Tuning Up Old Planes

[rick7938]

In an earlier post, I mentioned that my brother had sent me some old planes that he had found in his barn that belonged to my grandfather. I am in the process of tuning them up as best I can. I have polished the sole of some of them; removed some of the surface rust with WD-40, Scotchbrite pads, and elbow grease; and sharpened some of the blades. I will be posting some pictures soon. They are a Dunlap block plane, a Dunlap #3, a Craftsman #4, and a Dunlap #5. The #3 is dead square according to my machinist square, so should work well on a shooting board. My brother thinks that he may have found a Dunlap #4 in an old wooden box. I'll see when I get it.

My question: Since the planes are, unfortunately, not Stanleys, but rather Craftsman and Dunlap, they do not have the adjustable frogs. What is the best way to adjust the frogs to ensure that the blade is fully supported at the sole? I have turned the blade bevel up and slid it along the frog until I just feel the edge touch the bevel on the sole, but that is a lot of trial and error. Does anyone know a better and more accurate way to adjust the frog? Thanks for any input and advice.

 

[Monty]

Great question! Sounds like you have some decent planes there, and the price is right. The Dunlap planes were an old Sears brand from about the 1950's, sort a competitor to the more budget-friendly Stanleys that were being made at the time. I'm guessing the Craftsman is probably from about the same vintage - but can't tell without pics. You can learn more about the Dunlap brand in this article (down at the bottom).

Don't worry about missing out on something with the frog adjustment. Only one of my old Stanleys has a frog adjustment screw. Adjusting the frog is a trial-and-error process like you're doing. You have to remove the blade/cap iron, loosen the frog screws, slide the frog forward and then lay the blade assembly back on the frog to see what the size of the mouth looks like. Then carefully lift the blade back off and tighten those frog screws. No matter how carefully you tighten them, they almost always shift the frog slightly right at the end. Just take your time and get it right - you'll be glad you did.

One other point - set the frog so the mouth opening is about 1/32". Don't worry about the support of the blade all the way down to the end. This frog design leaves the blade unsupported at the end. If you have a problem with chatter, there are plenty of things to check before buying a thicker blade.

 

[rick7938]

Thanks for the feedback, Monty. So, I don't have to worry about the blade not being supported to the end. That's why I was being so finicky about adjusting the frog so that the blade would be fully supported. I usually set my planes to take such a light cut, hopefully I won't have a problem with chatter, but if I do, I'll know who to ask for the solution.

Thanks again.

 

[Gofor]

I am definitely no expert, but if I am not mistaken, the bevel goes down for all but the block plane. With the bevel up. the cap iron will not fit correctly and you will not be able to get it close enough to the edge of the blade, which will increase chance of chatter.
I have heard that you can turn the bevel up on a single-iron wooden plane to increase the angle for use on extremely hard wood, but this does not work for a blade with a cap iron (chip breaker).
:-?:eusa_thin

Go

 

[rick7938]

You're right Go. I just turned the bevel up to give me a reference edge to align the frog with the bevel on the sole. Once I had them aligned, I turned the bevel back down and reinstalled the chip breaker. Tuning old planes is a blast. My grandfather was a carpenter for 40 years, and I can't tell that he "tuned" any of his planes. He sharpened the blades, but the back of the blade and the sole are as rough as produced. Maybe a pro doesn't need it, but a little tuning sure makes a difference for a novice like me.

 

[willarda]

On important aspect of turing up the plane is to get the blades themselves in good working order. In fact, I would bet that spending time on the blades will give you greater progress on tuing the plnes than any other aspect.

For the blade itself, first make sure that the back of the blade (opposite side from the beveled side) is flat all the way to the very edge of the blade. Youi can do this on a diamond stone or some Japanese stones. First color in the back with a sharpie then lightly rub the back on a fine flat stone and observe where the coloring has been LEFT. This tells you which parts of the back need to be worked down to. Depending on how much work needs to b edone youi may want to go back to a more coarse stone and work your way to finer grits. You definitely want the last 1/4" (ideally more) to be shiny and even across the width of the blade, with no evidence of gouge or grinding marks (use a monocular lens for this). This work is generally done only once.

