Standards or calculations of plank widths?

[TK1]

Hi all,

 

I'm returning to ship models after a break, with a couple of scratch builds (no sense starting off easy!).

 

One thing I'll need to work out is the planking, and it got me thinking...are there any "standards" or practices on plank width? I understand a private shipyard would do what works for them, but like with hull shapes and other conventions, was there any accepted or ideal widths?  Maybe even Naval yard practice?

 

It got me thinking as it seemed a lot of kits supply 5mm wide planks regardless of scale (for most kits around the 'mid' scales of say 1/24 to 1/80 or so anyway). So this seems just convenience from a supply/parts perspective.

 

But did any navies or Joe Shipwright down by the river work to anything that said "ideally start with a plank 8 or 12 inches wide" or "x number of planks per foot" or "the largest practica to get a bend and acceptable taper" or something?

 

So a mix of curiosity and wondering if in say 1/48 I just grab 4mm or 5mm planks or do "what looks right to me"?

 

May not be an answer or logic but curious if there is.

 

Thanks,

Darren

[Louie da fly]

There was certainly "usual practice" regarding plank widths. According to Wolfram zu Mondfeld's book Historic Ship Models,

 

"Until the end of the 17th century the width of planks varied between 18ins and 13ins (the older, the wider), in the 18th century between 14ins and 11ins, and in the 19th century the average was 12ins. " 

 

- they steadily got narrower - whether to more easily follow the hull shape or perhaps because bigger trees had already been cut down?

 

If you can get hold of the above book, I'd highly recommend it. I've found it very helpful indeed.

 

Steven

Edited January 29, 2021 by Louie da fly

[allanyed]

Darren,  I am not sure if there were standards, but there is some information available.   This is not a straight forward thing.   Which ship, year nation?  The Lady Nelson that you list in your signature may have been different than rated ships as she was an armed survey vessel built in a private yard by John Dudman.  Contemporary information for rated British ships is available and may be similar, if not the same, for Lady Nelson.

 

If there were wales, some scantlings for rated ships are in the Establishments and can also be found in the Shipbuilder's Repository and Steel's Elements of Naval Architecture. They all give the thickness of the plank of the bottom as well,  but not the widths.    Some cross section drawings show the planks width, and there are planking expansion drawings that show the individual planks from which you can get an idea on the widths.   Looking at the planking expansion drawing that I have  of Squirrel (24), 1785, as one example, the widths were about 10" for the plank of the bottom midships.  The strakes all tapered so the widths varied a lot from the dead flat to the bow (down to about 6.5" at the stem) and from the dead flat to the stern post (widening from 10"  to over 11")   

 

From Steel and the SR the thick stuff above the wales was 13" wide, and the wales were anywhere from over 15" wide down to about 9.5" wide depending on the size of the ship.   Also, depending on the ship and era, the wales could have been anchor stock or similar planking rather than strakes of planking found on the rest of the hull. The planking above the thickstuff for Squirrel is 8" and was different for various ship sizes.   

 

Lastly, ships contracted to private yards commonly had contracts with scantlings, including  information regarding the planking.  They were pretty detailed on the various thicknesses and gave some information on the widths as well.

 

Sorry to hit you with maybe too much information, but if you can narrow things down to one ship, members can probably steer you to reliable sources for accurate information.

 

Allan

Edited January 29, 2021 by allanyed

[wefalck]

Adding to the information overload and things that the shipwrights would have considered:

 

- they had to balance between the width of the available wood and the need to have basically as few seams to keep tight as possible

 

- too narrow planks at the ends are difficult to fit and you need 'meat' for the fastenings (tree-nails, metallic nails/bolts)

 

- I am quoting from memory, but I think in Eric McKee's books on boats he gives a couple of rules-of-thumb, such that the fastenings should not be closer to the edge of a plank than its thickness to avoid splitting

 

- this means that allowing for tapering there is minimum width for a given thickness that a plank must have before tapering

 

- I seem to remember that there are also rules-of-thumb for the ratio between width of a plank and its thickness to avoid splitting and warping and in some navies such rules were written down, at least in the later 19th century

 

- the available width of planks also depends on the type of wood chosen, the period (as already mentioned by Steven), and the geographic origin or location

 

- oak planking in principle could be wider than soft-wood planks because oak trunks can grow thicker, but wide oak plans became increasingly scarce in Europe due to the massive ship-building activities from the mid-18th century on

 

- for the same reason, massive pine trees in North America became less accessible after the middle of the 19th century, Baltic pine planks tended to be narrower

 

- in many areas of Europe pine and related types of woods were imported by ship from the Baltic region (Finland, Sweden, Russia, the Baltic States, the eastern Provinces of then Germany and Poland; this put limitations to the size of timbers that could be economically transported

 

- soft-wood was mainly imported sawn in Europe, which made stowage more economic than transporting whole trunks, which limited the choices to what was available on the market

 

- certain ships built in SE Asia for European owners/navies may have had rather wide planks due to the availabilty there of large hardwood trees

 

OK, that didn't really answer your question, I suppose, and doesn't help with the practical problem. However, the widths quoted by Steven and Allen are a good guide.

 

 

[JerryC]

Historic Ship Models is available from Alibris!

[Bob Cleek]

Plank widths would also vary depending upon the amount of curve to the frames. The lower planks below the curve of the bilge were called the "broads" because the flatter shape of the hull permitted wider planks without the need for extensive backing out to shape the plank to match the curve of the frame.

[TK1]

Thanks all.  I figured it was a minefield and it would certainly vary by ship, location, age, navy vs merchant, wood, etc.  So some great information so has given me some guidance and stuff to think on.  As mentioned, I realised many kits came with 5mm planks regardless of scale so figured there had to be some form of real-world convention or formula.  Wefalk's point about size and strength in relation to fastenings and Bob's on the amount of bend make sense too.  Similarly on Steven's point they got narrower, certainly more modern ships seem to have narrower planks than records of older ones.

 

A starting-point at least, and seems like 10 or 12 inch up to 18 inch was the norm in many cases, allowing for variables, and gives me something to go on.  I don't think I have Mondfield's book, will have a dig around otherwise will order it.

 

Off to do more thinking and research, as always!  

Thanks,
Darren