Thread: Durability of plane blades vs bevel angle

Probably a misprint...

It's not just the bevel angle of a blade that solely determines edge retention, but it's relationship to the "angle of attack", or frog/baseplate angle too. Steep overall angles will produce extra shearing forces on a cutting edge.

A low angle bevel up plane may very well have a steeper angle of attack than a conventional setup.

I have not read the article yet. However I have completed a fair amount of objective testing in this area.

As a rule-of-thumb, a higher bevel angle will be less chip resistant to a lower bevel angle. However, it is not that simplistic.

All bevel down (BD)plane blades, regardless of steel type, benefit from a bevel being no lower than 30 degrees. This regardless of whether you use one bevel or more to achieve the final bevel angle.

Bevel up (BU)planes, on the other hand, will outlast BD planes bevel-angle-for-bevel-angle. A BU plane (on a 12 degree bed) will outlast a BD plane (on a 45 degree bed). For example, a BU plane with a 25 degree bevel will significantly outlast a BD plane with a 25- or 30 degree bevel.

On the other hand, at a certain point, higher bevel angles also dull faster. So a BU plane with a 48 degree bevel (= 60 degrees of cutting angle), or 30 degree bevel on a 60 degree bed BD plane (= 60 degrees of cutting angle) will lose its edge faster than a plane with 30 degree bevel on a 45 degree bed/cutting angle.

For a comparison of BU vs BD blade durability, go to: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tingPlane.html



Regards from Perth

Derek

I've now had a read of that article. There are a few misunderstandings about jack planes and plane useage in general that bother me about a woodworker of Jeff's standing.

"Ideally, a jack plane should be capableof taking very fine shavings and leavinga great finish, and yet be able to removelots of wood in a hurry when set for adeeper cut. "

This is incorrect. One cannot go from a deep shaving with a deeply cambered blade to a fine finish shaving with a mild camber. You have to change blades. Or you use a chipbreaker.

Secondly, he talks about chipbreakers as a means of taming vibration and not about tearout control:

"Because they’re thin,they don’t dampen vibration at the tip ofthe blade as well as the thicker, machinedchipbreakers. "

These statements really lack insight.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Secondly, he talks about chipbreakers as a means of taming vibration and not about tearout control:

"Because they’re thin,they don’t dampen vibration at the tip ofthe blade as well as the thicker, machinedchipbreakers. "

These statements really lack insight.

I thought it served a dual purpose? I thought that this was the entire premise behind hock chip breakers being thicker than others?

Hi Luke

There is a dual purpose, however this is not discussed, and the impression is left chipbreakers are simply about dampening the vibrations in a blade.

For example, the article could have mentioned the purpose of a chipbreaker was also to reduce tearout, and that to do so the leading angles needed to be fine-tuned (as all do anyway), and how the planes fared after this was done. After all, if you plan to use the #5 as a smoother, then this is part of the process. There is not even the slightest hint that this a potential area of use. Chipbreakers were examined how thick they were (assuming this would measure how well they dampened vibrations), and no other considerations was explored. Who knows, perhaps the editors removed this info.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Hi Luke

There is a dual purpose, however this is not discussed, and the impression is left chipbreakers are simply about dampening the vibrations in a blade.

For example, the article could have mentioned the purpose of a chipbreaker was also to reduce tearout, and that to do so the leading angles needed to be fine-tuned (as all do anyway), and how the planes fared after this was done. After all, if you plan to use the #5 as a smoother, then this is part of the process. There is not even the slightest hint that this a potential area of use. Chipbreakers were examined how thick they were (assuming this would measure how well they dampened vibrations), and no other considerations was explored. Who knows, perhaps the editors removed this info.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Ah, ok. Now I gotcha.

Derek
So I assume you at least partly agree with the statement. Do you have a feel for where this "certain point" is? Am I still right in assuming that a 30 degree bevel is more durable than a 25?

Mat

Originally Posted by derekcohen

I have not read the article yet. However I have completed a fair amount of objective testing in this area.

As a rule-of-thumb, a higher bevel angle will be less chip resistant to a lower bevel angle. However, it is not that simplistic.

All bevel down (BD)plane blades, regardless of steel type, benefit from a bevel being no lower than 30 degrees. This regardless of whether you use one bevel or more to achieve the final bevel angle.

Bevel up (BU)planes, on the other hand, will outlast BD planes bevel-angle-for-bevel-angle. A BU plane (on a 12 degree bed) will outlast a BD plane (on a 45 degree bed). For example, a BU plane with a 25 degree bevel will significantly outlast a BD plane with a 25- or 30 degree bevel.

