WOOD Magazine transitional plane

[Dave Lehnert]

The new Nov issue of Wood Magazine has plans to make a Transitional Plane using an old Stanley No, 29.
Kinda cool project.

http://www.woodmagazine.com/blogs/wo...=rdwood1110510

[george wilson]

Looks more like "How to make an old Marples looking plane". The wooden body is an exact copy of a Marples from the 50's(?) era. At least it is not as ugly as a real Stanley transitional plane.

[Daniel Rode]

I don't get the topmost plane. If I were to go to the effort of building my own transitional plane, I would not leave a large section of sapwood. The craftsmanship in other respects seems solid but the sapwood just looks like mistake to me.

Is this a design element and I'm simply missing the point or is it just a defect?

[steven c newman]

I'll just go with these, instead...refurbbed planes.jpgA No. 28 and a No. 29, with the original Beech bodies, too....

[Jim Belair]

I guess it simplifies the process of making a wooden plane somewhat.

[Chuck Nickerson]

I don't get the topmost plane. If I were to go to the effort of building my own transitional plane, I would not leave a large section of sapwood. The craftsmanship in other respects seems solid but the sapwood just looks like mistake to me.

Is this a design element and I'm simply missing the point or is it just a defect?

It appears none of the sapwood is in the structural part of the plane so it shouldn't weaken it at all.
I'd say the color variation it provides is a design element. To each their own.

[Tony Shea]

Looks more like "How to make an old Marples looking plane". The wooden body is an exact copy of a Marples from the 50's(?) era. At least it is not as ugly as a real Stanley transitional plane.

I agree the Stanley transitional planes is one of the ugliest planes on the face of the earth. That is certainly one plane I have absolutely no desire in owning. I never understood the point of them, either go with an all wood plane or an all metal plane. I love the looks of traditional wood planes much more than a metal plane but sometimes I like the heft of the metal for certain tasks. But to mix them together is just not my bag.

[steven c newman]

I like them for one reason....weight. I have a Stanley No. 31, and would push it around a lot more than a #8 that weighed in at twice the weight. #31= 5.5 pounds vs #8 @ 10+pounds, which would you joint with all day long?

Same with the others, they tend to weigh a lot less than the iron planes. That was Stanley's selling point. Carpenters loved the lighter wood bodies, but still wanted the adjustment feature of the all iron planes.

Inventory in my shop? Stanleys: #122, #26,#28,#29,#31, Sargent-Fulton 3416.

[Jim Belair]

Well I like the look of a transitional plane. Is it my "favourite"? Probably not, but see it as a step in the evolution of WW hand tools and so of interest to me. I have a handful of them and will pick up others I come across that catch my fancy.

[steven c newman]

I prefer the No.29 parts to be where they were designed to be....
IMAG0282.jpg
Light enough to use all day long
IMAG0283.jpg
Can make some decent shavings, too...
IMAG0284.jpg
20" long jointer...was supposed to be 22"