Correct. Odds are that if a builder doesn't understand the basics of planking, they probably aren't going to have an appreciation for how essential properly set up framing and bulkhead members are. The last thing any kit manufacturer wants is for a kit to get a reputation as "difficult to build." Ideally, every kit has to fit perfectly and earlier fitting errors create huge problems later on in most instances.
-
Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering. -
PRE-ORDER SHIPS IN SCALE TODAY!
The beloved Ships in Scale Magazine is back and charting a new course for 2026!
Discover new skills, new techniques, and new inspirations in every issue.
NOTE THAT OUR FIRST ISSUE WILL BE JAN/FEB 2026
Correct. Odds are that if a builder doesn't understand the basics of planking, they probably aren't going to have an appreciation for how essential properly set up framing and bulkhead members are. The last thing any kit manufacturer wants is for a kit to get a reputation as "difficult to build." Ideally, every kit has to fit perfectly and earlier fitting errors create huge problems later on in most instances.
I am courious about your single layer planked models ,any images?
I just aked him to show some perfect models of his
If you're talking to me, oh, I'd disagree on that for sure! Whatever I can do, anybody can do. It's all in a book somewhere. It ain't rocket science. Not even close.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2018
- Messages
- 875
- Points
- 353
And this debate doesn't include the growing popularity of resin printed components and features.
The proponents of of this no doubt would say it's just another form of modelling.
I suppose this hobby isn't the 'purist' activity that some would wish.
There are other forums which frown on 'alternative' methods, but when you dig deep enough, you'll find they too embrace all the same traits.
As a hobby, each individual must be free to pursue whatever 'floats their boat' and have the respect from us all.
The proponents of of this no doubt would say it's just another form of modelling.
I suppose this hobby isn't the 'purist' activity that some would wish.
There are other forums which frown on 'alternative' methods, but when you dig deep enough, you'll find they too embrace all the same traits.
As a hobby, each individual must be free to pursue whatever 'floats their boat' and have the respect from us all.
Well said Pug..how are you getting on?
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2025
- Messages
- 176
- Points
- 78
To answer the original question: If exercising this type of planking is of serious interest to you - you should come to the realization that you are wasting your time by continuing to mess with kits at all. Your level of sophistication has evolved to a point where moving over to scratch building should be a serious consideration.
Cutthroat winner take all contests are just as pointless at the other extreme.
Serious bench mark standards with no limit on how many meet them can improve quality. It provides worthy and real goals to shoot for.
There is a world outside of the fantasy bubble. Reading answers to questions from wing members that provide information about what is historically real (to the best of our current knowledge) will save on shock when confronting the world outside the bubble. The outside world is usually blunt about calling out nonsense.
You know this, but a two layer planking is necessary when then the quality and spacing of the support molds is not adequate to yield anything that resembles the hull of a ship that could actually sail. Without the inner layer, the hull would more closely resemble T.J.'s serpentine brick wall at UVA.
If participation trophies are thought to be meaningful to anyone besides the shop selling the trophies - meaningless feelgood praise - just as long as all is within a fantasy land bubble.
Cutthroat winner take all contests are just as pointless at the other extreme.
Serious bench mark standards with no limit on how many meet them can improve quality. It provides worthy and real goals to shoot for.
I doubt that any "some" have ever wished anything like that for ship modeling in general. "Purist" is hyperbolic and an inaccurate slur against those who prefer objective standards when participating in the historically accurate wing. The field is too broad and the surviving information is too sparse for anyone to be considered an "expert" either. "Advocates for the real" is a more accurate description. Having a place to share what is known or what is probable is a very gratifying and helpful experience. This wing is usually well labeled as to intent. It is also home to a quite small fraction of the membership. Interest and focus on the esoteric and the arcane are the very reasons for being there.
There is a world outside of the fantasy bubble. Reading answers to questions from wing members that provide information about what is historically real (to the best of our current knowledge) will save on shock when confronting the world outside the bubble. The outside world is usually blunt about calling out nonsense.