On the other hand, at a certain point, higher bevel angles also dull faster. So a BU plane with a 48 degree bevel (= 60 degrees of cutting angle), or 30 degree bevel on a 60 degree bed BD plane (= 60 degrees of cutting angle) will lose its edge faster than a plane with 30 degree bevel on a 45 degree bed/cutting angle.

For a comparison of BU vs BD blade durability, go to: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tingPlane.html



Regards from Perth

Derek

Hi Mat

It is not that straight forward. The answer is not yah or nay.

The fact is that the article is very poor and demonstrates little insight into the use of a #5 plane, whether BU or BD. Consequently, any conclusions reached are nonsensical.

Jeff seems to have wanted to write an article about a jack-of-all-trades plane that could be used in many situations, and therefore would be of interest to many readers. That is total beginners territory, and if that is to whom he is aiming the article, then he is misleading the readers.

The #5 has only been a jack-of-all-trades for a carpenter - take one plane plus a couple of blades to the worksite. Less to cart around. However the furnituremaker, working from a workshop is more likely to have a few planes dedicated to specialised tasks. In this world, the #5 is a jack or rough plane. It typically has an 8" radius and is used to hog away waste fast. A #5 1/2 is too wide for this type of work, too heavy, and rarely considered.

The reason the #5 1/2 became considered in the category of "smoother" is down to the writings of David Charlesworth. David is a fine teacher, and has made a significant contribution over the years. However his use of a #5 1/2 as a "super smoother" is misunderstood. David prepares ALL his work on machines. NONE is prepared by hand. His #5 1/2 is only used on flat boards. With flat boards you do not run the same risk of ending up thicknessing at the same time as you would with a long plane (such as a jointer).

In other words, a #5 or a #5 1/2 is a poor choice as a smoother. A smoother is best when it has a short sole. The smoother is way overrated in terms of importance in the tool armoury. I love smoothers as much as the next guy, but the important plane is the jack as a rough plane, followed by the jointer as a medium plane.

OK, so if we are talking about hogging waste, and not smoothing the final finish, then it is all about deep shavings, where the plane is used hard. The blade better be able to cope. Whether we are going BU or BD, a 30 (even 35) degree bevel is going to outlast a 25 degree bevel every moment of the day.

It is also relevant to repeat that this blade will be radiused (about 8") so as to go deep, which you can do with BOTH BU and BD planes! Boy have a I been down this path before!!! HA!

So why this talk of preparing a blade for smoothing with a #5?

The other point I would make is that, for the average guy starting out, it would be better to put money into a jointer than a jack plane. The jack plane is a coarse tool and is going to get messed up. Spend your money on a Stanley #5. Put the LV and LN money towards a good jointer from one of these companies. NOW we can start talking about bevel angles, steel types, use of chipbreakers, etc

Regards from Perth

Derek

Whoa up, 'ol buddy, I think you are getting a little too dogmatic here - to each his own. I have full respect for your hand-tool knowledge & there is no question of your ability to produce work of superb quality, but there are many ways to remove the integument from the proverbial felid! We can really only say what seems logical & what works for us. If others choose to take different paths, well, for starters, that's how discoveries are made..

Parallel evolution means you & I probably do many things similarly, but I do have some different ways of working, which, either by stubborn persistence, or simply because it's legitimate alternative methodology, work well for me. One likely influence on our choice of work methods is that you and I tend to work with quite different raw materials, and I think this may have some bearing on our choices of planes and how we set them up, & in what order we use them. The fundamental steps in furniture construction are always the same, of course: rough out, dimension, & refine, but there are any number of ways to travel to each way point, and still arrive at the same destination. The most efficient way is the best, but what is most efficient for me may not be so to you. There are a couple of points you made that I would like to take issue with:

Originally Posted by derekcohen

......The #5 has only been a jack-of-all-trades for a carpenter - take one plane plus a couple of blades to the worksite. Less to cart around. However the furnituremaker, working from a workshop is more likely to have a few planes dedicated to specialised tasks. In this world, the #5 is a jack or rough plane.....

Not necessarily so, as far as I'm concerned. For many years, a #5 was the only bench plane I had, so I had no choice but to make it do for every operation from rough dressing to final smoothing! When I started my more serious woodworking career, I was living in Canada, & I was working mainly with Cherry & Walnut and White Pine. These are all 'easy' woods to work, and pretty forgiving of a novice struggling to learn to force wood into shape with hand tools. Now back in my home state, things are even better, & you can find even nicer cabinet woods to work with (if you are both lucky & persistent!), so life is even better. But still, the plane that sits on my bench & does the lions share of work right through just about any job is the 5 1/2 (it has now become the favourite since I inherited it 7 years ago).