Then turn the blade over and work first on rough grinding the blade so that it is square to its long axis. This is particularly important if your planes do not have a lateral adjustment lever (just behind the blade at the back and just above the handle tip). You can use a power grinder to rough shape but be sure to cool the blade frequently as you do this. I would refine the bevel by hand, however, using a honing jig (a Veritas honing jig is pretty good for this purpose). Put a 25 degree bevel on your blade. Work through grits of stone until the bevel is polished, even, and straight and hopefully square.

Periodically you will have to take off the burrs created on the opposite (back) side of the blade. Do this with a fine stone so that you do not damage the polish you have already made there. There is a lot written about bevel angles and also about microbevels and back bevels. That is something that is definitely a step up in sophistication, and you should concentrate on the basics first.

Lastly, focus some attention on the chip breaker. This should be honed as well and the leading edge shaped to a smooth curve and polished. Note that the chipbreaker is not ground flat, but beveled back a bit on the underside so that the fit is right on the leading edge as you tighten it. You can do this by holding the chipbreaker off the edge of the stone and running that edge back and forth along the long edge of the stone.

Once your chibbreaker is honed, fit it back on the blade and insure that there is not gap between the back of the blade and the edge of the chipbreaker. Even a small gap will allow chips to build up. Set the chipbreaker so that is is between 1/32 and 1/16" from the edge of the blade. Clearly the chipbreaker should be squared up as well so that it will offer even support along the sideth of the blade.

I use a medium diamond plate to form my bevel after power grinding, then switch to 800, 1200 and 600 grit Japanese stones for the next steps. I use these for the back, the bevel and the chipbreaker. Always take time to flatten your Japanese stones. I do this frequently, especially when setting the bevel. You can flatten wtih 100 or 150 grit wet/grit silicon carbide paper on a thick (flat) glass plate. Your bevels and backs will only be as flat as your stones!

 

[rick7938]

That's some great information, Bill. Thanks. That's worth printing out and taking to my shop for reference. I have only polished the backs, bevels, and chip breaker to 1000 grit. I'm working on getting some finer stones. The planes cut pretty good at 1000 grit, they should be better with each finer stone.

Again thanks for the info.

 

[rick7938]

OK, Monty, I need some advice.

In a previous post, you said that if I encountered chatter in my plane after setting the frog ahead of the bevel on the sole, you could give me some advice on other things to check before buying a thicker blade. Well, I am getting some chatter on my Dunlap #3. What are some of the things that I can check and/or correct on the plane. It doesn't seem to chatter when the blade is resting against the sole bevel.

The frog design on the Craftsman/Dunlap doesn't seem to support the blade nearly as well down near the sole as does the Stanley design. Maybe that's why a Stanley of the same size costs 5 or 6 times as much as does the Craftsman/Dulap. Although, I must say that when properly tuned and adjusted, my old Dunlap cuts just as well as my neighbor's Stanley of similar size on clear, straigh grained wood. It's when we both adjust the throat opening for highly figured wood that his Stanley cuts and mine wants to chatter.

Thanks for any advice.

 

[Monty]

Chatter may be due to a blade that isn't thick enough - a thicker blade might help. But you should be able to eliminate chatter without having to buy another blade (I haven't felt the need to buy an aftermarket blade yet). Usually, I would start by making sure that the machined surface of the frog face where it interfaces with the blade/cap iron is dead flat and making good contact. Also, carefully check the surfaces where the frog engages with the plane body, and make sure the frog is making good contact on all these surfaces and not "rocking" on the body.

Take a look at rarebear's web site. Go to "Hand Planes 101" and click on "Hand plane tune up guide". Down at the bottom of that page he has an article by David Charlesworth that I think does a fantastic job of highlighting what to look out for in tuning up a hand plane.

