Planking math

[Bob Cleek]

What works best is sometimes limited by what one has to work with.

It's been mentioned more than once that a great many, if not most of the modelers here and elsewhere are building kits. Beginners in particular feel restricted for the most part to what comes in the kit, all he other resources that are available notwithstanding.
Spiling requires stock that is not provided in virtually all kits. It would be nice to change that, but for now it is the way it is.

The expertise found here could do well to help beginners do their bet work with what they have, and maybe help them move on to what some feel are higher aspirations.

I hear what you're saying, but I cannot see any justification for settling for "being restricted ... by what comes in the kit." The limitations of kits are well-plowed ground and there's nothing to add to that discussion. That said, if people who buy kits want to satisfy their own expectations, supplementing the kit, often greatly, is what's required. "Helping beginners do their best work" should involve telling them that it is the deficiencies of their instructions, materials, and/or tools which are limiting the quality of their work when that is the case. This doesn't mean that everybody needs to run out and buy two or three thousand dollars' worth of power tools, but, as is the case in this instance, it shouldn't be beyond anybody's ability to source scale planking stock that's one or two inches wide instead of a quarter inch wide by ordering it from any of the modeling wood suppliers like The Lumberyard, and so on.

It's often said that many fine models have been built with the simplest of hand tools and that's quite true, but what's rarely mentioned is that those simple hand tools were used by highly skilled craftsmen who had an intimate knowledge of their subject matter. This is certainly not the case with a great many beginning ship modelers who, judging from their posts, bring little or no expertise in hand tool woodworking and even less experience with wooden ship building and/or basic seamanship. Reasonable minds may differ, I suppose, but to my mind I don't think a beginner is done any favors by "dumbing down" the craft because basic skills and materials necessary to produce a good model aren't available packaged in a box. The challenges most beginning ship modelers describe on internet forums are in large measure the result of 1.) their misinformed expectation that they can, without any specialized knowledge, skill, and/or experience, satisfactorily assemble the ship model pictured on the front of a ship model kit box, 2.) their lack of sufficient knowledge, skill, and/or experience, in the required manual arts, and 3.) their lack of sufficient knowledge, skill and/or experience with the nautical subject matter they are trying to model. In most cases, they'd be far better served by studying a few of the classic books on ship modeling before doing anything else. Unfortunately, it seems the prevailing expectation that all they need to do is find their answer on the internet. However enlightening YouTube and Artificial Intelligence may be, they are no substitute for a real "apprenticeship."

 

[Bob Cleek]

Should? Why? There are no rules...

Indeed, "There are no rules." in ship modeling, just as there are no bad ship models. It's just that, even without rules, some models are a whole lot better than others and those who know what they are looking at can tell the difference at a glance.

 

[Bob Cleek]

With the tools available in my neighborhood carpentry class, for instance, I can mill strips from 1/4 or so boards, but can't really mill a 1/32-inch sheet, unless I want to plane down a much thicker board and waste a lot of wood.

No need to mill a 1/32" thick sheet. Just take a one- or two-inch-thick billet and rip 1/32" x one- or two-inch scale plank stock from it.

Think "in scale terms." The wooden ships we model were made from trees, not giant sheets of plywood. Available planking stock has never been much more than two feet wide and twenty-four feet long because that's about as big as the trees grow or the planks can be shipped from the mill. At 1:48 scale, that's a half inch by six inches.

 

[Bob Cleek]

What I feel, is that we do our best to help those who ask for help, and our help be more than sending them out shopping for tools and materials, when what they have invested in a kit may be the best they can do right now.

If what they have invested in a kit was all they can afford right now and what they need is proper tools and materials, then the best help they possibly can be given, unfortunately, is to be told to put that kit back on the shelf and start saving for the needed tools and materials before going any further. The simple fact is that there is likely no wooden ship model kit available anywhere that can be satisfactorily built without the proper tools (hand or powered, as the budget might allow) and supplemental materials, or both. The implied message of the ship model kit industry that all you have to do is buy a four-figure-plus "cannons and gingerbread" kit and assemble the parts step by step following the instructions to end up with a model like the one on the cover "that you built yourself" is false advertising, pure and simple. Assembling wooden ship model kits and injection molded polystyrene plastic model kits are two entirely different skillsets.

