Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16

    Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

    Randy, you fixed the two most important surfaces. I machine the bed surfaces that you touched up with a stone to seat the frog deeper into the body and to support the iron as much as possible. I also lap the face of the frog flat to provide the maximum contact between the frog and the iron. The key element is to get rid of the paint as you did. One other thing that I do is to check the bottom flatness after re-machining the frog seat and lap it if necessary.

    It is nice to see those fine shavings whispering out of your plane!

    Ken

    Comment

    • Thread Continues Below...

    • #17

      Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

      Originally posted by KenL View Post
      Randy, you fixed the two most important surfaces. I machine the bed surfaces that you touched up with a stone to seat the frog deeper into the body and to support the iron as much as possible. I also lap the face of the frog flat to provide the maximum contact between the frog and the iron. The key element is to get rid of the paint as you did. One other thing that I do is to check the bottom flatness after re-machining the frog seat and lap it if necessary.

      It is nice to see those fine shavings whispering out of your plane!

      Ken
      Thanks Ken.
      Cheers
      Randy

      Comment


      • #18

        Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

        Quite a difference in the manufacturing from the Stanley #3 the I recently acquired from my father-in-law. I don't know its age but obviously from a better era as it had those surfaces all machined clean and needed nothing more than a bit of fine tuning after the light rust was cleaned up.

        If you do ever want to try cleaning those mating surfaces more and get them all in contact, I have a milling machine and could take the metal down quicker for you.

        Comment


        • #19

          Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

          Originally posted by Ed in Calgary View Post
          Quite a difference in the manufacturing from the Stanley #3 the I recently acquired from my father-in-law. I don't know its age but obviously from a better era as it had those surfaces all machined clean and needed nothing more than a bit of fine tuning after the light rust was cleaned up.

          If you do ever want to try cleaning those mating surfaces more and get them all in contact, I have a milling machine and could take the metal down quicker for you.
          Thanks Ed. I will keep that in mind. Much appreciated.
          Cheers
          Randy

          Comment


          • #20

            Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

            One point to add to this thread . It isn't only the era . The plane you are fixing is a Stanley Handyman plane, made cheap to sell cheap . if one compares the Bailey line ( which does vary in quality and casting thickness ),the machining and frog adjustment is there.. Again certain models e.g No 1 's never had adjustment screws . Probably a plane like the Anant or Rapier or Record wwould be a better starting point

            Comment


            • #21

              Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

              In a concerted effort to beat this to death, I am posting two pictures. One is the base of an older Stanley #4 model 13 (picture off eBay). The other is from my refurbished Stanley cheapass plane form the 80's or 90's.
              Click image for larger version  Name:	s-l1600.jpg Views:	0 Size:	29.3 KB ID:	1314450 Click image for larger version  Name:	File_006.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	55.1 KB ID:	1314451

              Notice the shape and orientation of the surface that the frog sits on. The older one has a narrow strip running across the plane, which by itself would be tippy and unstable. However, this plane also has two support points near the throat, which would make the whole affair more stable. On mine, it is clear that the design was never intended for the front of the frog to contact near the throat. There is just too much clearance between the frog and the base when the frog is installed. I think they compensated for that loss of stability by making the rear surface longer front to back. Now it would be more stable and less prone to tipping, without relying on the forward support area.

              Clearly an attempt to reduce cost. The old one is a more expensive manufacturing process for sure.

              Just thought I would post these observations. Any comments?
              Last edited by Randy in Calgary; 01-25-2021, 01:13 AM.
              Cheers
              Randy

              Comment

              • Thread Continues Below...

              • #22

                Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                Just speculating but could a wooden block be epoxied in place and finished sized with a file?
                Egon
                from
                The South Shore, Nova Scotia

                Comment


                • #23

                  Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                  Originally posted by Randy in Calgary View Post
                  In a concerted effort to beat this to death, I am posting two pictures. One is the base of an older Stanley #4 model 13 (picture off eBay). The other is from my refurbished Stanley cheapass plane form the 80's or 90's.
                  Click image for larger version Name:	s-l1600.jpg Views:	0 Size:	29.3 KB ID:	1314450 Click image for larger version Name:	File_006.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	55.1 KB ID:	1314451

                  Notice the shape and orientation of the surface that the frog sits on. The older one has a narrow strip running across the plane, which by itself would be tippy and unstable. However, this plane also has two support points near the throat, which would make the whole affair more stable. On mine, it is clear that the design was never intended for the front of the frog to contact near the throat. There is just too much clearance between the frog and the base when the frog is installed. I think they compensated for that loss of stability by making the rear surface longer front to back. Now it would be more stable and less prone to tipping, without relying on the forward support area.