Having said all that, I have no idea if the design of the Dunlap/Craftsman that you have significantly differs from the Stanley Bailey design that I'm used to. The Bailey style design is not quite as good in terms of support of the blade as the Bedrock style design, but the Bailey style should suffice in most cases, IMHO.

 

[willarda]

Those are great suggestions! You might also be taking too deep a cut for a fine mouth setting on the blade. Also check that the frog screws/bolts ae tight and that the frog is seating well on the bed of the plane (no corrosion, etc). Adjust the chipbreader to about a fat 32nd of an inch from the blade edge for more support. Also, be sure that your blade is parallel to the sole (visuially watch where the shaving peel out from in the throat) and use your lateral adjust to get the shavings centered.

 

[rick7938]

Monty,

Thanks for that link to rarebear's website on plane sharpening. I have learned so much from those articles. I have also learned a lot about the different ways that planes were made just by looking at the various articles on this and other websites. I was very surprised to see that the frogs on my Grandfather's old el-cheapo Dunlap planes were very similar in design to the Stanley frog. They appear to offer at least as much if not more support to the blade than does the Stanley all the way down to the bevel on the sole. It was only his newest post-war Craftsman that uses a frog that lacks support to the blade down to the sole. My Dad's old Craftsman that he bought in the '50s has the same type of frog as my Grandfather's. So it appears that the change to the design happened after WW II.

I look forward to learning to tune the old Dunlaps. I know that they aren't Stanley's and they don't have the screw adjustable frogs, but they should still be a lot of fun working on. If I wreck them all, I still have no money invested. I bought a 16" X 36" of 1/2" float glass last week as a flat sharpening surface.

I went to visit my brother this past weekend, and we plundered my Graanfather's old barn. The sum total of planes that we found including the ones that he had already sent me were:

2 ea.- Dunlap #3 (9 1/4") smooth bottoms. 1 with red frog, 1 with black frog. Both in pretty good shape. Should clean up nice. Have no idea who made them.

1 ea.- Dunlap #4 (9 3/4") smooth bottom. Red frog. Has light surface rust from spending 40 years in an unheated barn, but should clean up OK. Ditto on the maker.

2 ea.- Dunlap #5 (14") smooth bottom. 1 red frog; 1 black frog. Both are in pretty nice condition and should clean up fine. The one with the black frog appears to have been "borrowed" from Charleston Naval Base by my Grandfather who worked there during WWII since it appears to have a tool room number engraved on its side. Maybe they won't miss it.

1 ea.- Ward's Master #4 (9 3/4")that appears to have been made by Stanley. I guess that it was made for Montgomery Ward. It's pretty ugly, but may clean up. I have no idea how old it may be. It appears to be made exactly like a Stanley, so maybe I can practice tuning it before I tackle a real Stanley.

1 ea.- Craftsman 18" Corrugated bottom plane. It is in really bad shape, but could have been cleaned up except that my brother dropped it onto a tractor drawbar when pulling it off the shelf, and now it has a crack running from the mouth up the right side.

I will post pictures as soon as I get them cleaned up enough to be presentable.

Thanks so much for all of the help and suggestions provided by everyone. Sorry for the long post, but I'm excited about my new Winter projects.

 

[Monty]

Cool! You've learned a lot already. You're just as excited as I was when I discovered the whole world of hand tools. Keep it up - you'll like it!

 

[Gofor]

I am no expert and may be far off-base here, but will relate an experience I have with an "unknown" brand #5 plane I got off E-bay ($10.99 delivered to the door). It had a Marshall Wells blade. The chip breaker and lever cap fit the Stanley #5. The frog is not adjustable and it has cheaper screws holding the tote and the angle of the screw through the tote is not exactly the same. Other than that, the casting looks identical to an older Stanley, but with no markings. But I digress.
It chattered badly. First, I found the blade was thinner than the stock Stanley, so put a Stanley blade in it. Worked better, but not right. I upped the bevel on the blade to 30 degrees and it works better. If you have a spare blade and are working with figured or hard wood, increasing the bevel may help some. Don't know if the Dunlap blades are as thick as the Stanleys, but that may be something to consider.
As a side note, I also noted that the Marshal Wells blade dulls quickly, which leads me to believe someone destroyed the temper or it is of poorer quality metal. I haven't had the opportunity to reharden/retemper it, but that is in the future as well as trying to make one out of a saw blade (followin' your lead, Earl!!)

