LumberJocks

Frog to Receiver fit

  • Advertise with us

« back to Hand Tools forum

Forum topic by cbass posted 07-10-2016 10:52 PM 454 views 0 times favorited 21 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View cbass's profile

cbass

13 posts in 177 days


07-10-2016 10:52 PM

I picked up a Wards master plane that I am working on restoring. I noticed that the frog to receiver fit seems a little loose. I don’t have much experience with planes.

Is this supposed to be a tighter fit or is it as expected?


21 replies so far

View Tim's profile

Tim

3114 posts in 1425 days


#1 posted 07-11-2016 12:03 AM

The better that fit is the better it will perform. First check for paint on the mating surfaces. There shouldn’t be any but sometimes there is. Otherwise you can either file it carefully or use valve grinding compound. Make sure you get it as square to the mouth as possible. Use prussian blue or similar to mark the high spots if you file.

View Don W's profile

Don W

17966 posts in 2032 days


#2 posted 07-11-2016 12:31 AM

And there shouldn’t be paint the any metal to metal mating surfaces, including where the blade seats against the frog.

http://www.timetestedtools.net/2016/01/26/tuning-it-up-bench-plane-style/

-- Master hand plane hoarder. - http://timetestedtools.net

View bandit571's profile

bandit571

14585 posts in 2147 days


#3 posted 07-11-2016 12:43 AM

Yes, it USED to be a better fit when Millers Falls made it for sears. There used to be two tabs at the bottom of the slot, to engage the rib. This is a Stanley made plane, but about the same vintage…

Ok, I would set the frog close to square to the mouth opening, and tighten ONE bolt. Recheck for square, and tighten the other bolt. Make sure both bolts are as tight as you dare torque them.

A little gap is really no big deal, the iron will cover that area, anyway. IF you really want to, one can buy a better frog at, say …nhplaneparts.com or one of the other suppliers on ebay. Might cost as much as the entire plane cost you…..up to you.

BTW…..you COULD get a pair of those lock washers that look like stars? Just to keep things from moving…

-- A Planer? I'M the planer, this is what I use

View cbass's profile

cbass

13 posts in 177 days


#4 posted 07-11-2016 01:00 AM

Unfortunately, there is paint on the mating surfaces. I am not sure if this is how it came out of the factory or if someone painted it later. It looks like I will have to remove the paint from the frog face as well as the mating surfaces on the sole.

For now I will hold off buying a new frog as i’m not sure if it’s the rib in the receiver that is under size or the slot in the frog that’s oversize. Also, I only paid $15 for this plane so I will work on tuning it first and see how it performs.

View cbass's profile

cbass

13 posts in 177 days


#5 posted 07-11-2016 12:11 PM

I noticed one last thing. It appears the rib in the receiver is not as close to the mouth as in other receivers. Is this of any concern? Will it affect performance or it is a non-issue?

View Tim's profile

Tim

3114 posts in 1425 days


#6 posted 07-11-2016 12:22 PM

I don’t think that’s an issue. If the mating surfaces are good the screws will hold it down fine. Looking at your new pictures its clear the frog and base were painted all over without masking off the mating surfaces, and that’s your problem. You should be able to scrape the mating surfaces with a utility razor. It’s possible you’ll need to paint on some paint stripper.

View rwe2156's profile

rwe2156

2194 posts in 945 days


#7 posted 07-11-2016 01:10 PM

Paint is not an even surface. You need machined surfaces that mate precisely for the plane to perform well.

I would scrape the paint off and flatten the bottom of the frog. Remove paint from sole anywhere the frog makes contact.

Also, the top ribs of the frog also need to have paint removed and flattened.

You’re not dealing with a high quality plane here, so you get it the best you can.

-- Everything is a prototype thats why its one of a kind!!

View bandit571's profile

bandit571

14585 posts in 2147 days


#8 posted 07-11-2016 06:41 PM

Yep, it is a second line plane. Here are a few looks at my second line planes..

This is a Stanley, made for Wards Master Quality #3

Made during WWII, note the hard rubber adjuster knob?

Then there is this Millers Falls made for Craftsman #3

Basically a stripped down Millers Falls No.8. Has no frog adjust screw. Lever cap made for Craftsman, iron stamped for Craftsman. Frog looks a bit different?

Does have a brass logo, though…

As for those high dollar planes with the brass lever caps…..remember this, brass is softer than steel or iron, and will flex. But they shine so nicely…......

Your frog may have been on a Stanley Handyman plane, an earlier model. Those had the “normal” rear handle, not the later stubby contraption. Remove all paint, paint the base black, repaint the frog red. Remove the red from where it would touch anything else. I usually have a cup wire brush in the drill press, and hold it down onto the mounting tabs on the base. (Note: before you paint, add a few drops of oil down any and all threaded holes)

I usually use a belt sander to flatten the frog’s face, and the contact points underneath. Have to take it slow, and check for square a lot. A nice, big file can do the same, but it will just load up with paint.

-- A Planer? I'M the planer, this is what I use

View rwe2156's profile

rwe2156

2194 posts in 945 days


#9 posted 07-12-2016 05:55 PM

You really think that’s a good bearing surface for a frog? I wasn’t condeming the whole line of planes, I was referring to whatever model the OP had.

I don’t know why you and others take so much offense when anything “Stanely”, etal. is criticized in any way. Or why you think they’re some kind of tool snob or something.

