Frog has "Gaposis"??

[steven c newman]

I have a Dunlap #3, with a West German iron. I looked behind the frog this morning, and saw the threads of the frog's bolts. Frog sits very nicely on it's base, makes decent shavings, and no chattering about when on the job. But to look in the area behind the frog and see an 1/8" gap?:eek: A look at this little plane255553 Used to have bright RED painted handles, now has BLO. Seems a few of this style were made, either as Dunlaps, or as Fultons. I will take it apart later today to look a bit and see IF there is anything hiding inthere:eek: but haven't seen anything...yet. Just a little $8 #3 plane. Sargent made???

[steven c newman]

Got to looking under the hood on this little plane. Frog sits on a pair of rails along the outside edges. Frog sits tight to the base up front near the mouth opening. Compared the base area to some other #3s i have. The base for the Dunlap frog is taller than the union or stanley bases, then the height of those rails. I think I can count five threads exposed under the frog. Big old cavity in there. The top of the frog sits about the same height as the other #3s I have. Frog length is just a might shorter in the back, though. Kicker: iron sits at a higher angle than the others, too. maybe a 4-5 degree difference?? As in a Steeper attack angle? May have to sharpen that iron a little different??

[steven c newman]

Compare two #3 sized planes. A "Standard" #3 ( Hibbards True Value, no less 1930s model) and that Dunlap #3255654255655 Notice a difference in the frog angles? say about 5 degrees or so? Note the space under the lateral lever. Footprint is even a bit different, almost a #5 size, sans bolt in toe. $8 for a York Pitch Plane?

[James Scheffler]

Dunlap was a cheaper line of planes, so probably the frog design was intended to reduce or eliminate the amount of machining they had to do. From the pictures, it does look like there is a few degrees of difference in the pitch, which is definitely interesting. You don't need to sharpen the iron any differently.

I have a rusty Dunlap No. 3 equivalent at home. If I can find it, I'll pull it out and see what it looks like.

[steven c newman]

I HAD a Fulton almost like this, once. Same cap iron, other than the logos. Same red painted handles. Under the "hood" though, it was another story all together.255778This is the Fulton #3. And255779 the cleaned up parts of the Dunlap #3. Frogs are a bit different. But it is the base area that sets the two apart. The dunlap sits on a platform, with two rails along the side. Frog's rails sit on those rails, leaving a large "open" area under the back of the frog. The Fulton would move a bit in the frog when in use, the Dunlap does not. Might be a different "Model" number???

[Jim Koepke]

The Fulton would move a bit in the frog when in use, the Dunlap does not.

These kinds of experiences are my reason from staying away from the less expensive lines of planes.

When price came into being the great motivator, even the Stanley/Bailey planes suffered in quality.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Ok, back to the "other" plane. It seems that the base was cast to provide a York Pitch255831As the base area slopes downhill. Bottom of the frof is flat, even those rails. Base is the one doing the tip forward. Bolts are extra long, too. I did have to work on the cap iron a bit, just for it to sit flat. Sharpened the iron today, down to 2k paper. Polished the back, after I got it flat ( didn't take take too much for that) and took it for a test drive on some Oak 2x2 scrap255832255833Second plane is a Companion #4 that was also tuned up today. No chatter from either of these, and they will hold their settings. Maybe 1 turn on the adjuster wheel in backlash. Not bad.

[James Scheffler]

It's a funny thing. I've seen (or seen pictures of) Dunlap planes that are clearly not as good as vintage Stanleys in various ways. However, this morning I dug out the Dunlap plane I mentioned above. In my memory, I expected it to be basically a piece of junk.

However, when I took it apart, there are nicely machined areas where the frog and base touch. These areas are a little smaller than on my Stanleys, but seem to allow for solid contact. The frog doesn't rock at all in the base. The face of the frog where the blade sits is machined dead flat - better than some of my Stanley planes were. The sole is very close to being acceptably flat, again, better than some of the Stanleys were.

Where the Dunlap (maybe) isn't quite as good as my Stanley planes (all 1903 - late 1930s vintage):

- The depth adjustment wheel is steel instead of brass - not sure that matters very much.
- The tote isn't fully rounded - it has flats on the sides, but it still feels comfortable to me. The tote and knob are red-ish, but I'm not sure that they're really rosewood. Not a big deal either way.
- There isn't a frog adjustment screw, but don't really care much about that.
- The lateral adjustment lever is bent metal instead of being a forged piece, but it does have the disk riveted on to fit into the blade slot.

This plane is a rust bucket that lacks a blade or cap iron (it does have the lever cap). I bought it for a couple of bucks when I first started looking for planes, but I got a nicer complete Stanley soon after that. I put the Dunlap plane in a box and basically forgot about it. Now that I'm looking at it again, I'm thinking it wants and deserves to be cleaned up and put to use. (I'm thinking maybe as a scrub plane - don't have one of those yet).

I guess the moral of the story is that some of these "lesser" lines of planes can be good users. The key is to look at it first hand and know what matters and what doesn't.

Maybe I'll take some pictures later for posting....

[James Scheffler]

Here are a couple photos of mine. It's interesting that the frog/base interface is very different, not to mention the lever cap. Did Dunlop contract out to different manufacturers, or did they produce their own?

255849

255850

[Greg Wease]

[QUOTE=James Scheffler;2073307] Did Dunlop contract out to different manufacturers, or did they produce their own?

Dunlap isn't a company, it's a brand name used by Sears. As with their Craftsman tools, Sears contracted with several different companies over the years--Stanley, Sargent, Millers Falls, even some made in Germany. Yours looks like a Stanley product to me.

[Joe Bailey]

a couple points:
Dunlop = tire mfr.
Dunlap = low-end Sears label
James -- your plane is almost certainly a Millers Falls product (not shape of lateral adj lever and red-japanned frog)

[steven c newman]

Mine seems to be one of those West German planes. Red frog? Sears seems to have ordered all of their planes to have red frogs. I have had several Dunlap planes, most were with a standard lever cap, and stamped on the iron as a Dunlap BL with a Sears Part number. This West German plane has no such numbers on it. Brass adjusting wheel is different from any i have seen, too.

[steven c newman]

Took this plane for a drive on some knarly old oak256047256048256049No chatter marks. Almost see-through shavings, too. I think I will keep an eye out for more of these $8 planes.