Why do some manufacturers make single plank kits?

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

I am just wondering what the motivation is behind marketing a single planked kit as opposed to a double planked one.  It seems double planking is far more forgiving and leads to a better result.  Are single planked kits easier to engineer? 

Not to be critical of manufacturers that produce single planked kits; there are a few such kits I'd love to build and I'm glad they are available.  I was just wondering what the reason is.

[Ron Burns]

Not that I am in the know what so ever, I think there are a few reasons for this. Using a single layer is basically the way a real ship was built. Using 2 layers allows for a much cheaper wood to be used as a base. The 2nd layer of better quality wood is thinner and less expensive than if used as a single layer. The 2nd layer also allows for the mistakes of the first to be covered up. Using a single layer leaves less room for mistakes but I think will teach the correct way to plank right from the start. There are many tutorials for planking here and if followed, the builder will learn a wonderful skill. To me it's scarier but well worth it

[rshousha]

I sell hundreds of ship kits every year and so have a lot of experience with this. I field this question at least once a week. In my opinion, it is 100% a question of price. I have many clients who absolutely love those single-planked kits because they are much less expensive than the double-planked counter-parts. The flip side of that is that I always warn a new modeller that price and difficulty are most definitely not a measure to go by when buying a kit. Most of the time, a less expensive kit, in the same subject, will be harder to build than the more expensive version. 

 

Again, though, I need to emphasize that the story goes both ways. A good modeller may find the cheaper kit most excellent for his interests, and a good bang for the investment.  On the other hand, a less-experienced modeller may find the more expensive kit much easier to build and, as Ron mentioned, having more material in a kit allows you to cover up mistakes more easily with what is included in the box. 

[grsjax]

One advantage to having double planking is that it gives a beginner a chance to learn proper planking techniques without to much worry about botching the final result.  Planking the first layer allows for mistakes that can then be covered by a second layer with less chance of mistakes.  The key is to try to plank both layers the right way.  Not just slap on the first layer and cover it with wood filler.

[Jaager]

There is one factor with a single planked hull - kit or scratch - the structure that supports the planking must be close enough together to support a smooth run of planking with a secure bond.

 

If a a double planked POB hull is supplied with the proper filling material between the moulds, a single layer of planking will do  -  if proper attention is shown to the scantlings.

If a builder is lofting a scratch POB hull [emoticon with a painful wince]  and if the complete lower hull is to be coppered  - with proper lofting and filling between the moulds - no planking is needed below the waterline.  The coppering can be laid directly on the support.  It just must take the planking thickness into account.  Many older plans for solid carved or laminated carved hull construction have this feature.

[Gregory]

2 hours ago, Ron Burns said:

Using a single layer is basically the way a real ship was built.

Technically this is true..  However, many ships were built with the frame spacing so close, as to provide almost a solid surface for planking.

 

I don't see why there should anything inferior about creating a solid surface on which to lay your final planking and make the best model you can.

 

Doing  a a great job on the so called 2nd planking of a double planked kit, can take as much skill as doing a good single planked kit,

and end up with a better looking model.

 

If the goal is to do it the way real ship building was done, then most of your masts and yards should be built up also.  And then there is rope.

How about smelting your own cannon?  The list goes on and on..

[Chuck]

For me personally.....its a matter of why plank it twice if you could do it properly with the first layer.   As a MFG and designer it has nothing to do with cost.   At least for me.  It has more to do with the usual audience of folks who buy my kits.   Single planked kits are targeted to more experienced builders who know how to plank.   Once you learn how to properly plank a hull, why in the world would any builder want to be forced by the design of a kit to plank it a second time.   So I would say that neither single or double planked POB kits are better than the other.   I would instead say that they are directed toward different groups within the hobby.  One is for those more experienced with planking.

 

BUT... depending on the design....any single planked kit can be planked a second time if that is what the builder wants to do.  I would however state that they should think about the thickness of those planks or even possibly sanding more off the bulkheads to compensate for the additional layer.  But again...if you are comfortable with your planking as a more skilled builder there is no reason to do it.

 

Any POF kit of course would never be double planked and the same is true for smaller open boats like the Medway Longboat which just wouldnt work.

 

 

Chuck

[glbarlow]

Depends on perspective. I know in my opinion it’s not one of expense. Cheerful, a quality single planked model, is no less expensive than Flirt, a double planked one. A single planked hull is more of a challenge than a double planked one, no room to recover if you do it wrong. I don’t think in general you can single plank a POB kit designed to be double planked because of the lessor number of bulkheads, essential to shaping the hull. For that reason it’s not comparable to a real ship which had many more frames than a kit, even a single planked one.  My Fair American, a 1:48 POF, has only about 1/4-½  inch between frames, Cheerful, a single planked semi-scratch build has a third more bulkheads than a typical double planked kit. 
 

