Replies

1. 
   bjpearce | Apr 03, 2003 09:39am | #1

   Ekarnes.

   I bought the Lie-Nielsen 4.5 about 8 months ago and did the same study as you.

   Some said (I never owned both, so I had to take their word) that while the brass doesn't rust, it does dull, and after a time of no use, can leave black marks on the timber as the timber effectively polishes the bottom of the plane.

   The ductile iron won't mark the timber, but does need to be oiled. It's also much stronger. I wouldn't think there would be any difference in the quality of the cut, as the blade stays the same, only the body changes.

   I went with the 4.5, as it was the same price as the 4 in brass and I was prepared to spend that much.

   In some ways I'm very happy with it, and in some ways I'm not. It is my first hand plane, and after doing a fair bit of research and parting with a decent amount of cash my expectations may have been to high. Build quality appears excellent and the body is very sturdy, but I think there is too much play in the depth adjustment wheel for a plane of this price (once 'engaged' the adjustment is smooth and precise). Also the blade required a fair amount of camber (not far off the maximum) to get it square out of the sole, not good for a plane of this price.

   And last of all, I honed and sharpened my high tech A-2 Cryogenically treated blade using the scary sharp method, and still haven't managed to get an edge I'm pleased with. Although this could be me not the blade.

   Apart from that, the plane is solid, heavy and beautiful. Having never had a cheaper plane I don't know what problems I may have skipped

   Hope I've been of some help

   Ben.

1. 
   oxmach | Apr 03, 2003 04:48pm | #5

   Ben this may be obvious, but just a though on the camber.  Have you adjusted the frog to be square to the mouth?  I have the 4.5 and have not had that problem. 

   Just a thought, as I would be disappointed too.  If this is not the case, I would suggest you call the factory and discuss with them.  They have exceptional customer service.

   Greg

1. 
   bjpearce | Apr 04, 2003 03:06am | #7

   Greg,

   You had me thinking, but then I remembered that when sharpening the blade, I checked it against my tried and proven square.

   Also, I live in Australia, so waranty returns have to be pretty serious.

   Ben.  :)

1. 
   oxmach | Apr 04, 2003 04:13pm | #8

   Hi Ben, I wasn't thinking about the iron but rather the frog.  It is possible to skew the frog a bit by turning one screw more than the other.   Or perhaps, one side simply has not been tightend to fully engae the pin that drops through the frog allowing it to move a bit when you adjust the iron.

   Good luck.

   Greg

1. 
   bjpearce | Apr 05, 2003 03:05am | #11

   Ah, I see, I'll check the frog then, hadn't really thought of that (first plane and all). I appreciate all the advice too. By play in the depth adjustment I was refering to the slack between moving the iron in and out, which was only a little better than the Stanley I could have bought for an 8th of the price (not to rubbish Stanley).

   So, while I'm here, has anyone got any advice on sharpening. I have used the scary sharp method from 150 to 2000 grit (on the front of the iron, and the cutting edge) being sure to remove the scratches (styrations?) from the previous grit, but my edge never seams to hold very long. Any suggestions?

   Ben.

2. 
   oxmach | Apr 05, 2003 03:04pm | #13

   Hi Ben;

   I too use the sandpaper method for sharpening, and have had very good success.   I've found that if I use a honing guide, I do get an edge which is sharper and lasts longer.  I think this is due to the fact that you can keep a consistent angle, and don't roll up onto the edge,  making a steeper angle and potentially ruining the edge.  I use a Lee Valley Veritas guide which allows for a micro bevel.  In between major sharpenings, while working on boards, if the plane becomes tough to push, I usually hone by hand using .5micron paper (=9000X).  The abrasives I use are 15micron (1000X), 5 micron(2500X) and the .5.

   When properly honed, you should be able to cut a path through softwood endgrain, without leaving tracks or tears.

