Jump to content

"Thick Stuff" - question for the guru´s here: does a 2 1/2 inch step on deck make sense?


Recommended Posts

Ladies, Sirs, mates and pals,

 

I need your advice.

 

I just found something strange in John Lords Section Cut drawing 35208 where he is showing his research results from Humphrey-Papers concering Old Ironsides original layout. I guess it is to be viewed with a certain .. "sceptsism" since Lord did not have Internet or fellow forum colleauges to get advice from. And: it may be a drawing of a set of drawings- in which here missing information may be shown. What I for example noticed as missing information here: Lord refered to the demand of white oak planks 6 feet from the side for the Gun Deck - but did not advice the 5 feed white oak on upper deck - which Humphrey clearly did.

 

But my question for you experts: do you know any evindence for a raised mid section of the decks - in between the hatches - as Lord is showing here? This "white oak" which seem to run in between the hatches - and having a visible step vs. the white oak planks (interlocked?) "beside the hatches" ). It seems to be 6" while that "third straks" along the hatch seems to be described as 5 1/2" - but lowered into the beams.. and the yellow pine planks have a thickness of about 3 1/2" .. making that step 2 1/2" thick. That´s more than 6 cm !

 

I would think that stronger planks along the mid of a ships deck would help to increase stiffness in general - if there weren´t those hatches, which do "cut" the strengthening feature along the ships lengthwise axis. We know that Humphreys designed "interlocked thick strakes" .. and Lord shows them - one on Gun Deck and at least one in Berthdeck. There are white oak strakes along the hatches - which could be interlocked strakes too - but that is not shown explicitly in the drawing.1926_Lord_Mid-Section-Cut_unknown-Number_Deadwood-comparison-research.thumb.jpg.b6c1729b988c48658eeb2648a89aaf8f.jpg

Source of this section cut: Alexander Mahoun´s "USS Constitution and other historic ships" - but also being part of John Lords 1926-31 restauration plans.

 

But again my main question: are there any other sources or evidence for a step on decks in that mid section - in the area of hatches? Isn´t that an obstacle for the crew - if you have to move a gun from one to the other side - if you have to run across the decks? Or is this just was Lord was thinking it should be?

What do you think?

 

And .. since you are looking: what does he show here in the center of the ship in Berth deck level: that "thick stuff" 6" ?? 10"? .. is this a 6" x 10"? What would that be? There is a dotted line - but what would that be??

Edited by Marcus.K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Evening Markus;

 

Your question touches on several separate topics; not being knowledgeable concerning American ships I cannot perhaps answer with full authority, but I can tell you the equivalent English practice.

 

Firstly, all timber used in ship-building was classified in various categories, according to its size and intended use. For planking, this comprised 'board', 'plank' & 'thick stuff'. Board was around 1" thick, and was used for bulkheads and partitions. Plank was up to 4 or 5" thick, and was used for most of the hull covering, in and out. Thick stuff was used where extra strength was needed, and was up to around 9" thick. Generally, anything over this thickness was only used (in larger ships) for the keel and related pieces, along with deck beams. 

 

Compass timber was anything curved, the main use of which was for forming the curves of the frames.

 

The thicker strakes of deck planking, which are flush with the main deck coverings, but are let down into the top of the deck beams, are known as 'binding strakes', and their purpose was to stiffen the ship's structure. They were also often used to fix the ring-bolts for the train-tackles for the ordnance. 

 

Lord's survey is obviously a very thorough one, and much attention has been paid to detail. I would be very dubious that he shows anything that was not there when he carried out his work. 

 

In the 17th century, the central portion of the deck was normally raised above the planking outside this strip, and was delineated by timbers known as 'long carlings'. See photograph below from a model of the 'Boyne'. 

 

image.thumb.png.d9ee92268f99d134bc21c1d1ef4d0468.png

 

This practice continued in the 18th century; see photograph of a model in the National Maritime Museum, dating from the early 1760s.

 

image.png.f672187c2cc0ba53109d37f05738aae9.png

Thanks for posting an interesting drawing. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

Edited by Mark P

Previously built models (long ago, aged 18-25ish) POB construction. 32 gun frigate, scratch-built sailing model, Underhill plans.

2 masted topsail schooner, Underhill plans.

 

Started at around that time, but unfinished: 74 gun ship 'Bellona' NMM plans. POB 

 

On the drawing board: POF model of Royal Caroline 1749, part-planked with interior details. My own plans, based on Admiralty draughts and archival research.

 

Always on the go: Research into Royal Navy sailing warship design, construction and use, from Tudor times to 1790. 

 

Member of NRG, SNR, NRS, SMS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Of course, Constitution has had a very long life during which she has been rebuilt and repaired several times.  For a considerable part of this time she sailed as an active unit of the US Navy so until recent times, her refits did not necessarily involve ensuring historical accuracy.  Even today, she is a hodgepodge of different periods.

 

Constitution underwent a major repair in the 1920’s.  There are photos of her during this repair in drydock with all exterior planking removed.  Apparently, during this repair a series of as built drawings were prepared.  In the 1990’s these drawings, on a DVD disc, were offered to the public.  I believe that the drawing that you have posted is one from the 1920’s.  To be useful to the level that you want you would have to be able to determine when different structural elements were added during which historic period.   

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...