Mouth too wide on Australian Stanley #4

[snafuspyramid]

Now that I've finally managed to get the irons satisfactorily sharp, the soles flat (more or less, at least in the relevant areas), I've been trying to set up my smoothers to take a very fine shaving.

I've got two, both Stanleys, one English made and one Australian made.

The Australian one is generally in better nick (for one thing, the sole doesn't have strips of pink painted on it?) and has a slightly heavier casting, although I notice that the English one doesn't have japanning on the frog mating surfaces (although that might be because a subsequent user removed it) while the Australian version does.

The main difference, however, is the size of the mouth. The Australian version is about 20% larger. This isn't a user modification; I can tell from the japanning. I assumed this wouldn't be an issue, since the extra width is "behind the blade"; that is to say, the leading edge is at the same spot, relative to the frog.

But for the life of me, I can't seem to adjust it satisfactorily. I can't move the frog forward enough to get a sufficiently fine mouth.

Is this a common issue? Is there something else I can do to remedy the issue? Or is this one going to be my scrub plane (nice wide mouth, after all)?

[snafuspyramid]

This photo should perhaps explain what I mean about the mouth.

[Scribbly Gum]

Looks like a candidate for a thicker blade to me. Sometimes the mouth casting on planes is simply too wide to allow for a fine mouth adjustment.
If you already have a fine mouth on the other plane you can use it as the smoother, and as you have observed the wide mouth plane can be used for something else - scrubbing etc.
Cheers
SG

PS out of interest there should be no japanning on the frog and base mating surfaces to allow for proper seating of these together. You may have to do some fettling to get the japanned ones to mate correctly

[snafuspyramid]

I imagine you're quite right that a new blade would tighten the mouth, but I'm reluctant to go that way until I'm certain that that's the problem.

Here are two photos, showing the smallest mouths I can manage on the planes (the larger opening shows the Australian, the smaller is the English). The mouths are actually nice and square; I'm not sure why they don't appear that way in the photograph.

Are these openings alright for a smoother, or should I try going finer still?

The second photo shows the pinkish paint I was talking about earlier. Anybody know what it's there for, or how best to get rid of it?

[Scribbly Gum]

Those don't look too bad. The English plane should give finer shavings. I did a quick measure on my screen and it looks like even the Australian plane has a mouth set to around 1/25 inch.
Now smoothers should be set finer than this. You will find that the mouth will get smaller as you advance the blade and I can't tell from the pictures if the blade is in the cutting position.
The reason I suggested a thicker blade was that these have more resistance to chatter when the frog is moved forward. Also some woodies buy a thicker blade and find that they have to open the mouth by filing to accommodate it. I don't like this, but if your plane already has a wide mouth it is an obvious solution.
Why don't you get the English plane setup for smoothing and see how well it performs. You might find it is quite satisfactory.
As for the paint, it is probably residue from planing pink fascia or something like that. It'll wear off with use.
Cheers
SG

[Scribbly Gum]

Just to help out with mouth openings - as it turns out I have been doing some smoothing this morning.
The blade is now dull and needs a hone but before I take it out here is a picture of my setup. It is a woodie but same principle applies as to yours.

[Vann]

The mouths on my older planes are mostly between 4.40mm and 4.75mm. I have a few - mostly more recent - planes that have mouths around 5.5mm and a 1990s Record-Marples with a 6.25mm mouth.

As SG says, there should be no japanning on the frog seats. This is an economy measure as the quality of planes dropped. You should sand these contact surfaces back to bare metal, then check to see if the frog rocks, and fettle accordingly. To sand the contact surfaces, I use W&D paper glued to a small flat stick.

Try the Aussie Stanley with the wider gap, vrs the UK Stanley. If you want better results than you get, I'm with SG. A thicker iron will both close the gap AND help eliminate chatter.

But try them both with their present gaps. You may not need to splash out on a thicker iron. Don't be afraid to swap the irons between the planes to be sure it's the plane, not the iron, that's causing any problems that may occur. HTH.

Cheers, Vann.

[snafuspyramid]

That's certainly quite a bit finer than the opening I can manage on my Stanleys.

In the photos I took, the blades were both in the cutting position.

It seems curious to me that neither plane would be capable for a super-fine mouth opening (although I notice that the 1910 era Stanley jack I have can do it), since the whole purpose of the plane is smoothing. Is the something I'm missing? I was under the impression that the Australian versions tend to be very good quality, at least compared to the English. Were people less fussy back then? I have to admit that I've tried both smoothers and thought the results are quite alright, but still not what I'm looking for.

Once I get my bench up, the first thing I'd like to do is make myself some wooden planes - especially a smoother and a jointer. Mainly because I've decided I should stop spending so much money on the metal ones

As an aside, where can the brass insert in front of the mouth of the plane you've got there be found (or how can it be made)? Wouldn't flattening the plane sole be difficult if it's composed of different materials? And, wouldn't a wooden plane require frequent flattening because of wood's tendency to shift, eventually opening the mouth too much for a smoother?

