Maximum length of a deck plank

[Bindy]

Hi there

 

I apologise if this question has been answered elsewhere however all my searches here on the forums didn't show me the answer. I even asked Mrs Google (she knows everything) but couldn't find an answer there either so I have turned to the experts here.

 

My question is "what was the maximum length of a plank on the deck of a French ship built in the late 1700's"?

 

The research I have done shows plans for my ship with the planks about 24 foot long, but the last time I followed plans literally they were completely wrong so thought it best to check. At 1:75 scale that would make them about 9.75 centremetres. However the plans in the box show them closer to 8 centremetres which is roughly 20 foot long.

 

Is anyone able to advise me?

 

Thank you in advance and sorry again if this has been answered or discussed before.

[mtaylor]

Bindy,

 

I think it's your call.... La Belle Poule (1765) shows 25 to 60 feet per plank, though I think the 60 might be a bit long.   On the other hand, Le Venus (1782) only shows the complete strake with no length on the planks. 

 

I would hope that some like Gaetan or one of our more versed French ship builders can help as I'm a novice on these ships...

Edited May 23, 2015 by mtaylor

[Richard Griffith]

Hi Bindy, lengths were determined by supplies.  Gun decks were oak, other decks of fir or pine.  

According to Gerald Delacroix (Le Gros-Ventre 1770), the lengths were about 37 or 38' long.  I checked Jean Boudriot's books and he seems to show  similar lengths,  (I have La Jacinthe 1825 and The 74 Gun Ship 1770.)

 

I then checked Dr. McArdle's book HMS Sussex 1693 and his lengths agree with the above, even though Sussex is English and 100 years older, it does give an indication of what the shipwrights used. 

 

Mark suggests 60' but suspects that may be too long; I think so too.  If the shipwrights had some 60 footers, they would have used them but generally, if you keep to a max lenght of about 34 to 36 feet, your build will look right.  

 

Keep building and above all, have fun ~!                               Duff

[wq3296]

Greetings,

 

Just an opinion, but I can't see how you get a single plank over 30', let alone 40' to 60'. To get a plank even 30' would require hauling tree trunks around that were at least that long. I can't see the need for such long deck planks, so why would they bother? It seems that it would have been much easier to handle shorter lengths. Yes, long timber lengths would be advantageous for spars and main structural members, but deck planking? Were such large trees readily available back then? Again, just an opinion based common sense, but I am willing to reconsider.

 

wq3296 

[trippwj]

Agree with Dave - the only constraint would be the proximity of appropriate timbers to the shipyard.  It would of necessity be within fairly small distances (at most tens of kilometers) and most likely less.

 

There are some interesting studies out there looking at dendrology of ship timbers (archeological stuff).  See, for example, Loewen, B. 2000. Forestry Practices and Hull Design, Ca. 1400-1700. In Fernando Oliveira E O Seu Tempo. Humanismo E Arte de Navegar No Renascimento Europeu (1450-1650), ed. F.C. Domingues, 143–151. Patrimonia. https://www.academia.edu/5766940/Forestry_practices_and_hull_design_ca._1400-1700.

[jbshan]

Certainly they needed long straight pieces for masts and keels, etc., oak, elm or beech for keels, pines for masts.  Both France and England would have needed imported pines of those sizes, mostly Baltic, though England had sources in America until the late unpleasantness beginning in 1775, thereafter Canada, and France had sources in Europe and the Med.  I don't think the French took advantage of their North American possessions for timber nearly as much; they were more interested in furs.  Possibly an offcut from one of those keel or mast pieces might be used for planking somewhere.  A short distance *to water* would be desirable.  Once they could get a big timber onto a boat or barge it got a lot easier.

They could have, but would they have?  Perhaps strakes next to the hatches, under the guns, or other 'binding strakes' would have been advantaged by long lengths.  If Boudriot gives a generally shorter length, I would go with him.  He did the research and wrote the books.

[Bindy]

Thank you all for your help and interesting information!

 

Your explanations have made perfect sense!

[piratepete007]

Bindy, I am 'just around the corner' in Adelaide and am wondering what French ship it is that you are building ?

Pete

[Bindy]

Hello Pete!

 

I am currently in Adelaide myself!  It sure is pretty here but MUCH quieter than Melbourne haha.

 

I am actually building the HMS Surprise but she was built and launched by the French as the Unite of course.

[piratepete007]

Yep, a big country 'town'. I am building the French frigate La Renommee.

Pete

[druxey]

The issue is not so much how tall a tree was available to yield long lengths, but the practical issue of handling the planks. Certainly long straight pieces were used for keels and similar items, but handling a length of plank, manoeuvring it in and out of a steam chest, bending and hanging it by manpower alone.... My reading suggests that these planks would be between 24' 0" and 28' 0" and no longer than about 30' 0".

[JerseyCity Frankie]

Another factor would be the available roads the timber would be brought down over. A 60' tree trunk would be nearly impossible to manage. the "low hanging fruit" of trees easily within reach of any shipyard would have been exhausted quite quickly and from then on it would become more and more difficult to get lumber, suppliers having to go deeper and deeper into the hinterlands and then bring timber back over what would likely have been the entire length of most available roads. Roads that at best would be very windy very circuitous and primitive by our standards.

Edited May 24, 2015 by JerseyCity Frankie

[Ulises Victoria]

Bindy!!! Long time no see, my dear. Your question has been already answered, I just want to tell you how glad I am to see you here again!