Another difference is that I have always sharpened all my bench planes with a straight cutting edge, just the corners duffed off. This is the way I was taught in grade 7, and I'm afraid old habits die hard. While that may seem wrong to you, the fact is, it actually works very well for me as long as I kept everything properly sharp. I can go from hogging cuts to smoothing, by simply backing off the blade, and it's quite efficient because the material I work with usually doesn't demand planes with stellar performance characteristics. For most furniture parts, I do all secondary preparation & & cleaning up prior to glueing with the 5 /2. I do have a couple of smoothers (#4s), one of which is set up exclusively for final finishes on 'show' surfaces like table or cabinet tops, but pretty much everything internal will be as-is off the 'jack' planes.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

......The fact is that the article is very poor and demonstrates little insight into the use of a #5 plane, whether BU or BD. Consequently, any conclusions reached are nonsensical....

.

I haven't read the article, and you may well be right in your assertion, but it may also be that what this bloke advocates works perfectly well in the situations he finds himself in...

Cheers,

Hi Ian

What plane do you currently predominantly use as a smoother?

What plane do you currently predominantly use as a jack/coarse work?

What plane do you currently predominantly use as a jointer?

Hope you had a good weekend

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by derekcohen

... What plane do you currently predominantly use as a smoother?..

Derek, the plane I'd use predominantly as a 'smoother' is a #4, but I also often use it for dimensioning small pieces.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

.... What plane do you currently predominantly use as a jack/coarse work?...

I use my 5 1/2, or an old 5, straight after the scrub (if scrubbing was necessary), starting with a coarse set & backing off as things approach straight & level. If it's brutish wood, there will be pauses to re-sharpen, &/or I keep one of the pair in reserve for the final passes, but I usually have the board ready to use off the one plane. If it's a longish board, or an edge to be glued, then I'll use a longer plane, but as often as not, the longer plane won't be necessary. The 5 1/2 is also used when squaring & refining parts like rails & stiles of doors and internal parts, or 'smoothing' them ready for assembly.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

.... What plane do you currently predominantly use as a jointer?....

My one & only Record 07.

Nothing too radical in that, is there? The main difference between us is how I sharpen & use my medium-length planes. As I said, it's an efficient method for me because I generally work with easily-planed woods. If I regularly lit into Jarrah and Marri (or Blue Gum!), I'd probably adopt some different approaches....

Cheers,

Hi Ian

This thread began about the durability of a blade angle, however because it was about a jack plane review on FWW, the thread shifted (my fault!) to how a jack plane is used (and why the article was so misleading in my opinion).

I am trying not to sound pedantic and obsessional (which I generally fail at! ). The point I was trying to make is that, while one may use any plane for any purpose - bloody hell, Paul Sellers will sell you on jointing long boards with a #4 (no, I like him, but there is much misinformation in his articles). Bloody good mechanic, however.

Anyway, a lot of newcomers buy a plane, just about any plane (mine was a #5 1/2), because they do not know any better. Or they inherit a plane and use it for everything because that is what they have (mine was a #3 inherited from my FIL). That does not make their use correct. And because they can be used outside their identified range, obscures the point of their design. Chris Schwarz wrote a very good article (and video), "Coarse, Medium, and Fine". It essentially helps one think about how we use planes to maximise their efficiency.

After we have been at this game a while - you have been there long enough to be awarded a pension for your woodwork, never mind services to the animal kingdom - then you begin to specialise your tool choice. You did this in the example above. Three planes used for three different purposes. Yes, you could mix them up, but you would not. If you choose not to use a hand plane for the coarse work, you'd go to a machine instead of a smoother (#4). Am I right?

So back to the #5. Traditionally, it is a coarse plane, used for rough removal. It is not for fine work. Until I purchased machinery to do the donkey work, beginning about 7 years ago, I had spend decades dimensioning everything with handplanes. There is NO WAY I would consider flattening a wide lump of Jarrah with a straight blade. Not unless I enjoyed the smoothing process. I did not have a #5 back then. I used the #5 1/2 with a 8" radius. I used a scrub plane I made out of an old woodie. It had a 1 3/4" wide blade with a 3" radius. Now I have a #5 (actually a restored #605 - really flash! ) and a woodie I built as a jack. They are dedicated planes. That is what should have been mentioned in the FWW article - use the #5 as a jack-of-all-trades if you like, but they are not intended for this purpose. That's what should have been stated.

My jack ..



It's blade/camber ..



