Trim top of plank, or bottom?

[BarnegatBay]

I too am new to ship modeling, I find strip planking to be creative and subject to trial and error, requiring lots of patience and researching different techniques by experienced modelers on this forum, but like all craftsmanship endeavors the final reward is most satisfying, Darryl

Agreed, just don't undertake too many decisions after a couple beers. That seems to be when I am most decisive!

 

[MThomas]

Agreed, just don't undertake too many decisions after a couple beers. That seems to be when I am most decisive!

That's very true. I think a 'Six-Pack' before making any tough decisions is a much better approach!

 

[Tim Green]

I always taper and chamfer the edge of the plank that will contact the previous plank so as to test the result in a dry fit. So "top" or "bottom" depends on which sequence I am adding planks.

I do like Mr. Bronze said. It just makes sense - to me. But ... towards the end of a job, I find myself tapering both sides, of a plank or two.

 

[bill36]

This concerns basic planking technique for POB kits with supplied planks. I am a beginner ship model maker.
I understand the basic technique of working out how much to trim off each plank along the bulkheads. Working through that now on my Mamoli Catalina kit.
However, I have two references for basic planking. One says ALWAYS trim off from the top of the plank; one says ALWAYS from the bottom.

Is one of these references wrong, or maybe it does not matter as long as you try to do it consistently.

I realize planking method is a large and complex part of the hobby with many approaches, but here I am just getting started and already getting two opposite directions.

Thanks for any advice.

1. Factually, there is probably no straight line anywhere on any plank on a model; everything is beveled one way or another.
2. Thus, you most likely are going to trim all four sides on all the planks until they fit all the time; one method used is called spiling - look it up.
3. There is a picture of a planking layout in this thread that gives you a pretty good idea of what the planks are going to look like depending upon their position on the hull. GOOD TO STUDY THIS PICTURE.
4. There is really no way to learn how to do this type of planking other than by just doing this type of planking. Forget the written descriptions in books; waste of time. Look at pictures of other models and pix of real sailing vessels; Model Seaways has all the picture books you will ever need - call them, they will help. This is an ART not Engineering,; there are no rules. You will need to develop your own "brush strokes" (so to speak). If you make an ill-fitting plank, throw it away and make another. Given a little time, you develop your own individual sort of rhythm.
5. Just an aside, delve into the world of wood scrapers (you make your own out of all kinds of shapes and sizes of metal). Hulls are best faired/finished with scrapers not sandpaper. I think it is safe to say that every plank on the model could benefit from a good scraping job.
6. Have fun!

 

[Short John Bronze]

This concerns basic planking technique for POB kits with supplied planks. I am a beginner ship model maker.
I understand the basic technique of working out how much to trim off each plank along the bulkheads. Working through that now on my Mamoli Catalina kit.
However, I have two references for basic planking. One says ALWAYS trim off from the top of the plank; one says ALWAYS from the bottom.

BTW. Don't buy a commercial planking clamp: make one. The latest one I made is simply two strips of plywood fixed to a base with a gap that will just fit a plank on
edge. The plank can easily be tapered/chamfered with a plane, spokeshave or even a file or scraper. Various measurements or points at which to start tapering can be scribbled on the surface.

 

[AllanKP69]

Forget the written descriptions in books; waste of time.

Respectfully disagree Bill. For spiling the short essay by David Antscherl was enough to teach many of us how to properly shape a plank. PDF below. He is dead set against edge setting, but for those relegated to using strip stock this can be achieved with relative ease as shown in the 4 part Passaro video and I have found that is works extremely well.

 

[Bob Ellis]

This concerns basic planking technique for POB kits with supplied planks. I am a beginner ship model maker.
I understand the basic technique of working out how much to trim off each plank along the bulkheads. Working through that now on my Mamoli Catalina kit.
However, I have two references for basic planking. One says ALWAYS trim off from the top of the plank; one says ALWAYS from the bottom.

Is one of these references wrong, or maybe it does not matter as long as you try to do it consistently.

I realize planking method is a large and complex part of the hobby with many approaches, but here I am just getting started and already getting two opposite directions.

