Frog seating

[Jim Koepke]

I’m thinking about it, and the wording of your statement. I very much want to understand, having a personal interest in the subject. When you say “used in its working configuration,” do you mean under the tension of the lever cap? Something has been throwing me off with my jointer plane and I’m very interested to understand your point of view.

Mike, It may be more helpful to try to describe what has been 'throwing you off with your jointer plane'. You would be surprised at how many odd behaviors a plane can commit.

It might even be good to start a new post.

It also helps to have your location known. Heck, if you are in the are of the Pacific Northwest you would be welcome to help. If you live in another area there are also other members who have always been willing to help others at getting their plane in working order.

jtk

[Doug Dawson]

Ya think?
Attachment 420385Attachment 420386

So, what's your point?

[Michael Bulatowicz]

Do you really think you can move a cast iron plane body into registration with 2 (12-24 ) screws and a screw driver?

According to some rough calculations (I was curious) the type 11 Stanley frog with its two seating surfaces and #12 screws is likely to make the sole of my type 11 #5 more concave by about half a thousandth of an inch or so directly under the frog and depending on the torque you use when tightening the screws. At the extreme ends, you’re talking about a thou or two of deflection, which is probably easily counteracted during use if you push down on the plane at all (as evidenced by Jim’s hand pressure anecdote). Not going to make any noticeable difference in how the plane performs, and not going to make a difference in any flattening efforts.

So, I agree with you, backed up with calculations and not just opinion or guessing, that it’s not necessary to have the frog installed while flattening.

Best regards,
Michael Bulatowicz

[Robert Hazelwood]

I've always suspected this was overblown. Also they will tell you to make sure the blade is installed and the lever cap tightened- for this to matter it would have to bend the frog casting and then in turn bend the plane body where the frog seats. I'm sure this happens to some tiny extent but it's got to be below the level of accuracy you can get from lapping anyways. That said, for hand lapping there's no reason to take any of it off, so why not leave it on.

I will defend lapping plane soles. The detractors start by declaring that soles don't need even need to be flat and none of the old timers cared about flatness, then in the next breath protest that how you'll ruin the sole by improper lapping, which is so hard as to be all but impossible.

Planes can work well with an out of flat sole...sometimes, and sometimes not. If I had a choice, I'd never choose a plane with an out of flat sole over one with a flat sole, and I don't think any sane person would.

So how hard is lapping, actually? I think it is more tedious than hard. It doesn't take months, but mere hours (or even minutes for smoothing planes). Sure it is possible to do a hack job of it, but we've all seen hack jobs done to things that are even simpler than lapping. The basic rules I'd give are:

- Use a lap that is at least twice as long as the plane (helps speed and accuracy)

-Check the sole carefully before beginning. Measure how out of flat it is, record your findings. This will help you know what the lapping is accomplishing.

-Use a coarse PSA sandpaper, decent quality aluminium oxide. 80 grit is good. Get a long roll (say 4" wide), because you need to...

-Change the paper extremely often. 80 grit will be cutting like fresh 320 grit after a couple of minutes. Seriously, you need to change the paper after no more than 5 minutes of lapping, probably sooner. Complaints about extremely long lapping sessions are related to not doing this, I suspect.

-Hold the plane just like you are going to take a shaving off a piece of wood, and push the plane in a straight line with normal planing pressure. Don't bear down and don't vary pressure front and back, keep it consistent. Only push the plane, lift it up on the back stroke. Don't go back and forth, don't do circular motions or figure 8s. Just a straight push. This helps minimize any rocking, which would produce a convex sole. In truth, off of a flat lap you are going to get a slightly convex sole anyways , but that's fine (even preferable IMO) if kept within reason. You don't want it getting out of hand though.

-Check your work periodically, compare with the beginning measurements. You should be improving things. If that's not happening you need to stop and think for a bit.


The larger planes like a #6 through 8 benefit from augmenting the lapping with spot removal of high spots, using a file, small sanding block, or machinists scraper. Use the lap to identify the high spots, and to smooth everything out at the end, but do most of the material removal with the spot removal tool. There is too much surface area on these planes to get much bite on the sandpaper. The paper on the lap needs to be changed even more often for larger planes.

