Tapered teck planking

[The Bitter End]

Good Day to you all

 

I have a question which I know for sure I am going to struggle to articulate, but I am hoping one of you patient geniuses will be able to help.

 

I am planking the gun deck of the USS constitution. This involved first running 2 sets of 2 thick joggled strakes onto my carrier(I think this was probably a stupid approach to the planking order but the point of planking this hidden deck was to learn a thing or two about a thing or two). Please excuse the state of this planking. It is made from very rough cut planks and I used glue mixed with wood stain for the caulking so it looks like a train wreck but does clean up nicely once scraped and sanded back.

I then planked between the strakes using tapered planks which followed a standard planking pattern. and left the very center strip of planking for last.

 

 

My problem is this. The planking in the center section is interrupted by the hatches Am I meant to continue to use tapered planks as if the planking was run in one continuous tapered strake or must I treat each new section independently and therefore end up with a different number of planks per section as the space between the thick strakes narrows.

 

To try and clarify...if I plank the area between the 2 center hatches this can be done with 7 standard planks. I could either continue this right to the bow and stern and have 7 tapered planks between the thick strakes a lot the whole length of the deck, or I can get away with using as little as 5 planks in the narrowest sections.

 

I hope this makes some sort of sense.

 

I will post the results once I have tidied up this mess so that I can sleep at night

 

Cheers

 

Haiko

 

[Marcus.K.]

I don´t KNOW what was done in those days.. and I guess we will never know that.

But I guess I would follow the tapered scheme here too. It just seems more logical to me. 

 

How did you manage to do that "tapering"?

Did you cut each planks width individually??

 

And:

if distances between hatches or other obstacles can be filled with only one (typical) plank, don´t try to follow the planking schematic beside the strakes. A longer single plank is always preferred - as it is more robust than 2 planks meeting on a deck beam. 

 

I am curious how it will look after sanding the surface. I am pretty sure it will look just perfect!! 

Can´t wait to see the result. You are doing a great job here!

Edited January 29 by Marcus.K.

[The Bitter End]

16 hours ago, Marcus.K. said:

I don´t KNOW what was done in those days.. and I guess we will never know that.

But I guess I would follow the tapered scheme here too. It just seems more logical to me. 

 

How did you manage to do that "tapering"?

Did you cut each planks width individually??

 

And:

if distances between hatches or other obstacles can be filled with only one (typical) plank, don´t try to follow the planking schematic beside the strakes. A longer single plank is always preferred - as it is more robust than 2 planks meeting on a deck beam. 

 

I am curious how it will look after sanding the surface. I am pretty sure it will look just perfect!! 

Can´t wait to see the result. You are doing a great job here!

Hello Marcus

 

Thanks for your input. I am on the fence about this, it is frustrating!

 

I measured each section to be filled, I then checked the maximum number of complete planks that would fill that section and then divided the width of each section at each beam by that number. I then transferred that measurement to the plank and cut each taper individually using a steel ruler and a surgical scalpel. 

 

I can't wait to see these results either! I really hope they are ok. What I can tell you is that many lessons were learned for the spar deck planking/

 

Cheers

 

Haiko

[BANYAN]

A bit of both is my guess Haiko.  I have seen/heard pictures and discussions where the decks were put in and the hatches cut in later (with the deck fully planked or roughly left vacant in the hatch area but still needing to be cut to size if that makes sense), and where the deck plank were put in around the hatch coaming.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Marcus.K.]

Interesting observation, Pat. 

 

I believe that since Humphreys specified those "thick strakes" - as he called them - with their interlocking specifically for strengthening the ships longitudinal robustness against hogging - that they were installed precisely "beside" the future hatches - to not "cut" them by adding the hatches in a later step. Since they were generated especially for that, it would be stupid to "damage" them by cutting in the hatches in a later step. 

 

On the other hand:

we have no idea whether the shipwrights really understood or even "accepted" Humphreys design. We know for example that Fox was in frequent discussion about many design details with Humphreys - leading to that open quarrel between the two in later years. And then: those written specification left a lot of room for interpretation. And also the know how and tradition of each involved shipwright had impact on the real ship. So any today known written specification may or may have not been followed in the real ship from the start. Those are the open questions we will most likely never know ..

 

But .. if we try to reconstruct something it is - at least in my opinion - better to follow a known contemporary source instead of stomach feeling from today´s point of view. Only exception: if your doubt is justified by another source or indication of some later known designs. 

 

We very often do trust "common" known and "pleasing to the eyes" layouts more than unusual ones in - for example - sister ships. Just because something seen in so many models and interpretation it seems to be "right" and therefore we often mistrust a - for us strange - "feature", for which someone finds a contemporary source. Argument: "we don´t know if THIS was done in THAT ship too!" .. yeah - but we also don´t know if the "classical" design was done in THAT ship, right?

