Frog Position Question

[Joe A Faulkner]

I have never had amazing results with my type 9 no. 4 smoother when working figured grain. Even if I set the chip breaker super close, I still experienced tear out. I decided to give a modern blade and chip breaker upgrade a chance. I bought the LV PM-V11 blade and chip breaker a try. I normally set the frog such that the ramp is co-planer with the slope of the back side of the mouth. However, to get the thicker blade and tightly set chip breaker to project, I had to backup the frog a bit. This feels wrong, as now the blade is not riding on the full length of the frog's ramp.

I got great results, but it feels wrong. I probably need to open up the mouth of the plane a bit so I can move the frog closer to the front and allow the blade to rest fully on the ramp.

Am I correct in thinking it is better to support the blade by the full face of the frog ramp rather than have it supported by the back of the mouth and one point of contact on the frog?

[Rick Malakoff]

Joe, what a great question I hope somebody has an answer.
Rick

[Jim Koepke]

[edited]
I got great results, but it feels wrong. I probably need to open up the mouth of the plane a bit so I can move the frog closer to the front and allow the blade to rest fully on the ramp.

Am I correct in thinking it is better to support the blade by the full face of the frog ramp rather than have it supported by the back of the mouth and one point of contact on the frog?

In my opinion, yes it is better to file the mouth a little bit and reset the frog so the blade is supported by the full face of the frog plus the back of the mouth.

Remember, the base casting is soft and files fast. It doesn't take much filing to do a lot of opening.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

Am I correct in thinking it is better to support the blade by the full face of the frog ramp rather than have it supported by the back of the mouth and one point of contact on the frog?

Joe, the frog never supports all the blade in a BD plane. There is the area of the bevel where it angles out. I grind BD blades at 30 degrees, so the angle is sufficient for the bevel to project over the back of the mouth. Ideally, you should be able to pull the blade back a little to increase the mouth side this way.

To use a closed up chipbreaker, it is necessary that the mouth is open enough to pass shavings past the mouth-chipbreaker gap. You may need to open the mouth fractionally for this. Some prefer to do so from the back of the mouth rather than the front as then the mouth can still be closed down if returning to a thinner blade.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

Feels wrong? Perhaps is because it IS wrong?

"Have to replace these "thin" iron with the lastest/greatest THICK iron to cure all the plane's woes" One word about that sort of.....stuff. Crutch

Maybe a slightly sharper iron? Maybe a slightly different technique in using the plane. Like reading the grain,maybe?

That "too thin " iron has worked quite well for the last....100+ years. Until some marketing fellow decided to sell those fat irons?

"Thick iron to reduce chatter" Marketing hype. About the same with tear out cures, or maybe rubbing some Snake Oil on the wood first?

I current #4 sized planes are a Stanley #4c, type 20, and a Millers Falls No.9, type four. 99% tear out free, using the original irons. ( welcome to come here and try them out)Chipbreaker is set at 1mm from the edge. bevel down, single bevel, no back bevel. Frog and ramp are coplannar support right down to the start of the bevel. Planes are push at a skew ( slight) so they can slice their way across all the knots I usually encounter. I also tend to read the grain. None of that plow full speed straight ahead regardless of what the grain is doing.

There is one other problem dropping a thicker iron into an older plane......that little tab at the end of the depth adjustment yoke......somehow, it would still have to poke up through that thick chunk of iron and engage the chipbreaker's slot, and do it over the full range of depth settings without popping back out.

Andrew P. on this site asked me why his No. 4 with a thick iron wasn't allowing shavings to exit the plane.....plane's mouth wasn't designed for that thickness of blade. The plane choked on any shaving it could cut. Dropped in a normal iron, worked just fine.

Your plane......YMMV.

[Derek Cohen]

Yes, but ... Steven, can you offer some practical help to the OP at all? Curmudgeon rants do not.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

I would file the mouth. Use a square and a scriber and scratch a line just in front of the existing mouth. Then file until the line is just barely gone. It's a job of just a few minutes because gray cast iron files like butter.

And I prefer to line the back of the mouth up with the frog for the most stable bedding of the iron. Well, until I bought pre WW I Stanley planes, which are rather different in this area.

[Pat Barry]

There should be a small bit of clearance between the bevel and the back edge of the mouth, not much mind you, just enough that the bevel doesn't ride on the mouth. It should not be supported by the back of the mouth - this would create drag and make adjustments more difficult. Since you already invested in a better blade, you should be willing to make the needed adjustment to the mouth opening as required. Like Derek mentioned, the back of the mouth doesn't need to be coplanar with the face of the frog.

[Kees Heiden]

Well, I don't agree with that. Especially with thin irons, you need the best support as low as possible. And that is the little bit of the sole at the rear of the mouth. I can't feel any difference in how the plane adjusts which is mostly controlled by the lever cap screw tension anyway.

Maybe with one of these thick aftermarket irons it doesn't matter as much.

[Stewie Simpson]

Leonard Bailey will be turning in his grave.

[Derek Cohen]

... I decided to give a modern blade and chip breaker upgrade a chance. I bought the LV PM-V11 blade and chip breaker a try...

Joe, it will work and work well.

Here is one of my favourite planes a UK-made Stanley #3 I inherited from my FIL. A few years ago I upgraded it with a PM-V11 and chipbreaker ...



Not only will it work (and well) with this blade, but it also works with a Clifton hammered O1 blade, which is the same thickness as a LN blade ..



Both these blades give this plane a very solid feel. The difference with a LN #3 (I have a bronze version) is the Stanley is lighter and has more slack in the adjuster. They produce identical results.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

Will he be crying...or just laughing his rearend off....

[Pat Barry]

Leonard Bailey will be turning in his grave.

He probably has been for 100 years. Why did he use such thin irons anyway?

[Kees Heiden]

Plenty thick enough and quick and easy to sharpen.

[Joe A Faulkner]

Thanks for the various perspectives on this. I was leaning towards opening the mouth by filing the front of the mouth - per Rob Cossman you tube on the subject. The front of the mouth is in pretty good shape but not as crisp as a new plane. I'll probably first work to tune that a little, and take it from there.

I also want to re-hone the original blade and try it with the LV cap iron just to see how it compares the LV PM-V11 blade.