You know there is a reason why everyone says get a pre-WWII plane. You also know when Stanley and others started marketing consumer planes starting in the ‘50’s, the quality when down the tubes, that’s why its called the “Stanley downgrade” and that’s why you have vintage planes.

All I’m saying is based on the frog design, it is not a well built tool, but you take that as in insult to all your very nice planes, which I don’t understand.

It doesn’t mean you can’t get it to perform, it just means you’ll get what you got.

Its just my opinion. I’m sorry if it offends you.

-- Everything is a prototype thats why its one of a kind!!

View bandit571's profile

bandit571

14585 posts in 2147 days


#10 posted 07-12-2016 06:46 PM

The frog bearing surface on the two planes the OP showed, the design is fine, as there is three points the frog rests on. Two smaller pads, and where the front edge of the frog rests, right behind the mouth opening. Unless there is a lot of paint on the tabs, system works fine.

The system did COST Stanley a lot less to machine than, say, a Bedrock, and is reflected in the prices charged. Later planes were the worse than these two. The ones that rely on just the two tabs, without the end of the frog touching anything. Usually late model Handyman models. The plane the OP is asking about might have been a Mohawk-Shelbourne by Millers Falls. The base was made by Millers Falls. The red frog was more for the Type 5 and later Millers Falls #900 models…....Mohawk-Shelbourne ended about 1949.

I have one of the M-S planes, in fact. I changed out the UGLY lever cap. Plane is now the same as a Millers Falls No.90. Works almost the same as a M-F #9 smoother. The # 9 I have worked even better than the W-R #4 V3 that used to stay around in my shop. Liked the M-F plane so much, I sold off the W-R plane.

As for the rest of the above post? BFD. I am trying to help out the OP, not trying to sell him a new plane.

-- A Planer? I'M the planer, this is what I use

View Bill White's profile (online now)

Bill White

4454 posts in 3424 days


#11 posted 07-12-2016 07:27 PM

Red paint on a plane is a travesty.
Wanna know how I REALLY feel?
Might as well be polka dots.
Glad I was able to get that off my chest(s).
Bill

-- bill@magraphics.us

View cbass's profile

cbass

13 posts in 177 days


#12 posted 07-12-2016 08:48 PM

Thank you for all the input. I appreciate it. That’s a sincere response.

I am not offended. Even if not a good plane I don’t have much money invested in it. I will just have to remove the paint, flatten the surfaces, and see how it performs.

I am trying to just figure out what I have. This is a Wards Master plane, which I thought they were mostly made by Stanley for Montgomery Wards. However, i’m not sure that it’s made by Stanley. The frog looks like a type 16 or later made by Stanley except someone went nuts with the paint. However, the sole with the spokes inside the knob ring looks like Millers Falls? Furthermore, I am pretty sure the paint was from the factory. I have seen a couple other planes that look like this posted on ebay that also are Red with the frog painted.

I did pick up another Wards Master #5 plane that appears to be better. It has the older style frog.

The frog actually has a Stanley stamped lateral:

But again, the sole knob ring has spokes in it like the pictures i posted. So was it made by Stanley or is it a Frankenplane? I’m not sure. It also has a plastic knob and tote.

View bandit571's profile

bandit571

14585 posts in 2147 days


#13 posted 07-12-2016 09:03 PM

Franken plane. Maybe the Wards planes suffered from a broken base casting and this is a replacement? On the #5, everything from the base up, but not the base itself, is Stanley. Replacement base was from a Millers Falls No.14. As M-F always stamped a model number into the left side, you might want to check for that.

The other plane? Also a Franken…...but, this time, someone replaced the frog. Maybe the OEM one had broken at the lateral lever area? So, they replace the broken one with what they had on hand. Or, another broken Stanley base (usually right at the mouth area) so they replaced the base with one from a Millers Falls plane?

As long as the bolts will hold the frogs in place….sharpen the irons up, and use the planes. Stanley and Millers Falls just about made the same planes. M-F ones being direct knock-offs of Stanley ones.

-- A Planer? I'M the planer, this is what I use

View Don W's profile

Don W

17966 posts in 2032 days


#14 posted 07-12-2016 11:09 PM

You’ve got a miss match of parts. I don’t believe Millers Falls ever made Wards Masters and they certainly didn’t put Stanley laterals on them.

Get the paint off and see if they work. If not I’d start looking for the other right parts.

-- Master hand plane hoarder. - http://timetestedtools.net

View cbass's profile

cbass

13 posts in 177 days


#15 posted 07-12-2016 11:48 PM

It’s possible I have a miss match of parts for the #4, but I have seen a couple plane’s on ebay that seem to look like what I have with red painted frogs and plastic handles sold under wards master. In some you can even see the same 13 cast in as with my frog.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Wards-Master-No-3-Plane-Made-In-U-S-A-Carpenter-Woodworking-Tool-/252450966636?hash=item3ac7400c6c:g:wigAAOSwuhhXUjjQ

http://www.ebay.com/itm/WARDS-MASTER-PLANER-3-/141910906985?hash=item210a8c9869:g:ot8AAOSwezVWy2He

The #5 who knows. That may be a frankenplane. The only odd thing is if it was a stanley frog on a wards master sole then somebody would have had to repaint it red. Looking at other planes listed online it’s common for the wards master planes to have red frogs. Looking at the stanley frogs they typically are black.

showing 1 through 15 of 21 replies

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com