Bottom line, just different things. I know Fair American and Cheerful are much more complex challenges and benefit a more experience modeler than regular double planked models. 

Edited January 13, 2021 by glbarlow

[Gregory]

Another consideration with double planking,  is that you have the option to use a wide variety of veneers, that may not be easily/cheaply  obtainable in planking strips suitable for single layer planking..

 

Of course there are those who might ask "  Why would you want to use anything besides AYC ? "    😁

Edited January 13, 2021 by Gregory

[Ron Burns]

See? The voices of experience can always make sense of things! I never even thought of many of the reasons for double planking and it does make sense for many circumstances now that you guys have laid it out. I've seen the magic that certain people have done with single planking and I can't see wanting to do it any other way (especially with that AYC :)) 

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

14 hours ago, Chuck said:

 Once you learn how to properly plank a hull, why in the world would any builder want to be forced by the design of a kit to plank it a second time

Thanks everyone for all the insight!  But I think here I have found my answer.  It seems that single-planked kits forego the luxury of a second layer to optimize value for experienced modellers. 

There are some smaller manufacturers that prefer this method, making unique kits of ships not otherwise available, which is great.  However, it does limit their target base to experienced modellers despite their advantage of offering ships that nobody else does.  As a beginner, I've got my eye on a few such kits but won't have the confidence to actually buy and plank one until who knows when.  We'll see how the first one or two DPoB kits go for now.  Then, with any luck, Kolderstok.

[chris watton]

I guess ultimately, it comes down to what one is used to. For me, personally, my perception of single planked kits was one of cheapness, at least judging from my first wooden kits I bought and made in the early 1990's (Billings). What seemed to be the norm then (at least in the UK, and I assume Europe) was that cheap kits were single planked, with box contents that looked positively anaemic, with wood parts mainly of one type (lime/basswood/obechi), and the 'premium' kits were double planked. That, at least was my experience when first starting out.

 

To do a really good job of a single planked kit, you do have to be very careful in preparation,  planking and finishing. The wood is usually still basswood or lime (am talking mainstream kits). Thinking as a beginner/novice, if it were of a harder, closer grained type, because of the required thickness, the planks would be a nightmare to manipulate. Using double planking negates this somewhat, as the thickness can be as little as 1mm, even 0.6, which is much easier to manipulate, despite being closer grained than lime or similar mainstream materials.

 

But this is just based on my experience. If you were brought up on a diet of single planked models, you would be more used to, and more comfortable with that, and naturally favour what you know best. 

[Mercator]

As a newcomer to the hobby I will go for double planking. It offers me the opportunity to be able to practice twice on the same model. I do need a lot of practice!

[Thunder]

Don't believe from the above comments that if a kit is double planked it will be good quality. Many are not. Some stretch the limits on gaps between the bulkheads to a level that make it very difficult to plank well without huge hollows in between. If possible i would check this prior to making a purchase.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

I single planked the Billings (original version) Wasa in the 70s, and was mostly happy with it (although one of the bulkheads was a little 'fat' and produced a slight bulge at that point - which I've seen on other builds of the old kit.  I'm taking it up again to finish, with a little surgery to make the model conform to what is NOW know of the original ship.  Yet I wonder (and one naval historian sees merit in the argument) if the the original Wasa DID have a forecastle deck covering the capstan and with armaments above - since the hull is planked high enough in that area (per the ship itself in Stockholm) to have had a deck.  Why would there be railings  there if a deck was not envisioned, and why would the front be open to breaking seas (apart from a flimsy fence) that would wash down the main gun deck?  The reconstructed stern is definitely higher than on my old model, and more weight and height above the waterline would have contributed to her top heaviness.

 

Edit to the above march 23rd, 2022

  I'm inclined now to think that the forecastle deck was NOT built on the Vasa due to the modifications to her imposed on the builders that made her unstable (even if one had originally been planned) ... simply because the addition of the fore deck (common to ships of that era) could have made her unlikely to sail away from the build site as she was 'tippy' enough without any additional weight above the weather deck. The marvelous restoration in Stockholm is how the Vasa was done, and the 1/10 museum model is now painted as close as experts can determine how the original looked on her fateful maiden voyage.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Snug Harbor Johnny
reconsideration

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

9 hours ago, *Hans* said:

When I started with wooden model ships (somewhere 1974-1975) the cheapest brand was Billing Boats, and as a kid of 14 years old I could not affort the more expensive ones (sometimes much more expensive).  Billing Boats models where always single planked, and so I got my skills on single plank models.

When I started making my own range of 17th century Dutch ships (2014-2015) as Kolderstok (which is btw the Dutch word for whipstaff) I have considered making them double planked, but for two reasons I did not do this:

- first of all it is nowadays rather difficult to find a good supplier of wooden planks at a fair price (at least in Europe). Milling/sawing them myself was no option due to the amount of planks needed. A double plank system would crank up the costs of a kit to much in my opinion.

