Rev-O-Noc #6 Frog to Mouth Spacing
Welcome! / Forums / General Woodworking Discussions / Tools and Tool Maintenance/Restoration / Rev-O-Noc #6 Frog to Mouth Spacing
- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 1 month ago by ehisey.
-
AuthorPosts
-
31 January 2018 at 2:22 am #457978
EDIT: Image sharing fixed, courtesy of GitHub.
So I recently bought my first jack/fore plane. This is my third plane and am maybe a month old in the hobby. A HSB & Co Rev-O-Noc #6. I understand that these seem to be made by Stanley/Union. So it, of course, looks similar to the union planes of the time and Stanley types 6 thru 8. Which is helpful cause that may be a source of parts if need be. Anyway on to the issue (confusion rather)!! Going to try to get some scientific method going on here.
I noticed that the bed of the frog doesn’t line up with the mouth. In fact the leading edge sits a good 3-4mm’s back preventing the blade from extending past the sole to any degree.
now i had some room to move the frog forward. but a few things were observed at this point.
1: the leading edge of the frog’s bed does not contact the plane. In fact the space from the frog’s base point to the mouth is sloped downward. So this leads me to believe the space is deliberate and the frog is meant to sit back a bit or the wrong size frog some how.
2: with the frog completely forward and blade installed the blade actually reaches just past the sole but does not leave enough room in the mouth to pass the equivalent shaving. In fact the space is <= 1mm as demonstrated by the pocket straight edge I placed in the space.
So to come to some kind of well directed hypothesis I took a look at the styling of the frog and plane using images of it’s Union and Stanley cousins as references. As you can see the styling of the frog matches the plane body and the width matches the planes purpose. So unless the #5 has a shorter frog than the #6 and I by some crazy inconvenient coincidence have the wrong frog, I believe it’s the correct frog.
So I took a look at the size of the plane iron and it’s a monster tapering from reasonable at the back to ungodly at the cutting end.
Problem is it still doesn’t go past the sole without ramming the plane base or being positioned such that it’s not in full contact with the bed.
So conclusion is:
A: Wrong size frog (personally: doubtful)
B: The space is compensation for the plane iron but the iron requires a finer angle to draw out the blade past the sole. (personally: likely)
- This topic was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Alan Jurisich.
- This topic was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Alan Jurisich.
- This topic was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Alan Jurisich.
- This topic was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Alan Jurisich.
- This topic was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Alan Jurisich.
- This topic was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Alan Jurisich.
- This topic was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Alan Jurisich.
- This topic was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Alan Jurisich.
31 January 2018 at 3:05 am #458019So i guess the whole point of all this is…What’s y’all’s opinion on the matter? The plane feels wonderful, has a good weight. The bits seem well made and I’m looking forward to doing a strip, repaint, and oil on the bugger.
Am I waisting my time on this guy?
31 January 2018 at 5:04 am #458095The plane looks equivalent to the Stanley frog seat designs from 1888-1902. The three pads is the same, anyway. My favorite #4 is that style. It should have a much thinner iron, and they weren’t tapered.
See below my 1892 patent iron and the position of the frog, which despite being set back, yields a fairly tight mouth. No way, for example, could I open it up to use as a scrub plane without some blacksmithing.
And I don’t believe the front of the frog on this style is intended to seat on the plane body. All the machined bearing surfaces are the three flat pads. The area by the mouth wasn’t machined. Mine still has some Japaning there. ( it looks like your plane body was not machined there either.)
Grind the blade to a finer angle so it clears the sole and then put a secondary bevel on the plane iron at a more standard angle.
Or buy a thinner Stanley iron. They are cheap, and you might be able to use the thick iron on another plane.
Or you could file the rear of the mouth to clear the thicker iron. Not my favorite solution.
- This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Larry Geib.
- This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Larry Geib.
Attachments:
You must be logged in to view attached files.31 January 2018 at 7:52 am #458162I have to agree with Larry, a Stanley iron and cap iron will solve your problem. I don’t think the iron you have (and cap iron I suspect) were ever intended for your plane. I have only ever seen tapered irons in wooden planes but I am hardly an expert!
I’m sure if you change it then you will have a great plane.
Regards
Craig
31 January 2018 at 2:59 pm #458481I’ve done a bit more searching around the web targeting the tapered iron and revonoc. Found a good bit on it, particularly from sawmill creek.
Apparently this setup was not uncommon from these planes and was intended from the manufacturer. Which explains the addition of the 3-4mm flat the arched frog never touches (just learned the name of that sloped style frog base, super fancy over here).
Regardless I’m going to try out a flat blade but I’m still going to go with re-honing the blade angle.
Thanks folks. Y’all’s comments got me thinking and learning. Anything else y’all got would be welcomed.
Al
Alan, I just compared your pictures to an old Rev-O-Noc No.5 1/2 that I have and noticed a couple of things.
First, your plane appears to have properly matched parts. At least they are the same as those on mine except for the size difference. This combination works fine on my plane.
If the blade is properly ground (25-30 degrees) it ought to work.
Dave
- This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by Dave Ring.
3 February 2018 at 3:24 am #460907Dave, you’re definitely right on that point.
Finally got around to regrinding the blade and it works beautifully. Sadly it planes smoother than my Union No 4. Looks like I need to show my Smoother some love in the maintenance area. Ought to perform better now that I can save the blade from material removal now that I have this brute.
Alan
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.