I'm with stupid

[Simplicity]

Ok bare with me on this one ,and some of you may want to go else were now for your own good .
So I'm out in one of my favourite places .
Looking at old tools boring the s.... out of my lovely wife.
And I find a 4. /1/2. Stanley pat dated cool $35 AU BETTER
I take that no worries a bit more snooping around hit the cashier .
Then off to find some lunch .
Later that evening I found stupid it was me and yes you guessed it $35 for a reason it's bloody damaged stock bugger( I used other words that I'm not allowed to say here)



So from now on Sally will be buying all vintage tools for me with out my presence .

Ok ,so stupid twice I'm thinking its a number 4 1/2 yes it's pat date .

But is not like it's a number 1 Stanley or something .
So I'm after some thoughts ideas on modification .
Those that are feeling faint please leave now.
I've always wanted(it's on the drawing board) of making my own metal body infilled plane.
So as a first step ,I thought why not cut this one a bit and stuff it .
So ,I'm after some ideas ,thoughts ,complaints( they must be sent in triplicate surface mail)
Pictures and lots of encouragement meant to please .
I'm up for almost anything on this one ,to redeem some of my my shattered soul .

Matt(let the files fly)

[ian]

Derek has provided a very good guide ...
http://inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeToo..._smoother.html
http://inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeToo...mootherII.html

and then there's also Bob Smalser http://forum.woodenboat.com/archive/...php/t-425.html well worth reading anytime

[Chief Tiff]

So what exactly have you bought? Looks like a type 12/13 number 4½ to me but the pics are a bit limited.

OK, there's some damage to the ends but nothing that will stop it from working, and the tote can be repaired or replaced.

This range had the best frog arrangement out of the lot, for that reason alone I personally would be reluctant to butcher it into an infill.

Still, it's your plane and I will look forward to seeing the end result.

[Simplicity]

Ok some hopefully better pics .


Right ,so the last pic is a comparison between the 4 1/2 I have the one I'm going to modify infill has the thinner casting.

Which is confusing me ,I thought the early types had the thicker casting like the one on the left.

I have to do some more reading .
With regard to the frog ,I'm going to leave the frog and the mouth alone .
Basically ,I'm planing at this moment on just cutting the body down a little bit and making a new front knob more like a bun.

And the rear tote ,making it ,I think and over fill tote I think that's the right terminology .or is it over stuffed

Matt

[Chief Tiff]

The earlier US frog is a better fit on the central rib so unlike the English one you don't get any lateral slop when adjusting it.

The thicker casting on the English plane is correct and this is one of the very few planes that were made better in the UK than their US counterparts... but only when you comparing similar years of manufacture as I personally would rate your US one to be a better user plane than the English one. Only the WW2 US planes had thicker castings (no one knows why), the ones before and after have normal thin cast iron. There was a 4½H which was made specifically with more iron but the extra mass was in the thicker base rather than the wings.

If you are keeping the frog then how will you gain access to the adjustment screw with the infill tote in the way?