Deck planking

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

questions keep coming up about planking a deck so lets do a topic just on that subject.

Many model builders think of deck planks as "planks" when actually they are not they are more like a beam laying down. What we as model builders do on models does not always reflect what was done in actual ship building.

Taken from WOOD a manual for its use as a shipbuilding material and other sources

ship decking in North America for the most part was Southern Yellow pine.

Decking of large craft consisted of comparatively narrow planks that either run parallel to the centerline or are curves to conform to the curvature of the ships sides. curves planks along the outer rim of the deck are called margin pieces.
It is desirable for the cross section of any one plank to be square or nearly so, because with wider planking the effects of swelling and shrinking are concentrated on fewer seams between planks' thereby exerting great stresses on the caulking and fastenings and cause more leaks. Also, square cross sections permit turning the planks to achieve the desired vertical grain on the upper face. Excessive swelling due to the use of planking that is too wide has been known to cause an entire deck to buckle and to rip loose from its beams. Edge grain material is preferred for decking because wood shrinks and swells less across edge grain than across flat grain with changes in moisture content.
The ends of margin pieces, unless curved to fit the ships side, are nibbed into cover board or lock strake and are supported on their underside by small intercostals placed between the deck beams. In some ships a king plank is used at the bow to take the ends of the margin plank. Decks are fastened to their supporting beams by spikes, screws or bolts.
The joints between the various elements of a strake of decking are square butts that land on supporting deck beams. It is customary to cover the heads of all fasteners with wood bungs. Bungs should be made of the same wood as the deck planking; their grain should be parallel to the grain of the planking which they are placed. Caulking of decks are set firmly in place by means of "horsing" with an iron driven into the seam with a heavy beetle "mallet. After the caulking operation is finished, the space between the planks and caulking is filled with a pitch, or seam compound of white lead to prevent the rot of the cotton.

the actual color of deck caulking range from light brown to white to shades of gray and into black.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

show me pictures of real decks

seems decks are not stark white like you see on models

decks come in different colors

deck planking seem to be narrow about the width of the average adult foot

deck planks curve and sometimes not

 

[mrshanks]

Yup... great examples... and I did not know this until you explained it to me recently Dave and I thank you very much. The reason i stumbled upon this was while doing research for the Smithsonian project I am drawing plans for. The ship is quite large so the model will be in 1:64 scale. The Smithsonian plans indicate the deck plank widths were 3.5". At 1:64 scale this would be a touch over 3/64" planks... not only would planks this thin be impractical but when I drew them up in CAD they looked horrible. I shared my drawings with a couple friends and they agreed. In-fact, the Smithsonian artist who drew the plans himself even overscaled the planks in the drawing and indicated his planks were "for diagramatic purposes only".

So, let's take a look at a couple of common larger ship model kits. When we talk about frigates and brigs.... Say the Model Expo USF Confederacy or Brig Syren... both are in 1:64 scale and historically have about 4" planks as you show in your pictures above. That would result in the model having scale planks of 1/16" wide. But guess what? Both kits come with 1/8" planks and the plans in the kit are also drawn with 1/8" planks.

Why did they do this? 1) Because it is more practical for the model builder. 2) Because it is more aesthetically pleasing to the human eye.

Before I began modeling wooden ships I spent decades building plastic models. Part of that art is learning the skill of airbrushing and weathering. In this, a variety of techniques are used (shadows, highlights, dry brushing, picking out details, washes, etc) in an effort to "trick the human eye" into believing what they are looking at is a repesentation of a much larger object. ALL professional model builders do this including motion picture studios and professional photographers. If you simply paint the model the exact historical colors called for in the plans... the model WILL NOT look realistic.

Overscale deck planking on larger ship models is a great example of "looks" being more important than "historical accuracy".

I have met plenty of modelers in my life who demand historical accuracy over aesthetics no matter what.. damn the torpedos!! I am sorry to offend but I do not believe that, neither does the Smithsonian, neither does Ancre, and neither do professional modelers.