- I learned planking a ship as a 14 year old boy, in a single plank technique, and never did wonder if this was more difficult or otherwise harder to do than a double plank system. I just did it.  And up to that: the Billing Boats kits had pre-printed boards which you had to jig-saw, and only one set in a box. No room for mistakes.  I still have my first model, single planked, in a rather good condition standing here. Single planking might look difficult, but to my opinion it is as easy to learn as a double plank technique.

 

The most important thing here is you have to do it in the proper way, and not just "flunk" the first layer because there will be a second one to cover up the first one. There is some danger here that the second one will not go well too. Do it easy, take your time, read about it, ask other builders how they did it, and you will become a master in planking 🙂

The Kolderstok kits do have (some) extra planks if the first ones go wrong, and ordering extra planks is always possible.

 

Sure: the Kolderstok ships are (also due to their rather curved shape) not the easiest ones to start with, but I do f.i. have a 24 year old builder here who started this hobby  with the most difficult kit (the Zeven Provinciën) in an oak planking (which is very difficult wood to work with) and who is making a superb job out of it.

See the pictures hereunder.

 

To summarize: don't be afraid of single plank models. If you have any feeling for working with wood, and the patience to take your time to do things in a good way (which does not mean perfect way) you can go for both systems. Just choose the ship you like (though I recommend to take a nice priced and as "easy" marked model of any brand) and start this very relaxing  and satisfying hobby 🙂

 

Hans van Nieuwkoop

www.kolderstok.com

 

 

 

 

Great to hear your input on this Hans!  

Also, I’ve heard rumors of a fluit in the works for Kolderstok? According to a Dutch forum (and google translate) it might be releasing soon? Can’t wait to hear more!

 

I discovered Chuck’s videos on YouTube a while back, and I think I’ll try his clamp and iron method.  My first kit arrived in the mail today, so I’ll be getting my hands dirty after work!

 

[allanyed]

  I have done one double planked model, and it was a scratch build POB  over forty years ago using plans from a kit manufacturer (don't remember which one) .  Did the first layer of planking teach my anything, it sure did!  Did I ever do a double planked hull after that - no, never saw the need.   There are good reasons for double planking mentioned above. But the one thing I find to be the best reason NOT to do double planking is that many, if not most, kits use completely inappropriate wood for the second layer.  Based on photos in build logs here at MSW they seem to mainly use open pore walnut strips that look terrible, especially in texture.   Is this  wood really that much less expensive that a more appropriate species cannot be used?  Obviously favored species like boxwood, pear, and Castello are  not candidates, but what about other species that the better quality kits have gone to?     

Allan

Edited January 21, 2021 by allanyed

[*Hans*]

7 hours ago, Meriadoc Brandybuck said:

Also, I’ve heard rumors of a fluit in the works for Kolderstok? According to a Dutch forum (and google translate) it might be releasing soon? Can’t wait to hear more!

Rumours spread fast 🙂

No, I am actually working on a Dutch fluit, and have the hull more or less finished.  However, sales of the other models went up due to the pandemic and I can't hardly find the time to proceed on this new model.

Further, maybe important for you: she isn't an easy model. The bulky shape of the hull is very difficult to make, and (how ironical) I am considering to offer a second layer of planking for this model, as the first layer (basswood) could come out quite battered....

 

Hans

[Meriadoc Brandybuck]

2 hours ago, *Hans* said:

Rumours spread fast 🙂

No, I am actually working on a Dutch fluit, and have the hull more or less finished.  However, sales of the other models went up due to the pandemic and I can't hardly find the time to proceed on this new model.

Further, maybe important for you: she isn't an easy model. The bulky shape of the hull is very difficult to make, and (how ironical) I am considering to offer a second layer of planking for this model, as the first layer (basswood) could come out quite battered....

 

Hans

Very interesting!

Well I hope you can find the time to realize your vision for it, single or double planked.  Fluits do look to be inherently challenging, but they have the most interesting and distinct features; they almost look fictitious.  

Good luck!  I’ll probably build it someday, assuming I can succeed in getting my current project off the stocks. 

[Jaager]

@*Hans*  " a convex, pear-shaped hull with a strongly concave top and narrow decks – can plausibly be assumed to be the result of a succession of small developments that started at the end of the 16th century."

I read along time ago - no reference- sorry -  that the reason that Dutch vessels tended to have very narrow upper decks was because of how the taxes and customs duties were calculated.  The formula obviously used the breadth of the top deck to determine the cargo volume.  It would have been easy to use a more realistic formula, once the trick was obvious,  but I am guessing that the shipping interests must have gained control of at least that part of the government.  They must have become the ones with the money and thus the power.