Thanks for any advice.

The method I first read is trim the bottom edge so you have a reguler even top edge to facilitate fitting the next plank.Though Olha advises trim the dge away from the direction of bend. This makes sense, you're effectively lengthening that edge. Kevin Kenny, following David Antscherl, appears to have done this but spiled the last plank on his HMS Thorn build.

 

[Zarthabal]

Ho Boy, BarnegatBay, it’s always fun to see how a simple question can open the Pandora’s box of opinions especially on planking.
I am also a beginner and empathize so much with your situation. I spent years planking my first ship (the first layer came out horribly, and I stopped to practice on smaller models before starting the 2nd planking), and got so confused by information found online…
I am not good enough to want technical accuracy, I just want a hull that doesn’t have gaping holes and is pleasant to the eye. At this point my understanding is that: either you buy sheets of wood and spile it as mentioned above (have not yet tried that but believe it when people say it is easier than edge bending) or, you use the straight strips of woods provided by most kits, follow the good advice of Short John Bronze for tapering and chamfering… and unfortunately you have to rely on some edge bending at some point, I haven’t found another way (unless someone here can enlighten me). Chuck Passaro has good videos on how he does it, and I am currently trying to reproduce his technique.
I’m curious to hear the opinion of others on how to use the strips provided in kits!
Cheers!

 

[Zarthabal]

Among the many things I haven’t mastered yet is how to apply wood filler in a way that looks good… I always end up with unevenness in the surface, because sending sometimes removed chunks at a time (which leaves holes and dimples). Especially in areas of high curvature. I’ve been using a couple of different brands without a big difference. Does anyone have some advice?

 

[Stuart Little]

Battle Damage.
Has anyone ever discharged a shotgun at a ship model to simulate battle damage? What calibre cannon corresponds to a shotgun pellet? Perhaps a risky experiment on a £1K model of HMS Victory to simulate her state at the end of Trafalgar.

I 'deactivated' a couple of 12 bore shells of no. 4 to add to my stock of cannonballs.

 

[AllanKP69]

Battle Damage.
Has anyone ever discharged a shotgun at a ship model to simulate battle damage?

The size of the pellet depends on both the scale and cannon size. A 32 pounder cannonball for example is about 6.1" At 1:64 scale this would be number 7 1/2 shot. A BB gun might be the ticket but likely too large diameter (0.177 - 4.5mm) It will penetrate about 1/16" (1.6mm)

If the scale of the model is 1:72 such as the Caldercraft Victory, #9 shot would be about right but how to fire them? Maybe make your own small cannon with the right size diameter. We made little cannons with pieces of scrap iron and brass rods as kids and the ball would penetrate a tin can. Talk about shooting your eye out kid.
Allan
"

 

[BarnegatBay]

Bob, your opinion and commentary are greatly appreciated, especially for me the phenomenon of "at scale" viewing which plays into the viewer's perception of the model. As model scale decreases from 1:1 (the subject's actual size), even perfect detail is not possible for the viewer to perceive with their own eyes in any case. That is unless you have the machine from the movie 'Fantastic Voyage' to create the perfect 'scale model', and what would enjoyable about that?

Very interesting discussion prompted by my original elementary question about trimming planks.

What an enjoyable Forum (Ships of Scale) to participate in. Gives me a break from worrying about AI weakening our ability to think like humans.

As to the discussion on creating realistic model battle damage. Same concerns apply: at reduced scale, projectile damage is not going to be the same as real damage because the physics of wood and ballistics vary with scale. So only approximation to what the viewer perceives as 'realistic' damage is really possible to model anyway.

Best to all.

 

[Signet]

Planking should never be "edge set" and rarely is in full-scale construction. First, it's impossible to bend full-scale plank stock across its width for anything close to as radical a bend as some advocates of the heat-bending planking modeling fraternity advocate. On occasion, in substandard construction, a sloppy shipwright will edge set a plank by a quarter inch across a full plank's run, but it's a sign of shoddy construction and, when done, is usually done on the sly. In full-sized construction, planking shapes are spiled and cut from flat planking stock so that the plank will easily bend across its long dimension and fall perfectly in place on the planking schedule, rather than having to be tortured into shape.

