Fair American deck planking

[jdbradford]

Can anyone explain why this model has a deck pad of 3/32" thick x 1/8" wide 5 planks on each side of the center-line and the remainder of the deck is 1/16" thick x 1/8" wide?  I read that it is a raised area, but then what do you do about the transition from 3/32" to 1/16"?  Seems a trip hazard to me. LOL  

 

Jeff

[mtaylor]

Jeff.

 

It wasn't unknown for that practice but other than the French, it wasn't used much.  The center line planks were thick stuff, sometimes scarfed, sometimes not (depending on the country).  Generally, the English let the planks into the beams while the French for a period left them proud of the beam.  There's pros and cons to either method..

[jdbradford]

Now I have to go look up what "let to the planks" and "left them proud" mean.

 

I was not planning on going to school.

 

Jeff

[allanyed]

Not hard to find these terms on the internet and once a bit of time is spent, easier to remember :>), BUT ---------------

Let in means the beams are cut down 1/32" where the thicker planks are to be laid so the tops of the planks are flush.  Save yourself some trouble, IF YOU WANT TO, and use the same thickness planks , 1/16".  Only you will know they are not let down into the beams. Standing proud means the thicker planks will be seen as higher than the thinner ones, and yes, would be a tripping hazard.

 

Allan

[mtaylor]

Sorry Jeff... I fall too often into the vernacular.  It's a whole new language in shipbuilding. 

[jbshan]

I believe Constitution has thicker plank running through the line of the hatches, which is left 'proud' of the rest of the deck plank, some of which may be 'let in'.  I could check my sources for accuracy on how many planks and where located if needed, but at least she may serve as an example.

Constitution and Fair American are near contemporaries, and both American, if the story of the FA model are accurate.

[bdb]

I believe it's called a binding strake. It's a structural member similar to wales planking on the sides of a ship.

 

If the beams were oversized the binding strake could be let into the beam to keep the deck planking flush.

[allanyed]

Bdb

You may be right, but a binding strake is just that, a strake.  Goodwin describes it as follows:  Running the full length of the deck either side of the numerous fittings on the centreline was a strake of planking known as the binding strake.  From The Construction and Fitting, page 59.   Then again the US ships may have been different with ten stakes instead of two or there is a chance the kit is not correct.   Hopefully some member will have contemporary based information regarding US Navy ship deck planking.

Allan

[bdb]

Hi Allan, you make a good point. I've relied on Goodwins book for years, it's a very useful resource. I met him briefly once, on a tour of Victory, a smart man.

 

In cross checking with David Steel's Naval Architecture, plate 5, he shows two binding strakes on either side of the main hatch for a total of four. Of course, this is a 74 gun ship, a tad bigger than Fair American.

So, I checked his definition (p-8) Binding Strakes: Two strakes of oak plank, worked fore and aft upon the beams of each deck, within one strake of the coamings of the main hatchway, in order to strengthen the deck, as that strake and the midship strakes are cut off by the pumps and etc.

 

So, it looks like I was wrong, binding strakes are outside of the main hatchway. 

 

I'll keep looking into this though as I've seen the configuration Fair American his in other models. Looks like an attempt to strengthen the deck in areas needing extra lateral support, such as the capstan, pumps, bitts, etc. I'd suspect a small ship like this would have 3" decks so adding another 1-1/2" wouldn't hurt. I'll see what I can find out.

 

[bdb]

I spent the last few evenings looking thru my limited little library and didn't see a deck arrangement like Fair American, with the change of planking thickness running thru the center of the ship. I saw some ship models that were similar but the thickness change started at the main hatchway, continued past the capstan, past another hatchway, past the main mast, past the pumps and then the normal deck height resumed. Maybe someday I’ll come across what I was thinking of but for now I’m stumped.

 

I know that mast partners are commonly several inches higher than the deck, so I checked David Steels “Naval Architecture” which gave me the following definition for “Partners: Those pieces of thick plank fitted into the mast or capstan carlings for the purpose of wedging the mast and steadying the capstan. Also, any plank that is thick, or above the rest of the deck, for the purpose of steadying of whatever passes through the deck, as pumps, bowsprit, etc.”

 

So, I can understand a raised portion of the deck at the Fore Mast, Main mast, and capstan. Steel gives the deck thickness for a brig to be 2-1/2”. Not being a Naval Architect I suspect the thicker planking was done “for the purpose of steadying of whatever passes through the deck”. Just my guess.