   On the slack or  "backlash" issue, all of my LN planes have a good turn or turn and a bit between moving in and out.  I think this is just an inherent part of the Bailey design.  It is certainly more positive than my record, and the part that I particularly like is the ease of adjustment (just the side of my finger) to tweak it.

   One tip, for planing that you may not be aware of.  If you take a chunk of beeswax, and just run a squiggle or two down the length of the sole - it's OK to go across the iron as well.  This will dramatically change the effort required to push your plane across a smooth surface.  I saw our local LN rep do this, and once tried, I could not believe the difference.  I now keep a chunk on my bench while planning and draw a squiggle (like using a marker on paper), as soon as I feel some drag.

   Good luck.

   Greg

3. 
   RLMillard | Apr 06, 2003 04:17am | #16

   Several years ago, before they were readily available, I had A-2 blades made for all my planes. I surface ground the blades after heat treating, and I found that the cutting edge had to be  ground back about 1/32” before I could maintain a sharp edge. I have since found the same was necessary on the L-N No. 4 ½ and 9. My guess is that the surface grinding process has removed some of the temper at the cutting edge. Once I did this, I have found the A-2 blades to be superior to all other blades I have used.

   I use a hand cranked grinder to provide a hollow ground edge, and follow this with a combination India stone ( Medium/fine) then I use 800-2000 grit paper, followed by diamond paste to bring up a high polish. I only use the 2000 grit and the diamond paste on the flat side of the blade, since it should already be flat and all you want is to remove the burr.

4. 
   bjpearce | Apr 06, 2003 10:27am | #17

   Ah, that sounds right. I hadn't used my plane all that much since sharpening it and I can already see a small flat edge were the sharp edge should be, there is also a very slight bur on the flat side of the iron (the back?), which wasn't there when I sharpend it, as I tested it on the hair on my arm and they shaved off pretty well, now it just pulls them out!

   Greg, thanks for your advice too, I'll give the bee's wax a go, when my plane works well, it's great, and all these little things can only improve the experience. I also use a Veritas Honing guide, and find it excellent. I intend on purchasing some of Veritase's Honing compound (which is about .5 micron), to further hone the iron.

   Ben

2. 
   MarkRoderick | Apr 04, 2003 04:30pm | #9

   I also think it may be the frog out of alignment - in fact, that's about the only thing it could be if your blade is sharpened square.

   I also notice that the depth adjustment has too much play. I would have expected basically none for this plane. The way to deal with it is to pull the blade all the way back, then go forward in very small increments until you're just right.

2. 
   roninfante | Apr 03, 2003 01:26pm | #2

   The number 9 gets a fair amount of use in my (home) shop. I'm not one to expect perfection from my machines so I use planes to true pieces for joints. The 9 is not used in isolation. If you want it to do its best be prepared to build an accurate shooting board.

   In regard to the 4 vs 4.5 question: Try to find a place where you can use both. If you are new to hand planes it may be the case that the 4.5 will be harder to control.

   Ron

3. 
   ian | Apr 03, 2003 04:07pm | #3

   I've got a LN 4.5 with a standard frog.  I haven't used it much as to date I haven't needed to flatten a panel.  However, before buying the #4.5, I was lucky enough to visit the LN factory in Maine where I got to try out the #4, #4.5 and #112.  The #4.5 is a great smoother but for general planing I find a #3 or #5 more useful.  As a smoother, the extra mass in the #4.5 makes a difference and swayed me away from the #4.  LN had set-up both planes to take very light cuts and I couldn't detect a difference between the two in terms of the quality of cut, just the #4.5 felt easier to use.   According to Gerrard Hack this is due to the extra mass of the #4.5

4. 
   lwilliams | Apr 03, 2003 04:34pm | #4

   Eric,

   My partner has the earlier version of the #9. As a miter plane it's great but then that's what it is--a miter plane.

   I prefer a #4 to a #4 1/2. When you increase the bed angle you also increase resistance to the cut. Add a wider blade to that you'll save on your gym bill but you may also avoid using the plane because of the work involved. Definitely go for the York pitch (50º) frog if you use mainly hardwoods.