Harold Hahn took a lot of heat for placing artistic beauty over historical accuracy. I can understand why. While I appreciate the purist and I am a huge fan of history, I believe model builders have the right to build for "themselves" the way they want... not the way others dictate... historical or not. I call this "Builder's Choice". You will never see me criticize another model builder for building what they want. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is also why I have never entered in any model competitions.

So if you want to build your model with planks as thin as a toothpick go ahead. Just don't tell me I can't have a hippocamp versus a hound... especially when it is actually a lion.

Sail on...

 

[Clair G]

Ooooohhh Bingo @Dave Stevens (Lumberyard) !! I've been wondering about all this for the current build Im doing. So then the first decks I made for my 150th Nina are in fact freaking monster planks judging from photo's of real ships. True 15th century and modern will not be exactly the same, it still should be somewhat close in sizes Id think. Could be wrong and I usually am according to the Admiral, but Im definately going to make new decks and try a little harder to do it right.

Thanks Dave, Im gonna keep a close eye on this thread.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

i was told the older the ship the wider the planks that were used in ship building because back in early times there was a lot of old growth timber thus bigger planks were available.
Personally i do not think there is any truth to it, because in 1830ish in North America there was a lot of old growth timber still standing from the eastern seaboard to the Mississippi river.
Ship building as an industry dated back hundreds of years and i think builders knew what worked and what did not. The "science" of ship building was established early on. a ships structure moves, twists and bends the wider the deck planks the more ridged the structure and decks with wide planks would pull themselves apart.
Shipwrights figured this out narrow planks or beams made a stronger deck because the deck would flex and not break or buckle.



it does not matter if the ship was built in 1760 or 1860 the construction principals were the same'






the question comes up in model ship building do you follow historical data or not.

is it a model of a ship or is it a ship model?

Just about all model ship decks are out of scale when it comes to the size of the planking and the decks are also stylized never have i seen a stark white deck like i see on models, decks were shades of gray and brown never white. Model ship decks are peppered with dots as treenails. wooden pegs were not used on decking wooden bungs were place over iron spikes and the bung was purposely made to match the wood and grain so they were not seen.

if you are reconstructing a ship in the field of marine archaeology accuracy is important
if you are a hobbyist it does not matter as much
as an artist well lets just say "art is anything the artist says it is"

i think it is taboo to criticize anyone's approach to modeling any ship, unless it is in the arena of competition.

 

[Jimsky]

if you are reconstructing a ship in the field of marine archaeology accuracy is important
if you are a hobbyist it does not matter as much
as an artist well lets just say "art is anything the artist says it is"

i think it is taboo to criticize anyone's approach to modeling any ship, unless it is in the arena of competition.

Ii is hard to disagree with you, Dave. No one should criticize others work unless it is explicitly OK by the build log owner: critics are welcome and they are constructive!

Most of us building models for fan, for most of us here it is just a hobby. We all have different skill levels. Please respect each-other when you make comments, specifically when you criticize someone work.

 

[PoulD]

i think it is taboo to criticize anyone's approach to modeling any ship, unless it is in the arena of competition.

Maybe I have misunderstood this line (hope so). I have not yet started on any ship model but once I start my first build log I really hope I'll get a lot of criticism. In fact, since I have no experience, that would be the only justification for me to make a build log. At this point others cannot learn from me but I really hope others will honestly tell me what is not correct and what could be improved etc. I cannot learn anything at all from 'back-scratching' and I really would like to learn. If others teach me good, then maybe 10 years from now I can slowly start giving something back to the community. So lads and lasses, don't even think of holding your horses with criticism of anything I do.

 

[mrshanks]

Maybe I have misunderstood this line

What we are saying is a slightly different sway than what you may be thinking Poul. I will use your example as a "neophyte" ship modeler. I very much enjoy helping others learn the art. I have a teaching background and combined with my modeling experience the two come together.... so... in your case...

• If you are planking a hull, there may be 3 different techniques for tapering the planks. I might describe one of those techniques, Dave might describe another technique. But we would leave it up to you to decide which technique is most comfortable for you. "Builder's choice".
• If I see a build mistake in one of your pictures, I will point this out in a polite and respectful manner AND provide you with possible solutions to overcome it. But I would never disparage you for making that mistake.
• If you are building a model of a ship... any ship.. historical or not... and you ask me to make a decoration for you. If the plans call for a Hound but you want a Hippocamp - I will make you a Hippocamp and not disparage you. "Builder's choice". After all, it is YOUR model, not mine.

