No5 Jack How much is too much

[Bluekingfisher]

This Stanley No5 arrived in the post yesterday, one of my recent eBay winnings.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/321417793856? ... 1439.l2649.

I reckon the plane is a 2005 model but it was clear it has never been used, so in effect a brand new plane.So, with my new found hand plane fettling skills I was set to tuning it up. Apart from needing the blade flattened etc the sole has a bow in it from front to back, well the middle 2/3 section at least. I can just about get a 0.8mm feeler gauge into the gap.

It also rocks very slightly at diagonal corners. I could insert a 0.5 mm feeler gauge at both corners although, apart from that (an the fact the handles are plastic) everything else seems ok.

Is the issue with the sole going to cause problems by taking that amount of metal off or is that gap with accepted tolerances for a newish Stanley. I ask as all my others are old, whereby previous guardians have previously flattened the sole.

One other thing. The blade iron, like the rest of it was untouched and a little rough around the gills however, it is a little thicker than the older blade irons. What is the quality of the metal like on newer blades?

Much appreciated

David

 

[bugbear]

..the sole has a bow in it from front to back, well the middle 2/3 section at least. I can just about get a 0.8mm feeler gauge into the gap.

It also rocks very slightly at diagonal corners. I could insert a 0.5 mm feeler gauge at both corners although...

I do most of my precision metal work thinking in thou's, since I've read lots of 1900-1940s books. Converting says that you have a 30 thou banana - the much repeated British spec is 3.

You have much filing (or something...) ahead of you.

BugBear

 

[Vann]

This Stanley No5 arrived in the post yesterday, one of my recent eBay winnings.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/321417793856? ... 1439.l2649.

I reckon the plane is a 2005 model but it was clear it has never been used, so in effect a brand new plane.

I'm at work at present, and ebay etc are blocked, so I can't look at the auction photos. However...

I can just about get a 0.8mm feeler gauge into the gap.

It also rocks very slightly at diagonal corners. I could insert a 0.5 mm feeler gauge at both corners although, apart from that (an the fact the handles are plastic) everything else seems ok.

Is the issue with the sole going to cause problems by taking that amount of metal off or is that gap with accepted tolerances for a newish Stanley.

I don't know that accepted tolerances for a fit-for-purpose jack plane are any different now from a hundred years ago. It's only manufacturing tolerances that have changed - and they're not necessarily acceptable anymore...

I believe the last British Stanleys rolled off the production line in 2004, so maybe yours is an early Far-East model?

...all my others are old, whereby previous guardians have previously flattened the sole.

Or the previous guardians didn't have to flatten the soles, as the planes were made to useable standards to start with. Back in the good-olde-days the raw castings were left to season in all weathers for ~ a year to let the stresses relieve themselves before the plane was machined. That didn't always do the trick, but there were a heluva lot less unuseable plane-shaped objects from reputeable manufacturers back then.

One other thing. The blade iron, like the rest of it was untouched and a little rough around the gills however, it is a little thicker than the older blade irons. What is the quality of the metal like on newer blades?

Again, the reputation of modern Stanley etc. irons is not good ("made of cheese" is often quoted). However, the proof is in the eating - you can only try the iron and see how it holds an edge. No point throwing it out until it's soiled its own reputation.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Ah well, for the money I guess I can't complain too much.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

:idea: Buy older ones next time? Other people have good reasons for doing it.

 

[bugbear]

Ah well, for the money I guess I can't complain too much.

In another thread, it was recommended that a beater plane for taking off bark, outer layers (with paint/grit) is useful

BugBear

 

[Bluekingfisher]

:idea: Buy older ones next time? Other people have good reasons for doing it.

I have older planes, certainly the bench planes, this one was purely as bugbear outlines above, as a beater plane for rough work.

I was just interested in establishing what levels of bow or metal removal was acceptable in a plane.

At 20 quid excl p+p it isn't going to change my quality of life, so worth the venture.

 

[SurreyHills]

The challenge with trying to get the sole flat is that you could need to remove a lot of metal and if this from the middle of the plane you will be opening up the mouth. If you have to take too much off you may find there isn't enough metal around the mouth and you end up with a massive opening. If it's from the corners then it will be easier as there's less metal to remove and you won't affect the mouth opening.

 

[GLFaria]

:idea: Buy older ones next time? Other people have good reasons for doing it.

I have older planes, certainly the bench planes, this one was purely as bugbear outlines above, as a beater plane for rough work.

I was just interested in establishing what levels of bow or metal removal was acceptable in a plane.

At 20 quid excl p+p it isn't going to change my quality of life, so worth the venture.

Well, if you do decide on straightening it, it wil certainly change your quality of life, at least while you are at it! :lol: . Think of lots of beer (or tea if you'd rather).
At least, you will end with a much lighter plane ; the sole might end a bit on the thin side for stiffness, though...

I am pretty sure my old Handyman, which I bought in the early 70's, wasn't that much off, and it took me days, like a week or so, to get it flat with heavy-grit emery cloth - I think I started at P60.