   I like both the ductile iron and bronze versions. I think the advantage of the bronze is a longer lasting crisp edge at the front of the mouth which means improved ability to control mouth opening. The down side of bronze is that it's heavier and will leave marks on the wood if not frequently used. I'm not one who buys into the heavier is better theory because I tend to spend a lot of time at the bench with a plane in my hands.

1. 
   ekarnes | Apr 03, 2003 08:06pm | #6

   "I think the advantage of the bronze is a longer lasting crisp edge at the front of the mouth which means improved ability to control mouth opening."

   So the bronze actually wears better than the ductile iron? i've read that ductile iron wont crack easily like older cast iron, is that true of the bronze? I actually have a sweetheart era bedrock number 4 (w/hock blade and breaker) which works great, but i work in hardwoods exclusively and the 50 degree frog very much intrigued me. do you think the difference is substantial? i know this is a loaded question, but you are quite the plane guru and reading through the dynamics of blade angle geometry leave me bewildered.

   I know that a mitre plane is very specialized, but i am moving to nyc soon and my power tools will become a thing of the past, so i will have to shoot almost all of my crosscuts and am thinking this could be a very handy plane..maybe even a better choice now than another smoother. when money allows one of your beautiful wooden fillisters is on my list, but one thing at a time!

   thanks to everyone for their responses.

1. 
   lwilliams | Apr 05, 2003 01:51am | #10

   It's just my feeling that LN's bronze planes wear better than ductile iron. I'm not sure about ductile iron but experience tells me normal cast iron, like that used in old Stanley planes, wears quickly at the mouth of a plane. I don't know that ductile iron is better or the same but I haven't seen any mouth wear on my LN #164.

   You'll get a lot of different opinions on bed angles. My experience is that the traditional bed angles work as historic documents indicate. I like a 55º bed angle for finish smoothing of hard woods, a 50º bed angle for other hard wood planes except for end grain or shoulders.

   Thomas Lie-Nielsen, I believe, has a lot of faith in low angle planes (like the #62 & #164) for difficult hard wood grain. While I disagree, I have a lot of respect for Thomas and a number of people seem to agree with him.

   Edited 4/4/2003 9:25:35 PM ET by Larry Williams

1. 
   GregB126 | Apr 05, 2003 05:42am | #12

   Larry,

   As always, thanks for your input.  I have a question for you about the low angle issue.  After a lot of study and plane making experience, Karl Holtey produced his #98.  It is a beautiful plane in my opinion, but its theory is at the heart of my question.  The #98 is a low angle smoother.  It is bevel up, using no chip breaker, which Karl has said doesn't do much anyway.  The bevel up configuration allows the user to change the effective pitch by changing the bevel angle, an advantage in terms of flexibility.  I understand Karl's planes are made to incredibly high tolerances and have superior irons (thick for stability and chatter resistance and high-tech hard), but his theories concerning low angle smoothers should be born out in "lesser" planes such as L-N (if one can call anything from L-N "lesser") and even Veritas, who have also added some low angle planes to their stable.  The York pitch  seems tried and true for smoothing hardwoods.  At the other end of the spectrum are these low angle examples.  You seem to favor the  York pitch geometry over the low angle.  (sorry if I've mischaracterized; I've just completed a very arduous job and have indulged in an I.P.A. or two in celebration and am peddling as fast as I can...)  Can you share any thoughts on this split of design theories?  Thanks again.

   Cheers,

   Greg

1. 
   lwilliams | Apr 05, 2003 04:39pm | #14

   Greg,

   There's no getting around the fact that Holtey planes are works of art. I agree with him that chip breakers or cap irons aren't very effective. In fact, I'm convinced they cause more problems than they solve.