When Dave is referring to "arena of competition"... he is talking about Model Building Contests, with official judges... the type of people who judge other models for such things as the "scale thickness of PAINT". For people who are into that sort of thing, that is fine by me. Just don't lean on those of us who aren't.

Does that make sense??

 

[PoulD]

What we are saying is a slightly different sway than what you may be thinking Poul. I will use your example as a "neophyte" ship modeler. I very much enjoy helping others learn the art. I have a teaching background and combined with my modeling experience the two come together.... so... in your case...

• If you are planking a hull, there may be 3 different techniques for tapering the planks. I might describe one of those techniques, Dave might describe another technique. But we would leave it up to you to decide which technique is most comfortable for you. "Builder's choice".
• If I see a build mistake in one of your pictures, I will point this out in a polite and respectful manner AND provide you with possible solutions to overcome it. But I would never disparage you for making that mistake.
• If you are building a model of a ship... any ship.. historical or not... and you ask me to make a decoration for you. If the plans call for a Hound but you want a Hippocamp - I will make you a Hippocamp and not disparage you. "Builder's choice". After all, it is YOUR model, not mine.

When Dave is referring to "arena of competition"... he is talking about Model Building Contests, with official judges... the type of people who judge other models for such things as the "scale thickness of PAINT". For people who are into that sort of thing, that is fine by me. Just don't lean on those of us who aren't.

Does that make sense??

Yes, it makes good sense. Just thought it was important to have it elaborated (to ensure folks are not gettin'fraid of pointing out mistakes - mine in particular. When I arrive at my workplace wearing 2 different shoes, funny spots on my pants and a breath like a hippopotamus I may not initially radiate a huge appreciation when the sexy girl in HR let me know about it , but I would feel so much worse if nobody told me.

 

[Jimsky]

Maybe I have misunderstood this line (hope so). I have not yet started on any ship model but once I start my first build log I really hope I'll get a lot of criticism. In fact, since I have no experience, that would be the only justification for me to make a build log. At this point others cannot learn from me but I really hope others will honestly tell me what is not correct and what could be improved etc. I cannot learn anything at all from 'back-scratching' and I really would like to learn. If others teach me good, then maybe 10 years from now I can slowly start giving something back to the community. So lads and lasses, don't even think of holding your horses with criticism of anything I do.

Hello Poul,

If you welcome critics in your build log, then it is OK. Some people doesn't want to be criticized at all. They have the skills they are happy with and build models up to their 'Acceptance level'.

 

[Uwek]

Maybe I have misunderstood this line (hope so). I have not yet started on any ship model but once I start my first build log I really hope I'll get a lot of criticism. In fact, since I have no experience, that would be the only justification for me to make a build log. At this point others cannot learn from me but I really hope others will honestly tell me what is not correct and what could be improved etc. I cannot learn anything at all from 'back-scratching' and I really would like to learn. If others teach me good, then maybe 10 years from now I can slowly start giving something back to the community. So lads and lasses, don't even think of holding your horses with criticism of anything I do.

When ever you start an /your building log, please mention in the beginning, that you are happy about every hint and critics......
I agree here with your intention, and not only you will learn with such given information, also others following your log.
But please have every time in mind, that 90% of our hobby are subjective feelings, taste and everybody has some history of experience.
We will find a good way.......

 

[Clair G]

Im with Poul here, I want you guys to show me the ways, tell me what I screw up, and help me become a better modeller in the medium
I've chosen. I dont get offended easilly and on SOS I feel so comfortable that I know a remark is meant to help me improve, not shoot me
down.

There is no such thing as inferior or superior here, our ships come from our hearts, imagination, and skill set. Every single one a work of
art by a talented person who is still learning regaurdless of age or years modelling.