Go

ps. As a side note, does anyone make a shoulder plane that will also clean up 23/32s dados, or do I have to make one?

 

[rick7938]

Thanks for the insight, GO. The Dunlaps weren't cheaper than Stanley or Craftsman for nothing, so I don't expect too much, but they will be fun to play with until I feel confident enough to try tuning up a nice older Stanley and get a real cutting instrument.

 

[rick7938]

GO,

After your post, I went out and measured the blade thicknesses on all of the Dunlap and Craftsman planes. My neighbor's Stanley #4 measured .091. The Dunlaps with the red frogs measured .085. The Dunlaps with the black frogs measured .075. The old Craftsman #4 measured .065. The Ward Master measured .085. So you were right about the cheaper blades.

Probably what I will do is tune up the best of the planes, and the ones that turn out the best, I will invest in Hock blades and chip breakers from Tom at Woodcraft.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[DavidF]

I am no expert and may be far off-base here, but will relate an experience I have with an "unknown" brand #5 plane I got off E-bay ($10.99 delivered to the door). It had a Marshall Wells blade. The chip breaker and lever cap fit the Stanley #5. The frog is not adjustable and it has cheaper screws holding the tote and the angle of the screw through the tote is not exactly the same. Other than that, the casting looks identical to an older Stanley, but with no markings. But I digress.
It chattered badly. First, I found the blade was thinner than the stock Stanley, so put a Stanley blade in it. Worked better, but not right. I upped the bevel on the blade to 30 degrees and it works better. If you have a spare blade and are working with figured or hard wood, increasing the bevel may help some. Don't know if the Dunlap blades are as thick as the Stanleys, but that may be something to consider.
As a side note, I also noted that the Marshal Wells blade dulls quickly, which leads me to believe someone destroyed the temper or it is of poorer quality metal. I haven't had the opportunity to reharden/retemper it, but that is in the future as well as trying to make one out of a saw blade (followin' your lead, Earl!!)

Go

ps. As a side note, does anyone make a shoulder plane that will also clean up 23/32s dados, or do I have to make one?

Just to add to this great thread; my planes are single bevel at 30 Deg and have no chatter. They have always cut what ever I have thrown at them. A really flat sole helps by letting you take a very fine cut. With a small mouth gap and a well sharpened balde you should be all set.

 

[rick7938]

David,

I admit my ignorance about this plane issue, so I'd like to pick you brain about a couple of questions:

1. I can see that a 30 deg bevel would be less likely to chatter than a 25 deg bevel because the edge would be better supported. If I have already sharpened some of the blades to 25 deg, would I have to completely rebevel the edge to 30 deg to gain the advantage, or could I just put a secondary bevel of 30 deg at the edge?

2. Since the blades on my Dunlap planes are about .005-.006 in thinner than the similar Stanley blades, should I be able to close the throat on the planes and get good results without chatter given the sole is flat and the frog is fitted solid to the sole.

I know that there are so many variables about plane performance that it is impossible to be sure about any of these answers, but I would like to see if I can get these old planes to perform well without having to invest in new blades if possible. They all belonged to my Grandfather, and I'd like to keep them as original as possible.

I love my power tools, but am getting very interested in integrating the hand tools into my little shop.

Thanks for any advice.

 

[DavidF]

1. I would hone a secondary bevel at 30 Deg.
2. I would have thought so, if .005 is going to make a difference in chatter then something else is not quite right.

I know what you mean about integrating hand tools, I have been doing it more and more over the years. If I am going to screw up a piece badly then it is normally with a power tool trying to do a job that would have taken seconds with a good hand tool