did wales ever taper at the bow?

[hamilton]

The subject says it all, but just to clarify - on most source material I've seen (admittedly most of this has been kit plans) the wales are shown as untapered thick strakes. But did it ever occur that wales were tapered at the bow (or stern) to maintain a fair run of the planks? Just curious......

hamilton

[WackoWolf]

Good question. Now to see what the answers are.

[testazyk]

I'll be interested to hear a definitive answer.  My guess is no because untapered would seem to provide more structural strength.  But tapered would be easier to work with and reduce the weight and possible look dramatic, but all those things seem less important than providing strength.

Edited August 11, 2014 by testazyk

[Blue Ensign]

There is no mention of a taper of the Main Wale in The Construction and Fitting of the English Man of War 1650 - 1850.

 

In Volume 11 of the ffm it is noted that the top strake of the wale tapers from 41/2" to 3" in thickness to accommodate the fit into the rabbet of the stem.

 

There is no indication of taper in the width of the timbers.

 

Cheers,

 

B.E.

[WackoWolf]

Thank you B.E. Now to hear what others say.

[druxey]

YES, they did - at least in 18th century British practice. Although not specifically mentioned in contemporary books such as Steel, this feature can be seen if one looks carefully at contemporary models. The wales always tapered in thickness around the bow so that they fitted nicely into the rabbet at the stem. This taper also aided bending the strakes around the bow. It is more than likely that other countries did the same thing.

[usedtosail]

The MS Constitution plans have the wales tapering into the bow and stern rabbets. Whether this was done on the original building of the ship, I don't know.

[allanyed]

Hi Hamilton

 

When you say a fair run of the planks, what do you mean?  I took it that you were talking about the width of the wales, not the thickness.  The thickness did taper in order to seat into the rabbet as Druxey points out, but the width is another matter.  The other planks taper in width as they approached the bow, so it is a fair question to ask if the wales also taper in width. 

 

Allan

[usedtosail]

Ah yes, I was thinking thickness too. The Constitution plans also show the wales tapering in width at the bow and stern, but again if this is how they were done at the actual construction, I don't know.

[hamilton]

Thanks all for the considered responses.

 

Alan, I was speaking about the width - sorry for lack of clarity....I figured that there was NO taper in the width of the wales because it would reduce the structural strength at the bows....

 

Anyways - thanks again all!

hamilton

[Chuck Seiler]

The wale(s) served a couple structural functions.  First, it helped hold the frames in places much like the hoop(s) of a barrel.  In truth, there are alot of other things holding the frames in places, but that give you a basic idea.  The other was to provide meat/support for the knees/ledges and other deck related structures.  The strengths gained in the bow as you approach the stem more than make up for the weaknesses incurred by the slight decrease in thickness.

[usedtosail]

Just for completeness, after checking last night, the Constitution plans show the wales tapering in width at the stern only, not the bow.

[uss frolick]

But whales taper at the stern ...

[hamilton]

Some whales als taper at the bow....

hamilton

[hamilton]

Joking aside - would US naval practice have differed significantly from the construction methods used for merchant vessels? I would imagine the answer is yes in many areas of construction, but perhaps not in the area of the wales.....

hamilton

[pirozzi]

If you look at photos of the actual Victory and the Constitution, it appears that the width of the wales remains constant from stem to stern.

 

Vince P.

[wq3296]

Greetings Hamilton,

 

So far missed in this discussion is the fact that the primary function of wales was to reduce bending (hogging, sagging) of the hull. In cases where the ship was supported by a wave crest midships, the bow and stern would tend to sag because they would be left unsupported. This tendency to bend at the ends of the ship would be resisted by the wales. Even at anchor, the bow and stern tend to sag because they are less buoyant than the fuller sectioned midships. Accordingly, the midship wale section would be wider to better resist bending. It would seem that the wale width could be reduced toward the bow and stern since maximum bending moment would occur midships. I doubt wales would have been maintained at a constant width just because it may have looked better. 

 

wq3296

[uss frolick]

When as a kid - long, long ago - I used to think the wales were a thick bumper to absorb the damage when rubbing against the dock - like tires on the side of a tugboat ! Oh well ...

 

Actually, the wales are a part of a system which include the frames, the clamps on the inside, the hanging and lodging knees and the beams, to prevent the ship from opening up sideways. Think of a frame as a rose. The natural tendency of this pretty flower is to open out or to bloom. In a ship, this would be catastrophic, obviously, and the above system evolved to prevent this. The reason that the 74's  gundeck beam is, say, 12 inches molded by 10 inches sided , is not to hold the heavy weight of the cannon, but to secure the sides of the ship in place. Working in a heavy seas stresses the "rose", and in older ships, the knees can pull out of the clamps, the ship opens up, fills and sinks. See Patrick O'Brian's "The Ionian Mission", for when that happens to the "Rotten Old Worcester", and Jack has to cocoon his ship by wrapping his midships tight with his own hawser cable.