. That's why Stanley offered their block planes in both 20º and 12º bed angles. Leonard Bailey and Stanley's other design contractors were metal workers and understood clearance angles. Cutting metal also requires clearance angles because metals deflect ahead of the cutting edge just like wood. Things get destructively ugly in a hurry if you try to cut metal without adequate clearance angles. Stanley's 12º block planes were intended for only very light trimming work. If you want to be more aggressive, you'll want the clearance angle provided by their 20º block plane.

   Essentially, you've turned your smooth plane into a scraper plane. If all you do is very lightly scrape the surface of wood, you might be perfectly happy with a low angle plane set up this way. If you want to actually remove some wood, you'll probably be happier with a traditional plane.

   Don't take this wrong. I do have LN's #164 and it's a fantastic special purpose plane. I can work end grain with it in ways I could never work with a common pitch or steeper bench plane.

1. 
   xmike | Apr 18, 2008 01:31am | #11

   Hi,

   Based on your input, I decided to go back and review Leonard Lee's section on relief angles and fiber snapback, once again.

   Based on that and looking at the Veritas BUS, I believe that the BUS design does provide a 12 degree relief angle, as the rear of the mouth is cut back specifically to provide one, but I can see what you are getting at re fiber snap back. 

   Lee suggests that fiber snapback is more of a softwood problem than a hardwood problem.  In your opinion, is curly maple a soft enough wood to experience significant fiber snapback, anyway? 

   As an aside, I have experienced chatter with the BUS at a 62 degree included angle, in curly maple, when I let the blade dull just a bit in use.  Touching up the edge at that point seems to eliminate the chatter problem.

   Regards,

   Mike D

   Edit:  It'll be a couple of days before I can get back to my shop and actually try some of the excellent suggestions given so far.  Today, SWMBO has had me excavating and laying a brick walk from the front door to the driveway.  Tomorrow, we get to play with the grandson all day, and Saturday, I get to get back to the brick walkway until it is finished.

   Now that I'm retired, I wonder how I ever had enough time to work!

   Mike D   :)

   Edited 4/17/2008 6:42 pm ET by Mike_D

   Edited 4/17/2008 6:42 pm ET by Mike_D

1. 
   lwilliams | Apr 18, 2008 05:42am | #12

   Hi Mike,

   Yes, even hard maple will spring back from viscoelastic deflection.

   I'd like to know the source of the clearance angles discussed in Lee's book. I don't have the book handy but I believe Derek posted that they say 7º is adequate clearance. The clearance angle we're talking about is the same as "relief" angles used in metal cutting. A single point tool cutting copper, brass, bronze and similar metals will require relief angles of 8º to 16º depending on the particular application. I just looked that up in Machinery's Handbook. I'm pretty sure these metals deflect less than maple or other woods. I normally work beech which is similar to hard maple. If I hone my single iron 55º pitch plane at around 35º I start having the same clearance angle problems you're describing. Set up this way my plane has a 20º clearance angle and it's not enough.

2. 
   lwilliams | Apr 18, 2008 06:11am | #13

   Experience tells me I can't edit my previous post because I enabled HTML.I just wanted to add that with my 55º smooth plane and a 30º honed angle on the iron I have no problem with the clearance angle. The combination of the additional 5º of clearance and a more acute edge eliminates the clearance problem.