A lot of questions in there I know

[Scribbly Gum]

As an aside, where can the brass insert in front of the mouth of the plane you've got there be found (or how can it be made)? Wouldn't flattening the plane sole be difficult if it's composed of different materials? And, wouldn't a wooden plane require frequent flattening because of wood's tendency to shift, eventually opening the mouth too much for a smoother?

Yes frequent flattening of a wooden sole will open the mouth.
My woodie was made by Terry Gordon and the wood is very hard - Cooktown Ironwood I think. The sole comes flat - and I mean really flat. I have never had to dress it. I don't think it will need dressing in the near future either.
The brass insert isn't essential for a wooden smoother as there have been many thousands made without them.
Follow Vann's advice and give the two smoothers a go with each other's blades and see if that makes any difference.
Cheers
SG

[snafuspyramid]

I'd already tried swapping over the blades, and then swapping the chip breakers, to see if that made any difference, without success.

However, I swapped the entire frogs around. Success!

I'm not quite sure what the difference is, but it might have something to do with the fact that the washers on the frog bolts are much wider on the Australian version, so prevent the bolt sliding to its possible extreme within the adjustment slots. (If that makes sense).

But that can't be the whole story, because I'm able to get a far narrower mouth - down to zero, if I wished - on the new Frankenplane than I could on the English one. Not sure what I'm missing, but I guess I'll figure it out with more fiddling.

Sadly, I can't get the same results with the other English-Australian frankenplane, but that one is heading for scrub land anyway. Maybe I just need to keep at it.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the quality of the Australian Stanley blades, relative to (for example) the English models? Upon closer inspection, the overall build quality of the English model is better (although I don't want to use the bottom casting as a smoother, because it's been more severely abused), and the handles are nicer (a nicer, rounder shape - the Australian ones are squarish). I'm going to have to fettle those surfaces as you suggested (I might wait until I get an auger bit file, though).

Oh, and does anyone know what the handles of the Australian planes are made of?

[Vann]

My woodie was made by Terry Gordon and the wood is very hard - Cooktown Ironwood I think.

I thought that plane looked very, very nice. HT Gordon - that explains it.

Cheers, Vann.

[Scribbly Gum]

I thought that plane looked very, very nice. HT Gordon - that explains it.

Cheers, Vann.

It is a very nice smoother - thanks Vann.
I bought it from Ern I think - struggling to remember. I think also it may have been one of Terry's pre-production models.
Anyhooooo ..
It is a really good smoother.
If memory serves - and these days it sometimes lets me down - Mujingfang planes also have a brass strip in front of the mouth.
Cheers
SG

[snafuspyramid]

Well that's that problem all solved - thanks for the tips.

But now I'm having the opposite problem!

I can't get the mouth on my jack plane wide enough. I've filed off the iron's corners and used the cambered roller on the Mk II to get a nice crown, (maybe 1/8" off the edges).

So, I hope to have the blade project between 1/8-1/16" from the sole.

But, even with the frog set back to the maximum extent (so that the frog ramp is not interrupted by the bottom casting), I can't get the mouth wide enough to prevent shavings jamming.

Now, to my mind, this problem could be easily fixed by a bastard mill file and a little patience. But this plane is very different to the junkheap #4s I've been playing with.

It's at least century old and is beautifully preserved, including the rosewood handles. It's got the corrugated sole. (I got it from a forum member for $55 a few months back )

Now, I've never understood the appeal of antiques and I still don't, but even I couldn't bring myself to "modify" this one.

So what are my options?

I notice the mouth is significantly thinner than that on either of the #4s I've been abusing.

[ian]

I can't get the mouth on my jack plane wide enough. I've filed off the iron's corners and used the cambered roller on the Mk II to get a nice crown, (maybe 1/8" off the edges).

So, I hope to have the blade project between 1/8-1/16" from the sole.

But, even with the frog set back to the maximum extent (so that the frog ramp is not interrupted by the bottom casting), I can't get the mouth wide enough to prevent shavings jamming.

Now, to my mind, this problem could be easily fixed by a bastard mill file and a little patience. But this plane is very different to the junkheap #4s I've been playing with.

It's at least century old and is beautifully preserved, including the rosewood handles. It's got the corrugated sole. (I got it from a forum member for $55 a few months back )

Now, I've never understood the appeal of antiques and I still don't, but even I couldn't bring myself to "modify" this one.

So what are my options?

I notice the mouth is significantly thinner than that on either of the #4s I've been abusing.

have another look at your blade
this is the one I use when I convert my #6 to a scrub

If your #5 has a corrugated sole, I strongly suggest you get one (preferably post WW2) without corrugations before you file the mouth open

[snafuspyramid]

The camber on my blade isn't as pronounced as that (although I do intend it to be used for rough work).

If the mouth is indeed to wide, it seems like a hassle to sell and replace, or otherwise swap it, for another. But I suppose it would be the right thing to do, I don't want to ruin something that others might get pleasure from as an antique.

Can anyone show me some photos of the correct mouth opening?