                  Clearly an attempt to reduce cost. The old one is a more expensive manufacturing process for sure.

                  Just thought I would post these observations. Any comments?
                  Well that is interesting. The #3 plane of mine that I mentioned is a Bailey variant (it also bears the Sweet Heart marking on the blade). Now I'm even happier to have it. Now I want to go have another look at the #4 clone that I have to see how it compares in those features.

                  Comment


                  • #24

                    Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                    Originally posted by Ed in Calgary View Post

                    Well that is interesting. The #3 plane of mine that I mentioned is a Bailey variant (it also bears the Sweet Heart marking on the blade). Now I'm even happier to have it. Now I want to go have another look at the #4 clone that I have to see how it compares in those features.
                    Post some pics Ed. I can see how this whole plane thing can suck you in and be a sub-hobby all by itself.
                    Cheers
                    Randy

                    Comment


                    • #25

                      Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                      I have pictures posted in this thread.

                      https://forum.canadianwoodworking.co...fathers-planes

                      Comment


                      • #26

                        Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                        Originally posted by Randy in Calgary View Post
                        So I got to thinking how I could improve on those non-machined interfaces between the frog and the base, I scraped the paint off, and used a fine file on the frog, being careful to keep even pressure on the file and keeping it flat across both surfaces.
                        If you are trying to match two machined surfaces, put a thin layer of wet ink, paint or dye on one , put them together and see where the ink transfers. remove where the ink is, keep doing that until the contact is all across the mating surface transfers. You have now removed only the metal that interfered with a good fit. any other way you will be chasing your tail and guessing where to remove metal and never achieve a great fit. not knocking what you did, but it's a good tip to remember for many situations requiring a good precise fit.

                        Comment

                        • Thread Continues Below...

                        • #27

                          Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                          Originally posted by stickman View Post

                          If you are trying to match two machined surfaces, put a thin layer of wet ink, paint or dye on one , put them together and see where the ink transfers. remove where the ink is, keep doing that until the contact is all across the mating surface transfers. You have now removed only the metal that interfered with a good fit. any other way you will be chasing your tail and guessing where to remove metal and never achieve a great fit. not knocking what you did, but it's a good tip to remember for many situations requiring a good precise fit.
                          Good tip. It's how I fit runners on my table saw sleds. I relied on the flatness of the stone and file to get the surfaces parallel, though this is not as precise as machining. I went by feel for evaluating the fit. It seemed OK, and the plane works better, but I think I will monkey around with it a bit more and do as you suggest.
                          Cheers
                          Randy

                          Comment


                          • #28

                            Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                            My guess is the handyman planes were largely assembled with the raw castings from their other lines. That may be why you had plenty of metal to remove to get the frog to fit the bed . On their better planes they went on to machine the parts. Fancy a part time job at Stanley ? There were also quite a number of versions of the bed and frog detail one of the better ones being the Bedrock series . Well done you will get a lot of satisfaction from your efforts

                            Comment


                            • #29

                              Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                              Randy, Stickman provided some good advice regarding making the parts fit together precisely but you do not want to remove any metal from the frog seat once it is machined flat and parallel to the sole so you work on the frog side of the fit only. The frog has to remain in the same orientation as it is moved forward to close the mouth or aft to open the mouth. Also the frog has to sit flat such that the iron support face is at a 45 degree angle with the bed and not canted or skewed to either side. Bear in mind that just because two surfaces are lapped together to a fine fit, does not mean that they are correctly oriented to execute the mission!

                              Ken
                              Last edited by KenL; 01-26-2021, 03:43 PM.
                              stickman and ErikM like this.

                              Comment


                              • #30

                                Re: Poor quality Stanley Bench Plane

                                RANDY; With the influence of your post I worked over my fifty or so year old Stanley Craftsman plane. It’s made in the US and looks like your second picture. Took it all apart and filed the frog lands as you did. Filed the throat a bit. Put the base on the belt sander and polished it as well as the sides. Flattened the back of the blade on the belt sander as well as the bottom of the frog.polished up and squared the chip breaker. Applied paraffin wax to all the mating surfaces and put it back together. Finished it off by extending the blade a touch and setting the plane on the belt sander. This squared of the blade and made it flat to the base. Works better that it ever has.

                                Thanks for setting an example.
                                Egon
                                from
                                The South Shore, Nova Scotia

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X