You see, the kit ship model manufacturers are well aware that anybody who possesses the basic skills to build a good ship model from scratch knows just how much of an obscene rip-off most ship model kits are and won't be buying any from them in the future. Therefore, the kit manufacturers know their target customer base is going to be people who don't know the difference and can be sold junk for top dollar. It just becomes another big scam, marketing and selling "impulse purchases" to customers who aspire to "build" a ship model or "become ship modelers." And make no mistake about it, these manufacturers have a vested interest in fostering the belief that building a ship model without buying a kit is far too difficult for the average modeler and requires thousands of dollars of expensive power tools which, again, is simply not true. They want to sell wooden ship model kits the same way they sell plastic kits to customers who "collect" huge stashes of unbuilt models that they are going to get around to building someday... or not. The manufacturers don't care one wit that the majority of kits they sell are never finished. All they care about is moving the product. If you don't believe me, just stop and think for a minute: "How can an outfit like Model Expo sell kits "on sale" for as much as 50% below the regular price every time they have one of their "Big Sales," and not file for bankruptcy? What do you think their profit margin is on kits they can sell for half price on sale as a routine marketing model?

Anyway, I don't care if somebody enjoys putting ship model kits together. More power to 'em! Some guys who do a lot of "kit bashing" and aftermarket upgrades turn out some very nice-looking kit-builds. But if someone asks me, I'm going to say, "Read a book and learn about the craft, then start small and keep reading, watching, and listening, so the more you know, the better you'll model. Don't let the kit dealers get you strung out on nothing but mediocre kits of the same "usual suspects" subjects over and over again.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

The practice of model building or ship building ?

Ship building.

I show you a planking job that is indistinguishable from spiling, and you complain about the wood being used.
It's a no-win situation.

You made your point about the planking. No problem there.

The AYC comment is thread shift - My negative comment is only about the appearance of the wood species itself. It does the job very well. It is an invitation for a debate. Nothing official or anything like it.

Apart from getting mental exercise from imaging solutions to specific problems with kits, I have no interest there.

Kits are its own world and I am not a part of it. A significant part of kit subjects are not ships that actually existed beyond the name or are models of modern replica attractions for tourists. Advertising-generated pretensions and a desire for a lot of difficult work to count for a broader respect than it can actually earn is where feelings get bruised. But kits are ONLY what they are. Historical significance is not a part of it.

 

[Roger Pellett]

I never thought that I would say this but today in the kit building world it seems to be the plastic warship modelers who are are most interested in building historically accurate models. They replace kit provided parts with those from aftermarket suppliers, take great care with paint schemes, and do in depth research. Certainly not my world but I like seeing their results.

Roger

 

[Roger Pellett]

I visited our local Menards, a midwestern based home improvement store today while my wife was spending quality time at a nearby Target. Checking out their lumber selection I found that they now stock quality pine in 1/2” and 3/8” thicknesses. They also stock some beautiful 5 quarter pine. Anyhow, with these thinner materials, someone could carve a hull form a stack of lifts without needing expensive power equipment.

Roger

 

[Ronald-V]

Indeed, "There are no rules." in ship modeling, just as there are no bad ship models. It's just that, even without rules, some models are a whole lot better than others and those who know what they are looking at can tell the difference at a glance.

So many things have been said, haha. So I'll keep it short. I am not a purist myself and do not wish to become one, and that is where the difference lies for me. So if there is an easy method where you can produce a nice result for a "layman" like me, then I use it. And the only point of criticism I wanted to make is... that at the beginning of the discussion here, it was said that there seemed to be no other way to plank a ship than the "real life" way. There was a certain sort of necessity/requirement involved if you want to achieve a certain kind of result. To each their own, and everyone is free to use the method they want.

Based on my limited experience, I can recommend the "Chuck" or "side bending" method.

 

[Heinrich]

Notice how the member who originally posted the question （@MDB）, has completely disappeared from the thread? Has anyone wondered why?

 

[BigBad]

In the first post there is mention of videos showing a certain technique. What are the specific videos referred to? I would like to watch them.

 

[Ronald-V]

In the first post there is mention of videos showing a certain technique. What are the specific videos referred to? I would like to watch them.

I'm not seeing video's mentioned in the first post...but there is a link of video's in the third post and that link is still there

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Notice how the member who originally posted the question （@MDB）, has completely disappeared from the thread? Has anyone wondered why?

I think his inquiry was answered and then some. His first page of the Cliff Notes understanding was expanded. It has gotten deep and a beginner would probably feel overwhelmed.
But exposure to multiple ideas, directions, and possibilities should only help those interested in doing more than just assembly following A-B-C-D.

Since this is broadening - The MSW beginner cautionary tale thread is back up.
It includes a discussion of the reasons for the high attrition rate with first time builders.
A prominent reason suggested is the poor quality of some kit instructions. I have no direct knowledge of that, but from my perspective this should not be a problem at all. I guess since the majority of first timers are coming from a background in plastic kits, where complete instructions are required, this probably would appear to be a problem. What is a minor annoyance should not be seen as a deal breaker. The plastic parts are purpose made - they must be right the first time. Wood does not grow ON trees, it IS trees. It is easily replaced. Mistakes are easy to fix.
I started with an old yellow box MS carved hull kit. There were detailed plans but for the most part, the instructions were the Jackstay and the bib in the back of it.
PoB is different from solid carved but the procedures involved with PoB are pretty much the same regardless of the particular kit.
A good HOW TO book or two should do a better job than any individual kit instructions. The key part is detailed plans. It is necessary to know WHAT to build. The HOW to build it can be found from multiple sources.

