Lots of times, I just have to see, in context, what I’m trying to visualize, which seems strange to me since this is not a problem when I program. So, for the frog, I’m scribbling on the side of the plane to see how big it needs to be, how it attaches to the infill and sole, etc. (The plane has some quick, dirty and ugly prototype infills so I could get some context on how it felt. It actually cuts wood, even though nothing is pinned together).
Here’s the plan:
– That big block of aluminum will be screwed to a cut out in the bottom of the infill.
– The blade will rest on both the block and infill.
– The block will have two or three slots along its centerline.
– Bolts, though the sole, will hold the block/infill to the sole. The nuts will be captive in the block slots. Access to the bolts will be from the bottom of the sole.
– The infill slides back and forth to adjust the mouth opening. Experience suggests the bolts will work fine. This idea is similar to Stanley Bedrocks and Sargent Shaw’s patent planes. And probably Veritas.
– This has implications on the shape of the infill “wings”.
– The block and plane need to be machined such that they remain square as the block moves.
To fine tune the mouth opening, the rear most hole in the side plates have a rod between them with a bolt in the middle of it. The bolt presses on a plate glued to the infill. Tighten the bolt. the infill moves forward and the mouth gets smaller. Access is via a hole in the back of the infill. The infill has to have a slot so it will clear the rod, which is a potential weak point. This feature is strictly to avoid frustration when trying to adjust the mouth opening by a few thousandths of an inch.