 

[Graham Orm]

I have a plastic handled #5 which 'now' cuts as sweetly as any I have used. Like yours the sole had a hollow but didn't rock. I got mine for a song and so had nothing to lose by being a bit drastic with tuning methods. I have a sanding belt that's long enough to take the full length of the plane. I used that with a very coarse grit to get the hollow out. After some more flattening by hand just to clean up really, it instantly made it into a working tool. Finer tweaking to chip breaker, frog and blade has made it a superb tool. I have 2 other well tuned Stanley #5's (A 1910 and a 1930's), but always reach for my plastic handles by choice. To look at, I can't find a difference between them but it just seems easier to keep on the money. It cuts fine and evenly.

When flattening, remember to keep the frog and blade in place with the blade wound back so that the stresses on the sole are not changed.

 

[Random Orbital Bob]

this one was purely as bugbear outlines above, as a beater plane for rough work.

Given it's role is dedicated to one particularly non precision task I don't see any need to flatten the sole. A rough tool for a rough job is fine so unless you want to go through the exercise purely for the learning, I'd be inclined to let it be and perhaps pick up an older one and fettle that.

 

[bugbear]

When flattening, remember to keep the frog and blade in place with the blade wound back so that the stresses on the sole are not changed.

I can just about believe that tightening the frog screws down, where the screws pull up on the sole between two outer contact points on the frog could just about distort the sole.

I struggle rather more to believe that tighting up the finger operated cam can generate enough pressure to distort the sole; amongst other things, it would first have to distort the frog (which is a pretty much massive blob of cast iron) enough that the frog (in turn) distorts the sole.

In short, yeah, have the frog in place, but don't worry too much about blade can lever cap.

Next time I've got my surface plate blued up, I'll try to remember to actually do this experiment.

BugBear

 

[Bluekingfisher]

Thanks again boys, invaluable advice.

 

[MMUK]

£48 new on Amazon so not too bad a deal I guess

I have two of these, one a freebie from a friend and the other I bought new about 15 years ago for under £30. Both have the same rear handle repair on the front screw (a common failure so I'm told) but the quality is OK, they are both definitely UK made and pre-2000. The blades are good on them too.

In contrast, my Amazon ex-display bargain (under £23) 4 1/2 has pocks all over the casting so at the moment is not suitable as a finishing plane and will need some work.....

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Don't forget if you're worried about "pocks" in the castings - the corrugated soled ones have huge "pocks".

 

[Harbo]

Yes but their pocks are in straight lines

Rod

 

[woodbrains]

I can just about believe that tightening the frog screws down, where the screws pull up on the sole between two outer contact points on the frog could just about distort the sole.

I struggle rather more to believe that tighting up the finger operated cam can generate enough pressure to distort the sole; amongst other things, it would first have to distort the frog (which is a pretty much massive blob of cast iron) enough that the frog (in turn) distorts the sole.

In short, yeah, have the frog in place, but don't worry too much about blade can lever cap.

Next time I've got my surface plate blued up, I'll try to remember to actually do this experiment.

BugBear

Hello,

You are absolutely right. Tensioning a blade while sole flatting is an artefact from woodies, where this is essential. There is no stress transferred from the blade assy to the sole in a Bailey plane. The frog screws do however, so definitely leave the frog mounted.

If you have a lot of metal to remove from order the frog area, be careful how thin it gets here. The mouth widening thing is not a worry, as the frog can be moved forwards to compensate. But, the iron beneath the frog is thinner than the rest of the sole, so take care how far you go. The frog screws will distort the area here beyond fixing, if it gets thin enough.
Mike.

 

[Graham Orm]

When flattening, remember to keep the frog and blade in place with the blade wound back so that the stresses on the sole are not changed.

I can just about believe that tightening the frog screws down, where the screws pull up on the sole between two outer contact points on the frog could just about distort the sole.

I struggle rather more to believe that tighting up the finger operated cam can generate enough pressure to distort the sole; amongst other things, it would first have to distort the frog (which is a pretty much massive blob of cast iron) enough that the frog (in turn) distorts the sole.

In short, yeah, have the frog in place, but don't worry too much about blade can lever cap.

Next time I've got my surface plate blued up, I'll try to remember to actually do this experiment.

BugBear

Fair comment BB I'm reciting what I've learned and what I've done. It worked, but who's to say it wouldn't have without the frog & blade in place. I'd be really interested to hear the outcome of your test.

 

[Graham Orm]

Speaking of pocks & grooves, I have polished plane soles to a chrome like finish, it doesn't work. It causes drag and although a little candle wax cures it, the act of polishing the sole in order to make it slide more easily isn't worth the effort.

 

[Corneel]

Unbelievable, isn't it? How Stanley dares to bring something like that to the market. I am certainly not in the flat sole brigade, but this is rediculous, even for a #5, and shouldn't have been neccessary in the first place.

When you do decide to make it a little flatter, I'd use a file first to remove the worst. But I am a little bit afraid that removing almost a mm will weaken the body too much. Depends where it needs to be removed.

Of course, don't worry about the mouthsize. It's a roughing plane after all.