Regards from Perth

Derek

my two bob's worth -- to add to the discussion ...

Originally Posted by derekcohen

I've now had a read of that article. There are a few misunderstandings about jack planes and plane useage in general that bother me about a woodworker of Jeff's standing.

"Ideally, a jack plane should be capable of taking very fine shavings and leaving a great finish, and yet be able to remove lots of wood in a hurry when set for a deeper cut. "

This is incorrect. One cannot go from a deep shaving with a deeply cambered blade to a fine finish shaving with a mild camber. You have to change blades. Or you use a chipbreaker.

Have to disagree with you here Derek.

the #5 or "jack plane" is one of the 3 main general purposes planes -- the others are the #5-1/2 and the #6.
If most of your stock preparation is done by machine, any of these planes can be used to remove the machining marks -- which equates to smoothing. NSW TAFE teaches the #6 as the "standard" plane used for nearly all tasks -- including trimming end grain.

When a particularly deep cut is required - to traverse a panel - the standard mildly cambered blade is angled to expose one corner much more than another. While a deeply cambered blade works better, I've happily used my #5 with a standard mild camber to traverse a panel.
If I recall correctly, David Charlesworth does much the same with his 5-1/2.

If I correctly recall Chris Schwartz's "Coarse, Medium Smooth" all three planes would sit between the machining steps and final sanding.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

snip

Jeff seems to have wanted to write an article about a jack-of-all-trades plane that could be used in many situations, and therefore would be of interest to many readers. That is total beginners territory, and if that is to whom he is aiming the article, then he is misleading the readers.

my copy of that issue of FWW is in transit so I'm yet to read Jeff's article

Originally Posted by derekcohen

The #5 has only been a jack-of-all-trades for a carpenter - take one plane plus a couple of blades to the worksite. Less to cart around. However the furnituremaker, working from a workshop is more likely to have a few planes dedicated to specialised tasks. In this world, the #5 is a jack or rough plane. It typically has an 8" radius and is used to hog away waste fast. A #5 1/2 is too wide for this type of work, too heavy, and rarely considered.

I wish I knew who was responsible for this misnomer.
almost any bench plane -- in the #3 to #7 range -- can be used for rough work. The #4-1/2 is perhaps a little too wide compared to it's length. The #1 and #2 being too small and light, and the #8 just being too heavy for extended use.

I understand that the most common plane on the second hand market is the Stanley #4 -- which suggests that they were used for much more than smoothing. Perhaps as scrub planes?

Originally Posted by derekcohen

The reason the #5 1/2 became considered in the category of "smoother" is down to the writings of David Charlesworth. David is a fine teacher, and has made a significant contribution over the years. However his use of a #5 1/2 as a "super smoother" is misunderstood. David prepares ALL his work on machines. NONE is prepared by hand. His #5 1/2 is only used on flat boards. With flat boards you do not run the same risk of ending up thicknessing at the same time as you would with a long plane (such as a jointer).

this is the usage which is taught in trade schools to this day.
the #5, #5-1/2 and #6 are used to "smooth" out the machining marks.

an all machine shop might send boards through a drum sander after the thicknesser, but IMO even these boards, especially edges to be joined, behave better if finished with a hand plane.

Originally Posted by derekcohen

snip

The other point I would make is that, for the average guy starting out, it would be better to put money into a jointer than a jack plane. The jack plane is a coarse tool and is going to get messed up. Spend your money on a Stanley #5. Put the LV and LN money towards a good jointer from one of these companies. NOW we can start talking about bevel angles, steel types, use of chipbreakers, etc

again I disagree.
IMO money spend on a decent #5 or #6 is not wasted, especially if most of your material preparation is by machine. Both these planes can be used on end grain -- either free hand or with a shooting board -- and both can smooth out the ripples left by the thicknesser, or marks left by a saw blade.

If most of your material preparation is by hand, then of course a suite of other factors come into play. One of which is the material you choose (or are forced) to work with.
with easily worked timbers issues such as cutting angle are less of a concern than with harder stuff like Jarrah.
Likewise, the harder to work timbers will demand more of your planes, leading to a ready justification for plane specialization.


to answer the questions you put to the other Ian, in the context of my time at TAFE

What plane do you currently predominantly use as a smoother? #5, but most of my stock preparation is by machine

What plane do you currently predominantly use as a jack/coarse work? #5

What plane do you currently predominantly use as a jointer? #5

(I was supposed to be suing a #6, but TAFE's #6s were used by about 50 different people each week and the blades always seemed to need sharpening -- besides from having a bed rock frog, my own #5 was always sharp and ready to go.)