Member
If your Stanley plane has the original blade its likely not an issue because the thinner blade should allow the lever cap to generate a small amount of concavity over the frog surface. If you have changed from the original Stanley blade to a thicker version being offered, their may be some issues you haven't considered.
Contributor
Maybe if you are real good with a file. Otherwise lapping on a flat surface with abrasive papers is likely a better and easier way to go about cleaning the frog face.So it's worth while filing the frog face,
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
It is a poor idea to file or abrade the frog without first identifying some performance problem with the plane that the operation is likely to solve. It would be like getting a hip replacement before learning to walk.Originally Posted by Ray Selinger
Machining mistakes? Just what are you talking about? I have used but one Bailey smoother for 35 years. It has done a beautiful job of planing everything set before it. I have never checked the machining on the frog. What is the point?
Contributor
In other words, if it ain't broke, don't try fixing it.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
I think he's talking about some of the post-WWII cr*p where they "value engineered" some of the post-machining steps in the manufacturing process.
Totally agree about not fixing stuff that isn't broke, I've been trying to say that for this entire thread.
[OP]
Member
Casting iron leaves stresses in the casting. As the casting ages the stress works itself out. Heating will also stress relieve a casting. If you machine a green casting , it will move after machining, like green wood. Almost as far! That's the reason you have to lap the sole of planes is green castings. I have a couple of Canadian made Stanleys from Roxton Pond , a blue #4 and maroon #5, they are both flat and square. Well made planes, so it is possible.
I'm retired ,now, but I worked as a millwright . I don't know how much time over the years I've spent fixing machine shop screw ups with a file.Yeah, I can use a file.
Member
Hmm, all of the data I've seen say that cast iron doesn't creep much at room temperature even when internally pre-stressed nearly to yield, so I'm not convinced about the stress working itself out over time.
What you say about machining non-stress-relieved castings is very true, though. What happens there is that the stress distribution within the casting is non-uniform, so when you machine away part of the casting you change the stress distribution and that causes the remainder of it to warp. As a modern and extremely simple example, all of my Narex chisels tend to self-dub a tiny bit at the very tip when their bevels are reground. I'm almost certain that this happens because Narex's hardening process leaves the surface of the tool loaded in tension and the center in compression. When you grind the bevel you therefore change the force balance at and just behind the new edge, leading to dubbing. It only impacts the very tip because the remainder of the tool is so thick that the changed stress distribution doesn't cause detectable strain.
With that said, a frog is an extremely simple and "compact" geometry compared to a plane body or even a chisel. I doubt those warp very much during machining, both because the residual stress in such a simple casting shouldn't be all that high and because the geometry is inherently stiff and the amount of material removed is very small relative to the volume.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 10-28-2016 at 3:56 PM.
[OP]
Member
I've seen a couple of frog faces that were seriously concave across the width You see the machine marks on the face, and since it's not even, it's not a machine set-up error, you then have to assume it moved after machining. Most times though,it only takes a token stroke or two on the frog face.Jim is right, you have to be careful with the file. You see it most on the sole of some planes, the out line of the shrinkage. By the time I rescue a plane, they are well aged ! It's all understandable. From a business point of view, it doesn't make sense to have product in process for any amount of time. That's money sitting without earning interest. Bean counters freak.
Narex uses a single heat treating, that why they are inexpensive for what you get.
Member
Indeed. IMO one of the single-biggest plusses of the modern higher-end planes (LV, LN, etc) is that they stress-relieve their castings before machining. As you say a volume player like Stanley back in the day would have been hard-pressed to do that and still hit their cost targets.
Yep. Narex integrates tempering with the main heat treatment (interrupted quenching). In theory that should lead to fairly low internal stresses, but only if they interrupt the quench for long enough to achieve uniform temperature. I bet their bean counters convinced them to take a teeny shortcut.
Member
As I asked yesterday, what is the point? I still have not heard a single problem that refining the frog is supposed to address. If you don't have the skill to discern improvement, what kind of job are you going to do? It sounds to me like a big lack of connection between real world planing experience and corrections to the manufacture.
You can refine the frog to the 9th degree, but if you design a cap iron without first learning how to use one, you cannot expect a high level of performance. If you use a steel that was designed for can openers for a plane iron, what kind of results can you then expect? If the manufacturers barely know how to use a plane, how can they not spend resources on things that are unimportant while neglecting those things that are important?
Member
Hi Warren; can you expand your thoughts further. The disconnect between knowledge by the manufacturer and proper use of the hand plane sounds intriguing.You can refine the frog to the 9th degree, but if you design a cap iron without first learning how to use one, you cannot expect a high level of performance. If you use a steel that was designed for can openers for a plane iron, what kind of results can you then expect? If the manufacturers barely know how to use a plane, how can they not spend resources on things that are unimportant while neglecting those things that are important?
Stewie;
Member
If you look up the thread you'll see that I've been agreeing with you all along (don't mess with it unless there's a clear performance problem) and Ray basically agreed several posts back. At this point we're just having a nice friendly back-and-forth about manufacturing processes.
Tying the two subthreads together, IMO Narex is a good example of a manufacturer who doesn't entirely understand the tools they make. These are after all the folks who shelled out $$$ for CNC stitching machines that presumably allow individual tooth placement, and promptly used them to make rasps with regular toothing.
Last edited by Patrick Chase; 10-29-2016 at 10:49 AM.
[OP]
Member
Warren, as I first mentioned, my expertise is in machinery repair and set up. So when I see a woebegone plane ( chisels, braces,and handsaws as well) at the fleamarket for $5 or $10 , I can't help myself. It does have to have good bones,though.BTW, the post WW2 Stanleys I think when fixed, are better planes. I expect to fix things to be at the very least as good as new,or by either by proper fitting or modifying better than new. I have a saying "Sweat the details and the big picture takes care of itself." A frog's face and it's bed are two such details.
To be perfectly honest, it's a fool's errand. Buy a a Vertas and make shavings.
Member
I think you're misunderstanding Warren. He doesn't think that the *new* manufacturers know what they're doing. He's particularly enamored of LN and their choice to only offer A2 irons in their planes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote