School for Shipmodel Building School for model ship building

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

There is a lot that goes into building a model ship. After looking at your new page, I quickly went and had a look at the Decking on the Bounty in John McKay's book, and he shows 4mm wide boards for 1:48 scale. I noticed you have silver maple 1/8 x .080, and are those for the deck?

yes that is the decking

i took a look at John McKay's book and counted 37 deck planks and the Bounty is overall 24 feet 4 inches breadth deck is around 20ish feet wide so each plank is about 6 1/2 to 7 inches wide on the drawing. The 1/8 wide planking is a bit wider making the deck planks 6 1/2 wide well within acceptable scale.

 

[JacquesCousteau]

Very interesting discussion. This entire series is quite informative and useful on scratch-building.

On this model the width of the deck planking is about 18 inches wide

I'm curious where you get that the deck planking on that model (which I think is of the cutter HMS Sherbourne) is 18 inches wide. I count 22 planks across the deck. The real Sherbourne had a beam of 19 feet, per wikipedia. Subtracting a foot to roughly take into account the thickness of the gunwales etc, and dividing by 22 planks, that corresponds to planks scaling to roughly 9.8 inches wide on the model.

It's interesting that the contract you show states that the deck planks were to be 5 inches wide. How typical was this? I was under the impression that deck planking was usually wider on earlier vessels, and narrower later. Chapelle says that fishing schooners usually had 5-7 inch wide decking pre-1845, and narrower in later years. For warships, my impression is that they were generally wider, although also became relatively narrower with time.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

you correct the 18 inch is wrong so i went back and changed it

i counted 20 planks could be 22 but i went with 20 planks X 11 inches wide planks =220 inches divide that by 12 and you get 18.3 feet across the deck. Still out of scale IF the average deck plank is 5 to 7 inch max.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

It's interesting that the contract you show states that the deck planks were to be 5 inches wide. How typical was this?

that i cannot answer i went with what i saw on actual ships and the deck planking were 4 1/2 to 5 inch wide. it is rare to find the width of the plank the thickness is always listed



I was under the impression that deck planking was usually wider on earlier vessels, and narrower later. Chapelle says that fishing schooners usually had 5-7 inch wide decking pre-1845, and narrower in later years. For warships, my impression is that they were generally wider, although also became relatively narrower with time.

that is something perhaps someone can shed some light on. I heard the deck planking was wider because wider planks were available and as lumber became harder to get the planking became narrower but i do not think that is right. I think narrow planking was a structural thing and had nothing to do with available lumber.
What i heard was the rule deck planks were twice as wide as they were thick. Which seems right a 2 1/2 thick plank would be 5 inches wide. When you look at the scantlings a 4 inch thick deck plank would be 9 inches wide give or take a half inch.

 

[GaryA]

There is a lot that goes into building a model ship. After looking at your new page, I quickly went and had a look at the Decking on the Bounty in John McKay's book, and he shows 4mm wide boards for 1:48 scale. I noticed you have silver maple 1/8 x .080, and are those for the deck?

yes that is the decking

i took a look at John McKay's book and counted 37 deck planks and the Bounty is overall 24 feet 4 inches breadth deck is around 20ish feet wide so each plank is about 6 1/2 to 7 inches wide on the drawing. The 1/8 wide planking is a bit wider making the deck planks 6 1/2 wide well within acceptable scale.

Thanks for that Dave. So, making the planking would be a hellish job for you to do. I actually was given teak from off a ship deck, and it was about 5.5 " wide and 3" thick. The tar had impregnated into the teak and when I machined it up for a small shelf I made, the teak looked wonderful in the colour contrast between the teak and the embedded tar.
However, what I gained out of your information on the width of wood used, and remembering the measurements of that piece of decking, nothing has changed over the centuries.

 

[uncchains]

I agree with Donnie's comments of March 3, 2025. To simply say that anything other than a totally scratch-built model is not worthy of admiration, etc., discounts the very fine work by many of the modelers in the forum.

To me this creates the question, why isn't there room, appreciation, admiration for models having been built using a combination of both methods? Having recently finished the Corel version of the HMS VICTORY cross section (a totally poor representation of the actual ship which starts with the model's photo on the box) I had to do a lot (underscore "a lot") of scratch-building to get a finished model that looks very much like my full model of the ship and one of which I am proud to show. I am restarting my build of the Vasa (Corel version) and have already begun to scratch build parts of the hull, main deck, etc., that are not "included" in the kit with help from various sources including Fred Hocker. I expect to have to do much more before I finish it.

What I learn from this forum, seeing what others have done, is all part of my, or, I would suggest, anyone's growth in this hobby. I vote for both approaches.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

I agree with Donnie's comments of March 3, 2025. To simply say that anything other than a totally scratch-built model is not worthy of admiration, etc., discounts the very fine work by many of the modelers in the forum.

To me this creates the question, why isn't there room, appreciation, admiration for models having been built using a combination of both methods? Having recently finished the Corel version of the HMS VICTORY cross section (a totally poor representation of the actual ship which starts with the model's photo on the box) I had to do a lot (underscore "a lot") of scratch-building to get a finished model that looks very much like my full model of the ship and one of which I am proud to show. I am restarting my build of the Vasa (Corel version) and have already begun to scratch build parts of the hull, main deck, etc., that are not "included" in the kit with help from various sources including Fred Hocker. I expect to have to do much more before I finish it.

What I learn from this forum, seeing what others have done, is all part of my, or, I would suggest, anyone's growth in this hobby. I vote for both approaches.

and what this have to do with deck planking?

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

From HASN - appendix
Warren & Falmouth
General Instructions for building a Sloop of War (Corvette)
660 tons
1826

Berth deck Plank

of heart pine free from sap, shakes, or large knots
& not more than 10" in width.
2.5 inches thickness
Average length to be 40'
To be fastened into the beams with 6" spikes
into the ledges with 5" spikes
which are to be punched down so as to admit above the heads a heart pine plug - 3/4" in thickness -to be put in dipped in white lead

Gun deck Plank

of this deck to be heart pine free of sap
3.5" thick
and not more than 10" wide
average length 40'
beams 8" iron spikes
ledges 7" spikes
To be managed as those on the berth deck
The plank to be planed on both sides

Poop and Forecastle deck
2" thick
heart pine free from sap
fastened with 5" iron spikes plugged and planed on both sides

Nothing on Spar deck

Also interesting:
Port cills
live oak
6" thick
Take care that these cills make a fair sheer & the decks kept at their proper distance from them

Which means that models with horizontal port cills are historically pure BS.


My take home from this is that the outer limit
for deck plank width is 10"
length 40'

I do not imagine that the east side of the Atlantic had ready access to virgin growth tall ramrod straight Tidewater pine that could produce 40' length and 10" width.

 

[DAWarden-(Jaager)]

Sorry Dave, I gotta say it. I will remove if asked.

To simply say that anything other than a totally scratch-built model is not worthy of admiration, etc., discounts the very fine work by many of the modelers in the forum.

This depends on who the audience is. Fellow kit builders is one thing. Dedicated scratch builders are quite another. Kits are to be admired for what they really are. The pretensions about any similarity to the goals and ideals of scratch are totally misplaced fantasies - as is the advertising copy of kits. The product has to be sifted down to a common denominator to produce something that the target customers will afford. Then you are supposed to disregard the ton of compromises and pretend they were never made?

Having recently finished the Corel version of the HMS VICTORY cross section (a totally poor representation of the actual ship which starts with the model's photo on the box) I had to do a lot (underscore "a lot") of scratch-building to get a finished model that looks very much like my full model of the ship and one of which I am proud to show. I am restarting my build of the Vasa (Corel version) and have already begun to scratch build parts of the hull, main deck, etc., that are not "included" in the kit with help from various sources including Fred Hocker. I expect to have to do much more before I finish it.

In your place I would save the money spent on the kits. ( you are not using much of it anyway so why bother?). Instead buy Victory design plans and the best museum plans for Vasa. Do a total scratch build. You can do any scale that way. Put in the lofting work and part fabrication. Use the actual known scantlings. Use quality wood with proper grain and tightness and color and hardness. When you have done that then see if you still view kits in the same light.

Here is an idea:
Instead of doing another Xerox of subjects already done to death and a kit by definition is a Xerox:
why not chose a vessel that may have never been modeled? (as far as can be known - most serious scratch builders do not advertise)

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

Sorry Dave, I gotta say it. I will remove if asked.

that is welcome information so we can say decking can be from 5 to 10 inch wide. Why the builders of the Niagara at Erie PA used 4 1/2 wide planks is a "i do not know" but it is said She is a faithful reconstruction of Oliver Hazard Perry’s relief flagship so did the actual Niagara have narrow decking?
seems the deeper we go the more it looks like each ship was a one off build and no two were exactly the same.