Yes, cutting planks from larger/wider material was done, but that resulted in an extremely high material loss. Later, bending planks to fit, in all directions as well as twist which is most common, was done by heat, either steam and fire, after which the planks were bent fairly easily. I have seen quite a number of period drawings showing this, but a good article on one heat method is An Account of the Manner of bending Planks in His Majeſty’s Yards at Deptford, &c. by a Sand-heat, invented by Captain Cumberland.

If the plank seams aren't going to be portrayed, and at most scales, they should not be, given the scale viewing distance, it makes no difference how the hull shape is constructed.

Yes, it does, because most planking and seams on wood planked sailing ships IS VISIBLE. Even when painted over, the seams are usually/often present. That is because the wood planks are not made to be tight together - they cannot be that tight a fit that it wouldn't be noticed. The gap between is chinked with material to prevent leakage, and that material can be slightly above or below the gap, causing planks to be quite visible. Here's an example that shows it:

So IMHO, whether painted or left natural, planking can and even should be visible on a quality model. Except, of course, for modern steel ships.

This is why most top-quality model hulls aren't planked at all but are instead made from a solid block of wood or from laminated lifts ("bread and butter" method.)

Boy do I disagree with that. I'm 83 and have been building models of one sort or another for about 75 of those years. I scratch-built a Xebec from plans and instructions from Popular Mechanics with a bread and butter hull. And stained varnished it. Of course, I could have no below deck detail to speak of, but that's okay. At the time I was extremely proud of the model. But instead of nice planking to be seen on the hull, I saw no breaks in some areas and visible seams in others, due to wood color variations, being nothing like a planked hull. I've also built early model ship kits where the hull was a solid piece of wood roughed out. This was only done in the cheapest, and smallest, of kits. Today's plank on frame results in a more complex build method much closer to the original construction, helps understand how ships were actually built, and gives us satisfaction during and after the build.

If planking seams are to be portrayed, they should be portrayed accurately. This isn't an "ideal." In this world of subjective reality, some things simply remain "right" and some remain "wrong" and aren't subject to opinion or interpretation. "Accuracy" is the hallmark of models....Planking simply is not visible at scale viewing distances in "smaller scales."

You have a lot of opinions, Bob, as do we all, but that doesn't make them all fact. As shown above, planked models ARE being portrayed accurately. I will admit that treenails and/or iron nails are probably not visible, but that's a different subject.

Kit manufacturers design kits to sell at a profit and plank on bulkhead kit model hull construction offers a marketability, and hence profitability, advantage to the manufacturers for which they sacrifice accuracy as well as ease of construction. (Much like IKEA's knocked down "flat packed" furniture, there are savings to be realized from "flat packed" ship model kits.) What "... most smaller scale kits do not expect" is that beginning ship modelers will know the difference.

IMHO that is just wrong. How many of us would buy a solid hull sailing ship kit, whether solid wood or glued up bread and butter (except modern steel ships)? I don't think anyone makes them anymore, and again IMHO that is because we don't want them! They lack the detail and construction we all expect in a kit. You say plank on bulkhead modes are made because it's cheap abut it lacks accuracy. While I prefer PoF construction, PoB can produce exactly the same outer appearance, and far more accurately then a solid hull.

 

[AllanKP69]

They lack the detail and construction we all expect in a kit.

I agree that they lack detail in many cases, but all but two or maybe three kit manufacturers that offer "framed" kits lack detail, or worse, include details that are incorrect for a given ship such as hugely out of scale gratings and belaying pins.
Allan

 

[Roger Pellett]

We are fortunate that our choice of modeling subjects can vary from the ancient caveman’s log to a modern cruise ship. While I personally find these two choices unappealing there are thousands of of others to choose from. I, therefore, personally find the idea that the Eighteenth Century dockyard model is the standard by which all ship models are judged to be ridiculous. Rather, each model should be judged on its own. Not showing planking seams should not disqualify an otherwise well built, historically accurate model.

Roger