 

[DenPink]

Hi Bindy

 

In answer to your problem with plank lengths on the decks of your HMS Surprise.

You said the planks are 24 foot long and the HMS Surprise is a scale of 1:75.

 

This is in feet and inches.

 

12  divide  75  =  0.1600

 

24 feet  x  0.1600  =  3.84 inches

 

3.84 inches  =  97.536mm

 

97.536mm is your deck plank lengths you can round it off to 97.5mm.

 

I hope this helps you or others.

 

Denis.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Denis Pink

[dafi]

And always remember: There is not such a thing as one specific length of the plank, as the butts always had to be atop the deck beams, which had different distances!

 

XXXDAn

Edited May 28, 2015 by dafi

[jbshan]

And there should be a beam under each port and one between, so beam spacing would be half the port center spacing.

[Modeler12]

I like to extend that a bit, JB. The butt joints are not only on top of the beams, but should be staggered so that the joints don't line up too much. 

 

For my forward cross section of the USS Constitution I am using planks that are around 25 feet long. Some will be a lot shorter, of course, in order to fit the six inch long model. But my point is that there will be several joints and I want to make sure that those visible from above will have the proper spacing.

Here is a mock-up on top of one of the beam spacing drawings. The planks are loose and not yet finished nor cut to the right length.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Modeler12

[jbshan]

Jay, there are conventions about the shift of butts for planking.  I don't have any to hand right now, but I believe not only would there be a certain number of planks between butts on the same beam, but also beams between butts on adjacent planks.

 

Sort of:

 

|                                              |                                                  |

                     |                                              |

                                   |                                                  |

          |                                                |

|                                              |                                                  |

 

I believe Goodwin, "Construction and Fitting" would have this, among other authors.

[mtaylor]

There's an article in the database for this:  http://modelshipworldforum.com/resources/Framing_and_Planking/Deck_PlankingIIbuttshifts.pdf   

[Modeler12]

 In other words, something like this.

A bit harder to keep track of, but that's ok.

 or this 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2015 by Modeler12

[Modeler12]

There's an article in the database for this:  http://modelshipworldforum.com/resources/Framing_and_Planking/Deck_PlankingIIbuttshifts.pdf   

Mark with all due respect to Ulises Victoria, he assumes that all his planks are 120 mm long and goes from there. In my scale that is 30 feet, fine.

However, the spacing of my beams is not uniform in the forward section (because of the fore-mast and other reasons), so I have to adjust the joints accordingly. In addition, I will have 6 spaces, and that adds to the 'count' (135246).

 

Perhaps I will stick to the 'simple' version. Is it that important?

[mtaylor]

Jay,

 

You were asking... I realize that there's a difference in plank length from ship to ship and same for distances between beams.  When in doubt, go with simple is my theory of operation.   I think his article is useful only as far as the pattern and not necessarily the dimensions themselves. 

[Ulises Victoria]

Mark with all due respect to Ulises Victoria, he assumes that all his planks are 120 mm long and goes from there. 

Hello Jay. The length of the planks can be whatever you choose, as stated in the 2nd paragraph.  My article only shows a way to develop a uniform pattern for the butt ends.

 

Thank you Mark for making a reference to my work and Jay for taking the time to read it.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Ulises Victoria

[Modeler12]

Again both Mark and Ulises, I did not mean to belittle the work you put into your post about the spacing. It is important and very interesting, to be sure.

 

What I was referring to is that what Ulises did does not always apply to the real thing. Indeed planks vary and so does the spacing of the beams and joints.

Below is a picture of the Constitution as she was a few months ago. It is the gun deck with oak planking. I am sure that these were not the original planks (well not really sure), but the spacing and size is not 'the best'. 

Notice the joint spacing of every third plank and the length of this particular one was only 25 feet. 

Ulises's premise is based on several assumptions that may need some 'research' rather than 'what ever you like'???? Perhaps not all ships were planked that way and perhaps this is a mute point.

 

 

[mtaylor]

Valid points, Jay. I'd say go with the pictures then.  

[dafi]

I think the "official" butt schemes are an ideal solution, that ensures maximum strength of the deck which is a integral part of the structure of the ship and not "just some planks to walk on".

 

But reality then collides with plenty of issues, the biggest probably is dealing with the material available. Also repairs will easily give some deviations to the pattern. Also the Vic there are some parts where a 4 but shift can be recognized, but most is a irregular pattern.

 

Whatever patter you prefer for what year is up to you, nobody can prove how it was in the year 1XXX. Just there are some remarks: It was never as neat as we would like our models to look ;-)

 

I think important is to respect the deck beams, get near to a 4 butt shift system and avoid short ends and butts in between coamings and near the start and end of the decks. 

 

Cheers, Daniel 

Edited June 9, 2015 by dafi

[Q A's Revenge]

Given that it's been suggested that long planks aid strength to a ship I guess another important question may be what is the shortest plank you would expect to see?

[Modeler12]

Given that it's been suggested that long planks aid strength to a ship I guess another important question may be what is the shortest plank you would expect to see?

My guess would be the plank(s) that go across two beams that are located between two immovable objects such as a mast and hatch. Planks could be shorter if they were located right on top of a carling, but I would really frown on that.

[Ulises Victoria]

Indeed Jay. My approach is just from a modeler's point of view or perspective. Never intended to copy the "real thing" method. In fact, it is based on a false deck planking job.

 

Best regards.

 

Ulises