   I do have some reservations about using a low angle plane like Holtey's #98 with more obtuse cutting angles to vary the cutting angle. The main reason I would avoid it is the obtuse angle. You can easily verify wood fiber deflection during cutting with a plane by setting a plane to take a fine, about .001", in a hard and dense wood then trying to use that setting on a soft wood like white pine. The setting that does wonderful in the hard wood won't even cut the softer wood. Reverse this and the plane which takes a fine shaving in pine may take such a heavy cut in the dense wood that it's too difficult to push.

   Controlling the deflection of the fibers ahead of the cut is important when trying to minimize tear out. The more obtuse the bevel angle of the iron is, the more deflection you'll get which is likely to translate into more tear out.

   I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm scheduled to leave town this morning and need to get busy. The following is an excerpt from an article (sorry, I don't have the photo to go with it) I wrote and continues what I've been writing about:

   Quality bench planes are available as either used or new tools. Hand planechoices and functions center around length, iron width and bed angle of the iron. Most woodworkers are familiar with the various lengths and widths but cutting geometry is often overlooked or misunderstood. Photo #1 shows asampling of what's available in Western style smooth planes. From the fronton the left is a low angle (37º), common pitch (45º), York pitch (50º) andmiddle pitch (55º). Not shown is half pitch (60º). While the bed angle ofthe low angle plane is 12º, its effective cutting angle is 37º because theiron is mounted bevel up. I believe these different pitches are among themost important features though most mass produced planes since themid-19th Century were available in only common pitch. Even premium planes like the early style Stanley 604 Bedrock on the right in the photo wereavailable in only common pitch.

   The cutting geometry offered by different bed angles or pitches is a complex series of trade-offs involving surface quality, ease of the cutting action, edge life of the iron and a number of other factors. An over simplified explanation involves looking at surface quality and the two main structural failures of the wood as a result of the cutting action of the plane.

   There are two main flaws left by well tuned hand planes that result from some structural failure of the wood. The first is when wood bends, collapses or fractures , because it deforms ahead of the iron as a result of resistance to the cutting action. The second is where the iron tends to slip under and lever up sections of wood. In this case the wood separation tends to run ahead of the cutting edge. Both are called “tear out” but require different cutting geometry to over come.

   Wood deforming ahead of the cut is most common with soft woods or end grain. Here a lower cutting angle can be an advantage because it offers less resistance to the cutting action at the cutting edge. Levering up and tearing of wood ahead of the edge is more of a trait of hardwoods and here steeper bed angles can be an advantage.

   In extreme high angle cases, like with a scraper, walls and pores are deformed and broken leaving a less than ideal surface. Edge life also suffers and becomes dramatic at bed angles of much above 55º. Low angles are limited by the strength and rigidity of both the plane body and very acute cutting edges.

   Again, this is an over-simplification of a complex series of issues.

   Edited 4/5/2003 10:01:14 AM ET by Larry Williams

2. 
   GregB126 | Apr 05, 2003 10:45pm | #15

   Thanks, Larry.

   Fair weather and following seas.  I guess the main things are still crisp, tight mouth to influence what happens before the blade, and a solid, stable body (to support the hopefully thick and chatter resistant iron).  The end grain and especially softwood examples you mention certainly illustrate the before-the-mouth dynamics and how the lower angle geometry makes sense there.  Thanks very much.

   Cheers,

   Greg

5. 
   aew | Apr 07, 2003 09:16pm | #18

   I have one of the bronze #9 miter planes and it works fine as long as you use a good shooting board like someone else recommended.  The shooting board needs to be either clamped to a bench or held in a vise as no matter how sharp the plane, trying to hold down the board with one hand and using the plane with the other just doesn't work.  You need to take a very fine cut with the miter plane of course.

   I have both bronze and steel L-N planes and although I think the bronze is a bit glitzy, it isn't as prone to rust and corrosion.  I use Boe-Shield or whatever it is called on the soles of all the planes and this avoids the finish contamination with waxes and silicones. 

   In general, the L-N planes are excellent but pricey.  Look at some of the Lee Valley offerings.  While they aren't as fancy, they are quality tools and much less expensive.  Of course, they don't have much variety at this time.

   Good luck in NYC.