[steven c newman]

Would you prefer the same plane looking like this?
Defiance No. 3, assembled, side.JPG
Defiance No. 3, clean up 1.JPG
Defiance No. 3, clean up 3.JPG
Different plane, same results, same amount of time to do..
Stanley #3 rehab, frog 1.JPG
the before..and...
Stanley #3 rehab, frog set up.JPG
After.
Stanley #3 rehab, shavings 1.JPG
(with the OEM iron and chipbreaker..)

Been rehabbing planes since the late 1980s....might have learned a thing or two....as to what works...and what is "hype"....

[Mike Cornwall]

Mike, It may be more helpful to try to describe what has been 'throwing you off with your jointer plane'. You would be surprised at how many odd behaviors a plane can commit.

It might even be good to start a new post.

It also helps to have your location known. Heck, if you are in the are of the Pacific Northwest you would be welcome to help. If you live in another area there are also other members who have always been willing to help others at getting their plane in working order.

jtk

Thanks Jim, it is out of gratitude and consideration for the people who have shared their valuable expertise with me, and whose kind instruction I am trying to take, that I wasn’t inclined to ask questions on the forum.
Mike siemsen told me to get the plane flat, and though I’ve heard others say it’s not necessary, I proceeded on his generous advice. Why ask if I’m not going to take his word for it?
I get asked for advice on my own field, and when I have shared my point of view, which has cost me plenty to cultivate, and then seen the asker keep asking elsewhere, it’s very discouraging with regard to humanity.

FWIW This thread is in response to my well-intentioned question to OP regarding disassembly of a plane for machining.

[Jim Koepke]

Mike siemsen told me to get the plane flat, and though I’ve heard others say it’s not necessary, I proceeded on his generous advice.

The sole of a plane needs to be flat enough to do its job properly. This is only my opinion and nothing more. In my experience if one wants to take super thin shavings with a smoother, having the sole flat enough to allow the blade to take a shaving without downward pressure on the plane's body is an important factor.

If a plane's sole is slightly concave, it might require the blade to be extended out of the mouth before it engages the wood. Once it does engage, the principles of physics will cause the blade to dig in an pull a much thicker shaving.

A convex sole will cause a different problem depending on how the arc aligns in relationship to the mouth. A little wear at the toe or heel is not going to be as big a problem.

FWIW This thread is in response to my well-intentioned question to OP regarding disassembly of a plane for machining.

There are differences between lapping at home and using machinery to true the sole of a plane. For machine work it may be necessary to disassemble the plane to mount it on a mill or surface grinder. Having never worked with either of these machines my knowledge is zilch.

For me, it is just as easy to lap a plane's sole with the frog in place if there isn't a need to remove it.

If it doesn't make a difference with the frog off, then likewise it won't make a difference with the frog in place.

My expectation about what Tom Bussey is stating in the first post of this thread is that it comes from his years of experience. He has worked on planes for years and has developed a respectable reputation for his work at restoring planes. His results speak for them self.

jtk

[Tom Trees]

Lapping a plane is easy, using an abrasive held down tight onto a surface plate that is longer than the plane's sole will make the plane have a convex profile.
A regular strip of sandpaper cut down halfway that is no wider than the plane, will stay put resting on another self adhesive strip stuck to the surface
plate and will last much longer because the loose grit gets pushed off the paper, so doesn't abrade the rest of the grit off.
Much quicker and cleaner to boot.
Don't trust anyone's advice on YouTube that doesn't get the feelers out in the end.
Shavings are no proof of success unless they're cap iron shavings adjusted to show a narrower shaving still under infulence.I
Tom

[Stewie Simpson]

When flattening the sole it’s important to have the blade in place (but retracted!) and under normal-use compression. This is especially the case with wedged wooden planes but applies to metal planes as well. The pressure applied by the lever cap presses the front of the frog against the sole, creating a slight, but real, bulge. If you flatten without the blade in place, this bulge will appear when you re-install the blade and all bets are off.

My own experience backs that being offered by the Ron Hock.

[Jim Koepke]

[edited]
Shavings are no proof of success unless they're cap iron shavings adjusted to show a narrower shaving still under infulence.
Tom

The meaning of the statement above eludes me. Can it be stated in a different way?

