Problem? Front bottom of Frog doesn't contact plane body.

[David Masters]

As my father I were cleaning out his garage, he gave me a #4 hand plane he had come across at a garage sale. He thought the plane was valuable, which I doubted, but felt it might be a decent user plane. The plane was pretty rusty and the blade looked beyond use, but I took it home, cleaned things up, and bought a replacement blade and chip cap.

I read through instructions on plane restoration, which have illustrations of several types of frogs, but in every illustration, the frog is supported on the body of the plane on the sides rearward of the screws and across the front or point closet to the mouth. The frog on this plane is supported by just the sides reward of the screws. When the frog is mounted, the front of the frog has a gap about the width of a dime between it and the body. The frog appears stiff when the screws are tightened, but I was wondering if the design might be an issue getting a clean result. When I test the plane, it wants to dig into the wood, even though the blade is barely out of the plane's sole.

I don't really have any experience with hand planes, so I also suspect that my problem is as much a lack of knowledge on how to adjust and use a plane. Although I've read and attempted to make suggested adjustments from articles I've read, I don't seem to be able to make much progress on correcting the problem.

Here are several pictures I've taken. The plane appears to be a war-year plane due to it's thicker body and steel hardware. There are no markings on the plane to indicate that this is a Stanley plane. The body and the blade only says "Made in USA".

[Jim Koepke]

David,

It looks like there may be a gap between the blade and the frog from having the frog set too far back. Adjusting the frog forward may correct your problem, but if not, it is most likely the fault of the plane.

This is a plane from the finish line in the "race to the bottom" of manufacturing quality and cost.

The intended target of these planes was the husband whose wife was nagging him about a sticking door. He could rush to the hardware store, pick this thing up for a few dollars, run home, take a few shavings from the door, plop the plane on a shelf where it could sit for the next several decades while he could be the hero, have his wife bring him a beer and watch the game on the telly.

jtk

[Stew Denton]

David,

Sorry, because you already have bought parts for it, but I have to report +1 on what Jim wrote. My comments exactly.

My suggestion is exactly the same one Jim gave, that moving the frog forward a little could solve the problem. If it does, then it is feasible that you could end up with a plane that works well. You never know.

You aren't the only one who has a "race to the bottom" plane. I have a couple of my own. That said, a "race to the bottom" plane that works well is a lot better than a highly regarded plane that does not. How it works is all that counts.


Hope that you can get the plane to work well.

Stew

[Greg Wease]

Moving the frog forward should help your chatter but I doubt the forward part of the frog will ever contact the base. There is no machined area near the mouth in your photo. If you remove the frog you'll probably see the only intended area of contact is the horizontal section--you'll always see that gap. You could add a photo of the frog receiver to be sure. It may be made by Stanley but it isn't a Bailey so the type studies won't help you determine its age.

[Jim Koepke]

There is no machined area near the mouth in your photo. If you remove the frog you'll probably see the only intended area of contact is the horizontal section--you'll always see that gap.

Some of these do not even have a machined area where the frog meets the base. Often it is just painted. These were the early "object that looks like a plane." Amazing that somehow they were able to find more corners to cut in going down in quality from this.

jtk

[David Masters]

Some of these do not even have a machined area where the frog meets the base.
jtk

That is the case here. As the frog is moved closer to the mouth, the gap between the bottom of the frog and the plane body widens. I adjusted the frog forward as suggested and it did help, but there was still a lot of chatter. Advancing the frog further forward closed the gap between the blade and mouth entirely.

I appreciate the advice and knowledge as to the quality I can expect from this plane. I don't have a lot of money tied up in the plane, so no loss. I'll put the old blade back in and use the plane as a paperweight in the office.

309008

Here is photo of the bottom of the frog. As you can see, there is nothing that allows the frog to contact the plane body forward of the side horizontal contact points.

[Stew Denton]

Hi Jim,

One of my objects that looks like a plane is a Westfield, made by Stanley. The bedding of the frog to be bed were both painted cast iron with no machining. The frog is different from the photo above. I have a Dunlop somewhere, but I am not sure where, and don't want to go crawl thru stuff to find it. It also has un-machined cast iron where the frog and bed meet.

Both objects look ok on the surface. When you look at them closely the truth comes out. Odd as it may seem, I haven't fooled with either, but based on the history, I think the Dunlap might actually work OK. The Westfield has a tote broken in two places.

If I were Stanley, I never would have put "Made by Stanley" on that Westfield. It doesn't look to bad, but it isn't some of Stanley's finer work.

David, you have been given very good advise above.

Stew

[Bill Houghton]

Interestingly, the early Stanley frog didn't contact the bed at the front either. Stanley later moved to various versions of frogs that did, probably because someone realized the early design is prone to chatter.

I have heard of someone who used epoxy to bed the iron permanently on the body of the plane to reduce chatter. Not sure this is worthwhile for a bench plane of this size; you can get plenty of bench planes that will serve without this step. Still, if you feel like experimenting...just make sure you don't epoxy the cutting to the frog! I'd consider a filled epoxy, but this is a dilemma; the easily available filled epoxy, JB Weld, is a quick-setting variety (five minutes, if I recall correctly). If you've rehearsed your steps, five minutes is plenty of time; if something goes awry, it's not much time at all.

[Jim Koepke]

Interestingly, the early Stanley frog didn't contact the bed at the front either. Stanley later moved to various versions of frogs that did, probably because someone realized the early design is prone to chatter.

The new design did help reduce chatter. There were also other reasons for the redesign.

Patrick Leach mentions there original patents had run out and "something new" was needed.

The early Stanley/Bailey planes had a much larger area for the frog's seating. One of the problems with this was in cooling some of the castings would warp and twist. This caused a loss in manufacturing. Lessening the mass of cast iron in this area lowered production losses and also reduced machining costs.

In searching for information as to where this information was originally read, One thing found was this about the August 19, 1902 patent:


The object of this invention is to provide a construction by which the support for the cutting-iron shall be such that the chattering of the cutting iron is entirely prevented. According to the History of Stanley R&L Co. written by James Burdick c. 1930, this patent was never used. However, bazillions of type 9 through 12 benchplanes are marked with this date along with 696081. (patent 696081 - March 25, 1902 the other date on a type 9)

http://www.datamp.org/patents/displayPatent.php?pn=707365&id=8966

The more one looks into these things the more confusing it becomes at times.

jtk

[Al Launier]

Is it possible to have the mounting pads of the frog remachined on the mounting pads to lower it?

[Judson Green]

Is it possible to have the mounting pads of the frog remachined on the mounting pads to lower it?

Probably but at what cost? Good condition Stanley 4s (or other Bailey designs) with nicer mated frogs are pretty cheep.

[Tom Vanzant]

What Judson said...

[Jim Koepke]

+1 on what Judson and Tom said.

In other words, is the plane worth it? What would it do to the holes for the mounting screws?

jtk

[Jeff Bartley]

David, for a positive spin on the situation you have a replacement blade ready to go. All you need to find is a good #4 to use it in. I'd suggest reading Patrick leach, search for, 'Patrick's blood and gore'. Sounds weird but the information is essential to a well rounded education in stanley planes.