Thread: I need a Stanley plane expert!

Sometimes the yoke is too short to engage the iron properly. If that's the problem, you can just silver solder an extension to it and it will work beautifully.

Sometimes Michael, the lateral adjustment lever fails to engage the slot in the blade properly and the "wheel" pushes the blade slightly away from correctly bedding on the frog.
This can allow lots of slack in the depth adjuster, and a problem like yours develops.
Check that the lateral adjustment lever is completely engaged within the blade slot, and that the blade sits flat on the frog.
This could be a start for you. See if this helps.
Regards from Tele Point
SG

Hi Jeremy and SG, thanks for the quick reply. The yoke engages fine and the iron is sitting flat on the frog. This has got me stumped. I'll go out and compare the size of the hole with those in the chipbreakers of my others.

Cheers
Michael

Edit - just checked, there is zero backlash between the wheel and the yoke and a mm backlash between the yoke and the chipbreaker. the hole seems to be the same size as the other planes but now I see the problem. When I try and retract the blade the wheel hits the frog before engaging the backside of the chipbreaker. What I don't understand is why. Chipbreaker hole is the same as the other planes.

Hi Michael,

Did the plane do it before you took it apart?

I have had this problem in two planes. One a stanley #5.5 and the other a #3.

The 5-1/2 suffered from what I suspect was a chipbreaker/capiron that was not original and I ended up getting a repacement that had a slightly narrower slot to engage the yoke (only talking about half a millimetre). It didn't need much to make it work properly.

The #3 was a mystery, all original Type 19 made in USA, nice condition. I moved the frog forward and play around with adjustments and hey presto, it would not retract the blade completely. SOlution was to move the frog back a bit so the wouth was not quite so tight. Go figure that one.

Regards,
steve

Originally Posted by Zsteve

Hi Michael,

Did the plane do it before you took it apart?

I have had this problem in two planes. One a stanley #5.5 and the other a #3.

The 5-1/2 suffered from what I suspect was a chipbreaker/capiron that was not original and I ended up getting a repacement that had a slightly narrower slot to engage the yoke (only talking about half a millimetre). It didn't need much to make it work properly.

The #3 was a mystery, all original Type 19 made in USA, nice condition. I moved the frog forward and play around with adjustments and hey presto, it would not retract the blade completely. SOlution was to move the frog back a bit so the wouth was not quite so tight. Go figure that one.

Regards,
steve

Gday Steve, I suspect the problem was there before, but the iron was in such bad order I just pulled it apart without checking the function. It's back together correctly. The chipbreaker is pretty distinctive, so 90% sure it's the right one. I tried different positions of the frog with no effect, but I think you are onto something with the hole size. If 0.5mm made such a big difference in your 5 1/2.
I wonder if someone with a 10 1/2 could tell me the dimensions of the hole for the yoke?

Thanks for the help Steve.

Cheers
Michael

Originally Posted by mic-d

I've just got around to tuning up a #10 1/2 but after reassembling and testing (it works very nicely) I found that I cannot retract the blade.

What I mean by this is if I set the chipbreaker up a bare mm from the edge of the iron and lock it into the plane at the minimum setting (which is barely inside the sole, then wind the iron out a little, if I try and decrease the depth of cut the wheel hits the frog before the yoke even engages again. I thought the problem might be the split pressed-metal yoke so I replaced it with a good solid one, no joy. The wheel is not worn, the chipbreaker I believe is the correct one. The only thing I can think of is that the hole engaging the yoke is too wide? It doesn't seem to be worn.

Anybody have an idea please?

Cheers
Michael

Michael,
First though is...do you have the front of the frog aligned with the back of the throat and the holes in sides of the body? If its back a little, the blade will be pulled away from the frog and perhaps failing to engage the yolk.
Is the 10 1/2 a UK or USA made? If it's USA made, I don't recall seeing a split yolk in one of them. So I think it might be a UK made plane if the 2 piece yolk was original.( but that is setting alarm bells off about the frog being original)
The distance from the edge to the bottom of the slot should be 89 - 90mm, and the slot is 4.6mm deep...the same as a #3 back iron. Sometimes replacements are made using a #4 1/2 back iron, but they must be shortened about 8mm or 10mm. I have a UK #10 ( new in the box) and a couple of the USA Stanley 10 1/2 and spare blade sets, they all are within 1mm of 89mm.
The UK #10 blade only just retracts, but it has a cast yolk as original. Is it possible the replacement yolk was from a record plane, or another make? Is the frog original to the plane? The frogs on the planes are very similar to early #3 frogs and I don't know if they are fully interchangeable, even though they will fit.
I have spare yolks and one is very different from all the rest and I don't know what make of plane it came from.
A quick and dirty fix might be to file the bottom edge of the chip breaker so it does go back into the plane, but that won't explain what is going on, and will spoil any $ value it might have, and if the solution is found later, it could be more than a little annoying.
Regards,
Peter

Gday Peter,
Thanks for your reply, you've given me the info I need to fix it. See comments in the box.
Thankyou

Cheers
Michael

Originally Posted by lightwood

Michael,
First though is...do you have the front of the frog aligned with the back of the throat and the holes in sides of the body? If its back a little, the blade will be pulled away from the frog and perhaps failing to engage the yolk.
I've tried with the frog level with the machined edges and mouth of the body and slightly proud of the body with same problem.

Is the 10 1/2 a UK or USA made? If it's USA made, I don't recall seeing a split yolk in one of them. So I think it might be a UK made plane if the 2 piece yolk was original.( but that is setting alarm bells off about the frog being original)
It's a UK version and I suspect the yoke and the frog are original (the frog does not have an adjustment screw) and the plattened areas are complimentary between frog and body.
The distance from the edge to the bottom of the slot should be 89 - 90mm, and the slot is 4.6mm deep...the same as a #3 back iron. Sometimes replacements are made using a #4 1/2 back iron, but they must be shortened about 8mm or 10mm. I have a UK #10 ( new in the box) and a couple of the USA Stanley 10 1/2 and spare blade sets, they all are within 1mm of 89mm.
Now this is the problem I think. The distance from the edge to the bottom of the slot is 90.8mm and the slot is 4.7mm - 4.8mm deep depending on where it is measured. The slot does look a bit worn, more so on the bottom edge than the top.

The flat on the edge of the chip breaker is 1.7mm wide, so I'm going to progressively remove some of this leading edge which will bring the back of the slot closer to the nib of the yoke. I think 0.4 -0.8mm will do it. That should solve the problem. If need be the front edge flat can be reformed if it gets too narrow.
The UK #10 blade only just retracts, but it has a cast yolk as original. Is it possible the replacement yolk was from a record plane, or another make?

The yoke I swapped in was from a Stanley. Since it gave the same result and there is no wear evident I don't think the problem is with the (original) split yoke.
Is the frog original to the plane? The frogs on the planes are very similar to early #3 frogs and I don't know if they are fully interchangeable, even though they will fit.
No reason to suspect it is not the original frog.
I have spare yolks and one is very different from all the rest and I don't know what make of plane it came from.
A quick and dirty fix might be to file the bottom edge of the chip breaker so it does go back into the plane, but that won't explain what is going on, and will spoil any $ value it might have, and if the solution is found later, it could be more than a little annoying.
put in my fix before I read yours, glad we agree on that
Don't think it is dirty though, it will bring the dimension back to what you've quoted and since it is a user and not a collector (although it's in good nick) I don't worry about $ value.
Regards,
Peter

OK, I filed 0.7mm off the chipbreaker and the problem is solved.
But I stabbed my thumb on the corner when the file slipped.
Thanks everyone.

Cheers
Michael