On a recent lapping of a #3 for another SMC member the final test shavings were made by pushing on the bottom of the tote without applying downward pressure on the plane. My recollection is it took a shaving under 0.001". Before the lapping the plane profile was convex from heel to toe. Before working on the sole it was almost impossible to take a controlled shaving with this plane.

In my opinion a plane should be able to take a controlled shaving through a full range of what the plane is used to do. It may be impressive for a jointer to take a sub thou shaving, but it isn't a requirement for its intended purpose. If a jointer had troubles taking 2 or 3 thousandths of an inch shavings, then my advice might be to find the cause and to see what could correct the situation.

jtk

[steven c newman]

Have done a hundred or so planes each way.....can't tell a bit of difference, either way.....

[Tom Trees]

I have noticed a heavier cut on the start of the work using a plane that is convex, leading to inaccuracy.
It becomes a lot more noticeable working on shorter stock with gnarly grain, whilst starting the cut with an iron that's needing a hone.
What should be a narrow shaving might not be if using a close set cap iron.
If one isn't used to using the cap fully, then my comment won't make sense, as its easy to take consistent narrow shavings with a convex sole,
if the cap iron is set further back than a 32", but try getting the same consistency with the cap iron's influence on some dense timbers and it becomes a problem.

I think the cap iron effect is useful and near essential for all my planes apart from a rough no.4.
Tom

[Jim Koepke]

What should be a narrow shaving might not be if using a close set cap iron.

Tom, by narrow do you mean what most people would call thin?

To me the descriptor 'narrow' is used in relation to the width of a shaving.

its easy to take consistent narrow shavings with a convex sole

This would be dependent on the geometry of the sole. With a hump in front of the mouth, it could be a bit tricky.

jtk

[Tom Trees]

Tom, by narrow do you mean what most people would call thin?

To me the descriptor 'narrow' is used in relation to the width of a shaving.



This would be dependent on the geometry of the sole. With a hump in front of the mouth, it could be a bit tricky.

jtk

Narrow, as in the width and thin, near fully influenced shavings, that can take a consistent shaving up through the middle of a
perfectly planed up piece.

Much different ballgame than an uninfluenced tearout prone setting on its lightest cut.
as there is not really any room atall for deciding cambers and its the depth adjustment that dictates the width of shaving.
Important if you want the slightest hollow for gluing up.

And regards to a convex plane in length, I wouldn't jump to mention a hump in front of the mouth as the problem I have noticed, no doubt that is another issue that one might have in relation to excessive blade projection, which might bring a plane to a halt or come close to it.
We could be describing the same thing though.
More of a matter of the plane not registering on the work until the cut is established.
Upon resharpening and advancing the cutter, I can see the back of the mouth somewhat, which probably shouldn't be visible.
These things only become more apparent when the cap iron's involved.
I would have never noticed that as being an issue before I used it to its potential.


Tom

[Anuj Prateek]

The meaning of the statement above eludes me. Can it be stated in a different way?

On a recent lapping of a #3 for another SMC member the final test shavings were made by pushing on the bottom of the tote without applying downward pressure on the plane. My recollection is it took a shaving under 0.001". Before the lapping the plane profile was convex from heel to toe. Before working on the sole it was almost impossible to take a controlled shaving with this plane.

In my opinion a plane should be able to take a controlled shaving through a full range of what the plane is used to do. It may be impressive for a jointer to take a sub thou shaving, but it isn't a requirement for its intended purpose. If a jointer had troubles taking 2 or 3 thousandths of an inch shavings, then my advice might be to find the cause and to see what could correct the situation.

jtk

This was probably my plane that you fixed.

Yup, micrometer showed < 0.001" shaving after you lapped the plane, sharpened the blade and fixed cap iron (which I had spoiled).

It still takes ~0.001" shavings and leaves surface glassy. Variance due to operator

After seeing you lap, I bought a cheap block plane from eBay I tried lapping it. Turned out okayish. I use it for rough flushing now.

I think, one should lap their nice planes themselves if and only if they are experienced and know what they are doing. Rest should practice on $10 planes or seek help.