Ships are the most complicated things that humans build. They involve every segment of the most sophisticated tech of their specific time. Replicating this is a serious challenge - even with a kit's short cuts. A first timer could be coming into this expecting it to be more sloshing in ankle deep water like about every other hobby. It instantly becomes evident that instead it is water that is so deep that there does seem to be a bottom. If all they ever wanted to do was letting the waves wash past their ankles, any pretext should do as the reason to bail. If it is a beginner who really wants this, if a serious challenge is the ambition, useless instructions should not be a discouragement. It is all a very complicated puzzle, but one with replaceable parts and assembly steps that are mostly generic.

I see a threat to this with 3D printing and 4D milling of kit parts. These are not DIY replaceable. The laser cut is handy and all, but a fret saw and a bench pin can still do the same job. Moving towards the ABCD of plastic kits will probably please the ankle deep waders but it moves the whole into water shallow enough to stand on the bottom. The necessity to learn to swim will be lost.

Not my dog, not my fight, but those who have a stake in this should discuss.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I visited our local Menards, a midwestern based home improvement store today while my wife was spending quality time at a nearby Target. Checking out their lumber selection I found that they now stock quality pine in 1/2” and 3/8” thicknesses. They also stock some beautiful 5 quarter pine. Anyhow, with these thinner materials, someone could carve a hull form a stack of lifts without needing expensive power equipment.

Roger

Also, you can generally get away with "cherry picking" stock from the "Big Box" stores with impunity. It is often surprising how you can "get lucky" and find some really beautiful select lumber among the lower grade stuff. The mills don't bother to sort it as carefully as they might. I guess there's a cost/benefit analysis and they don't mind letting a minority of great planks slip by in a big load of average or lower ones. Then again, the "Big Box" stores conversely have no compunction occasionally selling a warped or twisted pitch pocketed piece of "firewood" for middle grade stock, either.

 

[Bob Cleek]

Notice how the member who originally posted the question （@MDB）, has completely disappeared from the thread? Has anyone wondered why?

Internet forums are like your local pub. A couple of guys start a conversation, a few more join in. The discussion takes on a life of its own. Along the way, one or another guy leaves to go to the can, or maybe he's got to get home for dinner before the Old Lady calls looking for him. Other guys arrive and take their empty stools. Life goes one. Lah-di-dee, la-di-dah.

 

[Bob Cleek]

I see a threat to this with 3D printing and 4D milling of kit parts.

Thread drift to be sure, but, pending a dedicated thread on this subject, I'll stake my claim by offering the following.

The accepted standard for a "high-quality scale ship model" remains applicable. As Napier points out, it is the model alone that speaks for itself and is judged.

"A high-quality scale ship model provides a compelling impression of an actual vessel within the constraints of historical accuracy."

"Historical accuracy" encompasses all the objective, or measurable, standards of technical exactness that might apply to a ship model. These embrace the obvious hull shape and fairness; precision in fittings, rigging, and colors; lack of anachronisms; and so forth. But it also encompasses all aspects of craftsmanship because the lack of craftsmanship creates unrealistic and, therefore, historically inaccurate blemishes on a model.

Rob Napier, Caring for Ship Models - A Narrative of Thought and Application, (2022) Seawatch Books.

To date, the archival quality of 3D printing media ranges from nearly non-existent to as yet unknown. Most all 3D media presently available present serious archival issues with mechanical stability, UV deterioration, and out-gassing effects. The present literature regarding the "archival" quality of 3D printing technology generally interestingly focuses on the archival preservation of the defining digital software record of the printed object rather than the object itself, apparently because the archival qualities of the printing media are recognized to be slim and none. The current thinking appears to be that the archival qualities of 3D printed objects are irrelevant because, as long as the defining digital data is preserved, a replacement can be reprinted to replace the original printed object! Only when a suitably archival 3D media is reliably identified will the next question be raised, "Is it craftsmanship, or do 3D printed parts demonstrate a `lack of craftsmanship which creates unrealistic and, therefore, historically inaccurate blemishes on a model?'"

This will be how the quality of a "high-quality scale ship model" should be judged under any circumstances, including the use of 3D printed parts. If I might hazard a guess, I would expect that when that time comes, the distinction between high-quality fine art ship models made with 3D printed parts and those made solely "by human hands," will be analogous to the distinction we see between hand-drawn or painted representational fine art and fine art photography. Which brings us back to Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: "I can't define it in words, but I know it when I see it."