Now me, yeah I am perfect..... Perfectly screwed up, therefor all my sillyness

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

it is a touchy situation
someone post there model and the hull planking is done totally wrong. But you still see good job, well done, nice model etc.
that person did not learn anything and maybe that builder does not want to dive deep into what is correct and what is not. The builder just enjoys the build.

on the other hand a model is posted and you say wow! that is not historically correct, totally wrong. Then the reply is hey, i was not going for historical correctness i was going for looking good. oh ok my bad! if that's the case then yes it looks good.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

does the size of the deck planks really matter?

most builders do not know what the width and thickness of decking should be and anyone viewing the model who knows nothing about ship building would not know if the planks are true scale or not. so does it matter? not really.

taking a model at 3/16=1 foot scale a deck plank would be 2.5mm or 3/32 square.

the thickness of the deck planking matters in the drawing and design stages because everything about the model has to jive with everything else, for example. depending on the size of the guns on deck from the gun to the deck is a set measurement. This is why you find in the establishments how far up from the deck the gun port sill should be.




that cannon has to move up and down so it needs a certain amount of space between the sill and cap rail.




Here the decking is the correct scale and the cannon fits the port opening. Note the decking is not a wide thin plank it is square in section.

if the decking is to thick the cannon will hit the cap rail, to thin and the cannon will not clear the sill. As a designer of a model or kit you need to know the dimensions of all the timbers and planking because every part depends on one another so the entire model fits together.
If you use to thick or to thin decking adjustments need to be made by moving the deck beam lower or higher to compensate.

Most all scale kits are actually pseudo-scale and adjustments are made so it all comes together, and some components are made out of scale.

a true scale model is difficult to build because some aspects end up to small to be seen like the decking spikes at 3/16 scale is .007 thousandths of an inch. So you either make them way out of scale or do not include them on the model. to build in actual scale every plank and timber has to be scaled from the start.

 

[garyshipwright]

Dave have to disagree with you sir on the size of the plank. The plank would be .1875 or 3/16 not 3/32

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

Dave have to disagree with you sir on the size of the plank. The plank would be .1875 or 3/16 not 3/32

ok let me rethink it

a model at 3/16 scale that is 3/16 of an inch = 12 inches divide .187 by 12 and 1 inch is 0.015583333333333 lets call it .015

now if a deck plank is 6 inches wide X that by .015 you get a scale width plank 0.090 at 3/16 scale

so for the model your decking should be .090 square or 3/32

math and numbers play a huge roll in design and scale modeling.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

deck planking is 2/3 thick as they are wide, square is even better.

so at 3/16 scale a plank that is 3/16 wide would be 12 inches making the thickness 9 inches. if that were the case that cannon in post #14 would blow the cap rail right off the ship

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

while we are on the subject of scale and decks i have come across this with the design of kits where out of scale guns are placed on decks.
the recoil of the cannon would smash into the hatch coamings.




correct scale deck with guns




back in high school many many years ago i sat in math class wondering why i need all this math. i was focused on art classes and industrial arts. Well now i know why i need to know the math. CAD and design breaks down into math.

 

[donfarr]

DAVE YOUR COMMENT ABOUT CRITISIMS AND HISTORICAL BUILDING IS RIGHT ON, EXAMPLE MY ARMED LONG BOAT IS DONE ONLY FOR A ACCEPTABL MODEL THAT LOOKS GOOD, ALSO AS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE, THE LE ROCHEFORT/ ALERT/ LE COURIER ETC IS A DIFFERENT MATTER, AND CRITISIMS HELP TO DO IT RIGHT IN BOTH CASES IS ESSENTIAL TO ME. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE DON

 

[mrshanks]

So, since Dave is showing pictures. Let me show a couple drawings from where all this started in the first place. Please look below and you tell me from a model perspective, which one would you think looks the best and would be the the most practical to build? Sometimes "looks" take priority over "historical accuracy" when dealing with scale models. Especially when the scale gets smaller and smaller. Imagine if this were 1:64 scale... or 1:87 scale.

Here is an actual historical ship from the late 1800's that calls for 3.5" deck planks drawn in 1:48 scale. The planks would be .0729" on the model.


Now here is the very same model drawn with planks at 6" wide at 1:48 scale. The planks would be 1/8" on the model.