Stanley type study - mouth opening

[Phillip Pattee]

I have noticed on my stanley planes that the mouth on my #4 type 11 is .150" while on my 4 type 13 the mouth opening is .175." It does not appear that there was ever any modification done to the mouth.

I have not seen any information on the mouth opeining changing in type studies. The length of the cam for the depth adjustment changes in the sweetheart era from 1 3/32" to 1 3/16", which would seem that the plane could have been designed to take a thicker blade and chipbreaker (the blade thickness didn't change as far as I know). Did the mouth size change at the same time?

[Jim Koepke]

Tthe difference you have mentioned is .025". Not much for a noncritical casting/machining operation done in the 1930s.

Then again, there are a lot of things that are not included in the type studies.

jim

[Phillip Pattee]

Sorry Jim,
Typo in there. I've edited my post. The planes in question are both number 4s.

[Sam Takeuchi]

I think it was simply inconsistent. I doubt there was anything more to that. At least pre-SW planes seem pretty inconsistent.

[Jim Koepke]

Thats what I thought, my reply was also edited.

jim

[James Taglienti]

That is certainly within "tolerances." Remember the Bailey style iron plane succeeded only because of the industrial revolution, it's inherent simplicity, and the concept of interchangeable parts. Adjustability of the lateral and frog, interchangable components, thin irons, and heavy coats of japanning served the user well, but they also made for one hell of a forgiving plane design. to manufacture. Why do you think that Bailey's plane is still being made today? I don't see any Miller's patents being cranked out in China and India, but a heck of a lot of Bailey's !!