 

Example:

I found in Charles Ware´s 1820 US Frigate United States Deck drawings that it seems the Frigate had a partly closed planked head. "A" is declared as "wash deck pumps". That black tetrahedrons seem to indicate either a rising or - as I believe - a certain well or "tub" for the wash deck pumps (pumping sea water). So the sailors would be able to get sea water to wash their hands, their body and even clothes (laundry was often done in the ships head). 

 

And you may notice that strange feature along the outer edge of the head in that area marked with "A". I believe these are a pissoirs on left and right side of this area of the head - for the sailors.

The wash deck pump would therefore "feed" a certain sink (the black tetrahedron), the pissoir and the seats of ease .. 

If you look at the color of the deck in that area: its represented plain - while the front of the head - with those seats of ease - is black and white - most likely a grating, right?

Source:

 

Frigate_United_States_Ware_-15_-_NARA_-_3281884.jpg (9931×6725)

 

Now imagine I would represent that design on a Constitution model : for sure there will be voices stating "well, you do not have any proof that THIS design in US Frigate United States in 1820 was also existing in US Frigate Constitution!!"  - which is true!

 

But on the other hand: I don´t have any proof for any other design in Old Ironsides early head designs.. Right? 

 

Back to our planking issue here:

I would assume the shipwrights followed Humphreys specification - and valued the stiffening properties of the thick strakes - and therefore hand them installed before the hatches but according to the hatches dimension - and therefore had the needed planking tapering pattern "predefined" - just as Haiko was doing on his deck. 

 

But.. all that´s just "guesstimation" only 😄 

Always remember Captn. Hareblower:

"Eeeh, I could be wrong, you know?"

Edited January 31 by Marcus.K.

[Kenchington]

You have run up against a pet peeve of mine, Haiko. I can't answer your question but maybe some context will help:

 

Warships built in the 1790s, Constitution as much as any other, were on an evolutionary stream that affected shipwrights' thinking, even though the men of the time were unaware of what had gone before (let alone what was to follow). It is not an easy trend to follow, because marine artists were concerned with what could be seen from outboard, not what seagulls saw while looking down, but there are bits and pieces of evidence.

 

The very few deck plans from the 16th Century (all Iberian, so far as I know) show ships as being open from bow to stern, with beams spanning from side to side but planking only along the outer thirds or (more likely) outer two-fifths. The middle strip had mast partners etc. where needed and was likely covered by gratings most of the time (with tarpaulins over the gratings in wet weather) but nothing permanent.

 

Fast forward to the early precursors of the Navy Board models, dating from the 1650s, and you can see that same notion of an open strip, covered by gratings wherever it was not occupied by  mast or capstan partners, with select gratings set aside to provide for hatchways, ladder ways etc. By the 1670s, parts of that central strip were being planked, particularly on the forecastle and quarterdeck. The lower deck of two- and three-decked ships may have remained with nothing more than gratings, as it was protected from the weather.

 

When Sutherland composed the first (almost) clear explanation of English ship structure, soon after 1700, he wrote of "long coaming carlings" running the length of the ship, either side of that open strip. They were heavy timbers, providing important strength in resisting hogging -- much as Marcus has mentioned from Humphrey's words. Yet, in Sutherland's day, the long carlings were also coamings, standing higher than the deck planking on either side, preventing any water on the deck from pouring through the gratings and down into the ship.

 

Raised obstacles running the length of the deck must have been a confounded nuisance, especially when guns needed to be moved about. So, by the later 18th Century, the more detailed plans that were being prepared show the same idea of long, structural elements but ones set down into the deck beams, giving the deck an even upper surface. The space between was still something different from what was on either side. The side portions were planked in oak, with ledges and carlings beneath, to take the wear and tear of the guns. The centre section might have pine planking, though much of it still had hatchways, mast partners etc. That arrangement can still be seen in Victory.

 

As the decades rolled on, shipwrights seem to have finally left the old idea of an open central strip with side decks and, by the mid-19th Century, decks were what we expect them to be today: Continuous areas of weathertight planking, with breaks for hatchways etc. But, when Constitution was built, the notion that the central strip was different was still there. How that concept was realized in the structure of a particular ship needs either evidence for that one vessel or close study of the progress of evolutionary change. Times, places, purposes of the ship in question, individual shipwrights' preferences ... all will have affected what was done at any one point in the steadily changing trends.

 

One final thought though:

 

When building a model, it is usually convenient to plank the deck and then cut the hatchways after. In full-size construction, however, the framework beneath the planking was necessarily constructed first. So the shipwrights knew where the hatchway would be, when they laid the planks around it, even though the coamings might not be added until later. A short run between, say, a main hatchway and the mainmast partners, would be planked as a short run, not matched to the shifted butts of the long lengths of planking to either side.

 

 

Hope this helps you figure out the answer to your question!

 

 

Trevor