HMS Alert [1777] 1:48 POF by serikoff. (Two hulls: skeleton and fully rigged)

[AnobiumPunctatum]

@serikoff Have a view to the position of the joints. The position of the joints depends on the length of the planks.
This is different to your sketch.

 

[serikoff]

@serikoff Have a view to the position of the joints. The position of the joints depends on the length of the planks.
This is different to your sketch.

Let's go over it again:

1. We have 3 planks per waist, as per the anatomy of this ship.

2. This means that the plank length is 18 cm - 28 feet.

3. We have an offset of 3 planks.

4. We need to avoid center joints.

5. We need to use the maximum length possible.

All these parameters are met in my sketch. Draw a variant that fits absolutely all the parameters. Otherwise, I can't understand why my variant is incorrect without proof and an alternative.

 

[serikoff]

Fine. I asked because i'm primarily interested in French ships, and i have only a lot of data on them. I don't have anything comparable to British fleet in this period. Any insight is valuable.

I think it's better to do it as shown in the book. It's both correct and beautiful. As we all know, life isn't always perfect, but you should strive for the best whenever possible. That's my opinion.

 

[AnobiumPunctatum]

I know that the example from Goodwin is from a deck. As far as I understood, the English used the same planking scheme also for the hull.
If a plank is ca 28feet long , than you should have a joint every 7 feet (28/4) by the 3 butt shift system. Your scheme shows every joint on less than the half of a plank. This is what I would change.
The simplest method is to use every second double frame for a joint

 

[serikoff]

I know that the example from Goodwin is from a deck. As far as I understood, the English used the same planking scheme also for the hull.
If a plank is ca 28feet long , than you should have a joint every 7 feet (28/4) by the 3 butt shift system. Your scheme shows every joint on less than the half of a plank. This is what I would change.
The simplest method is to use every second double frame for a joint

I agree, but only partially! On large ships with many joints, this works, but! On small ships, joints shouldn't be in the middle! This makes the ship more fragile. And it's necessary to use the longest possible planks wherever possible. It's impossible to follow all five of these points with a different layout. This has already been tested. If you move the joint further toward the center, you'll end up with four planks instead of three, which contradicts the point about using the longest possible planks and not joining them in the center. That's precisely why I don't have joints in the center and all five points are met. You have the right to do whatever you see fit on your model, but please don't call my design incorrect, as there's no direct evidence to support it, and I've provided my arguments. Thank you very much for the discussion.

Try drawing the diagram at actual size with all the joints, and you'll see that it's impossible to meet all the requirements if the joints are closer to the center. I understand your point. I built the Victory, where it works. But on small ships, things are a little different.

From this we can conclude that the joint location (28/4 = 7) is not an absolute constant. It only works where there are many joints and many planks in the waist. This doesn't work on small ships. So they tried to place the joints front and back to avoid making the ship more fragile.

 

[serikoff]

I'd like to thank the @AnobiumPunctatum for bringing the joints to my attention. Although we disagreed on their placement on the hull, and it's not certain I was able to convince him of my design, upon closer examination, I discovered another nuance: my error in the joint itself relative to the frame. As is my habit with conventional planking, I placed the joints (real ones, not imitation) of some planks in the middle of the double frames. And I didn't pay attention to this, even though it was incorrect, and I knew it.



The joints on the clinker planks are not edge-on, but rather hooked scarf or plain scarf, as shown in the photo above. This means the visible joint (line on the plank) is not in the middle of the twin frames, but along the end of the twin frame toward the stern, so that the bevel is directed toward the stern, like fish scales.

Now I need to offset the nailing back 4 mm so that the visual joint of the planks is along the aft edge of the twin frames. I have five such joints. Visually, this won't be noticeable, but I might not notice it right away and start placing the joints incorrectly everywhere. Thanks to the @AnobiumPunctatum , I noticed it in time, for which I thank him. Although this question wasn't related to this problem, it helped me indirectly.

As you can see in the photo, the joints could have been 3 or even more options, but since we cannot see these joints, we are only interested in the joint line, and it should run beyond the edge of the double frame towards the stern, and not along the center of the double frames, since the oblique bevel should lie on the frames with its entire surface, and the width of such a bevel is equal to ~8 board thicknesses, which is equal to a double frame - 8 mm.

 

[RussF]

...but since we cannot see these joints, we are only interested in the joint line...

You're not going to scarf your joints?

I'm so disappointed.



Your work is beautiful my friend!