 

I have developed an historical narrative about ship model kits that goes as follows:

The kits from the 1930's and 1940's were primitive - mostly a solid block or slightly carved one, some sticks, string and lead castings.  Then  after WWII   a lot of pattern following lathes became available as surplus when millions of M1 rifle stocks were no longer needed.  MS, BlueJacket, and I think another New England company that I think BlueJacket bought started providing more carefully carved hulls and better materials and using real plans for a new generation of kits.   Meanwhile, in Europe, I think first in Italy - around 1960 Aeropicola (sp) and Constructo (sp) and maybe others - not having access to cheap pattern chasing lathes , evolved a hull construction method for ships  based on how boats have been built for a long time - planking over molds.  Except that with boats, the molds are not a part of the final hull.  With boats the molds are at close enough intervals that the physics of the wood fibers do not allow for hollows. 

Based on what I see in Lusci (1970) and Conte (3rd ed n.d.) these early kits used plans of questionable accuracy and subjects likely to be popular even if their actual plans were a fantasy.   The molds were spaced at ridiculously wide intervals.  Two layers of planking was required to avoid a serpentine hull conformation.  The swimming body seems to have been given as little attention as possible.  A follow-on company - Mamoli - seems to have used the same hull shape for at least three vessels - Bounty - Endeavour - Beagle.  With so few molds, I am wondering if thin plywood was expensive in Italy at the time.

 

I find it bemusing and a bit ironic that features that were cheap short cuts of guys just trying to make a living (POB to begin with) and double planking for it - because it was cheaper than having enough molds to support a proper hull have flipped and are seen as some sort of standard.

 

[Bob Cleek]

Jaager's historical narrative certainly seems accurate. I'd add the theory, as to European manufacturers particularly, that packaging may have been a factor in their favoring plank-on-bulkhead hull construction. Carving hulls out of large, flawless, prime basswood blocks meant that the manufacturer had to pass the cost of all the waste wood to the customer and had to box the solid hulls in larger boxes. The plank-on-bulkhead models eliminated much of the expense of the carving waste and the expensive machinery to do it, reducing the materials to some thin ply, dowels, and strip wood. All of that could be packaged in a smaller flat box that took up much less volume when shipping the European kits to the Americas and meant more available space on retailers' shelves. Those who recall the old Model Shipways "yellow box" solid hull models will be familiar with this difference.

[*Hans*]

On 3/23/2022 at 9:57 PM, Jaager said:

*  " a convex, pear-shaped hull with a strongly concave top and narrow decks – can plausibly be assumed to be the result of a succession of small developments that started at the end of the 16th century."

I read along time ago - no reference- sorry -  that the reason that Dutch vessels tended to have very narrow upper decks was because of how the taxes and customs duties were calculated.  The formula obviously used the breadth of the top deck to determine the cargo volume.  It would have been easy to use a more realistic formula, once the trick was obvious,  but I am guessing that the shipping interests must have gained control of at least that part of the government.  They must have become the ones with the money and thus the power.

I did give a reaction on this, but unfortunately it has been deleted 😞

There is an article (in English) which explains how the toll on the sound was measured and calculated, and it was not in the way as decribed here above.  Those who are interested please pm me so I can give the link.

Edited March 26, 2022 by *Hans*

[Roger Pellett]

IMHO Jagger’s post and Bob Cleek’s response is right on.  I do have one historical quibble.  In the 1930’s and 40’s A.J. Fisher located in a suburb of Detroit, Michigan did produce high quality kits based on, for the time, accurate historical information; much from HAMMS drawings.  Hulls were solid wood. I don’t know if they were machine carved or perhaps they furnished band sawed lifts to be laminated.  

 

Fittings were very high quality, mostly machined brass, to scale, and looking like real ship fittings; no bowling pin belaying pins.  Other fittings like ladders and rigging blocks were fabricated from tiny pieces of real boxwood.  Even the white metal castings have aged well without lead disease.  The two models built by my father are almost 80 years old.

 

 

Roger

 

 

[Jaager]

From early in the 20th century, there was also Boucher (later Boucher-Lewis and then BlueJacket) who apparently provided kits as well as being a high quality model shop that may have inspired what A.J.Fisher provided in their kits.  The quality described suggests that the price may have also been quality.  

[Jaager]

5 hours ago, *Hans* said:

and it was not in the way as decribed here above.

Hans,

I tried to phrase what I wrote as supposition.  It was not intended to be seen as fact.  It was more in the nature of chum.

 

It is unfortunate for the historical knowledge that so much of what they did and how they did it was hidden and secret in an understandable effort to protect their "rice bowl".  Perhaps if it had been government and bureaucratic the archives would be more complete.

 

I do not apologize for suggesting that money, power and politics often shape decisions that should be strictly based on logic and science.