Last edited:
I agree completely. Anybody who creates any sort of watercraft, from a full-scale wooden boat to a miniature representation of any kind of vessel always has my respect and attention.
Of course, for however long what they build will hold my interest is solely a function of my own prerogatives.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have any images of any single-layer carvel planked models of my own, nor surely any "perfect" models I have built because there are none of those... yet.
Over the more than fifty years I've been playing with ship models, I have only had occasion to build a couple of small open boat models of larger scale which required individual planking to depict them as required. I find that an individually planked painted hull in any scale smaller than 1:48 has no detail to offer which would be visible at scale viewing distance and, in fact, requires more work to fair for finishing than a solid hull in any case. In recent times, I've been occupied with model restoration and repair jobs which, frankly, I don't find as interesting as original work. As a matter of policy, I don't publish photographs of restoration and repair clients' models. As I don't build kits, "bright" finished models, nor plank-on-bulkhead or on-frame hulls, I don't have occasion to build any individually planked hulls, although I have completed the research to build a Galway Hooker which, as an open boat, will require carvel planking when I get around to building it, a task that doesn't cause me any trepidation whatsoever. Making patterns for parts, be they planks or otherwise, is a basic scratch-building skill. The most recent carvel planking I have fitted, some years back, was twelve to fourteen feel long on a thirty-six-foot sharpie yacht and I don't have any pictures of that, either.But none of that is the purpose of your questions, is it? What you are really about is challenging what I've written because you think I've asserted it on the basis of my own authority. What I have written was not intended to rely upon some assertion of my own personal authority for its validity at all. The assertions I have made were intended to stand on their own merits as stated. I welcome any critique of the facts and analysis of my post as a learning opportunity. Someone may well have a point that may change my mind or at least provide food for thought for others who may read the conversation and find it helpful to them. If you disagree with anything I've written on the subject in my post above, by all means, do feel free to post your contrary contentions and I'll be happy to respond with whatever further thoughts your assertions may engender. If, on the other hand, you wish only to challenge me without regard to the content of what I've posted, I don't consider that a worthwhile expenditure of my time or attention.
The original post asked "Why aren't there more models with spiled planking?" I've shared my thoughts on that subject, noting why there aren't more kit models with spiled planking because that is indeed the case and I believe that was the context of the original question. Obviously, if the original poster were including "all ship models," including, for instance, high-quality ship models in private collections and museums, the question would be nonsensical because the great majority of such models, other than those intending to depict internal framing and/or "bright" finished hulls are solid or hollowed-solid hull models. (For examples, the U.S. Navy's specifications for models built for its collection, one of the largest collections in the world, mandate solid or hollowed-solid hull construction rather than plank-on-bulkhead or on-frames and all the great "Boardroom Builders Models'" hulls are similarly constructed.) My showing pictures of spiled planking models I have built isn't relevant to my offered explanation of that. Do you have a different answer to provide? By all means, do share it with everyone! It's an interesting topic and I think it's an interesting question worthy of further exploration.
I understand Model Shipways has discontinued their few remaining solid hull kits which dated back to their original "Yellow Box Period" because they felt consumer demand preferred plank-on-bulkhead or -frame hull construction over solid hull construction. I can only surmise this is because their consumer base is more familiar with planked hull construction than solid hull construction and simply ignorant of the amount of unnecessary tedious and demanding detail work required to produce a planked hull for a model that is not going to be depicting internal framing detail or a "bright" finish, and in the latter case, even planking a solid hull would be a much easier technique than planking a plank-on-bulkhead or -frame hull. Perhaps you have a better explanation than I do for the kit market's reported preference for "doing it the hard way" as I see it, at least.
I THINK two reasons. One maybe cost. The kits that do this often use sapele or other inappropriate wood for a second layer that carry a relatively high cost so a thin brittle layer is better than a single layer of tight grained wood. Another reason may be that they don't know how to show/explain how to plank a hull like on a real ship. Who knows, maybe some other reason altogether. I have asked a couple well known old time kit makers and both said they would confer with their technical department. That was the last I ever heard from them. As long as they can sell a lot of their products as they are now, why would they take on the expense of making changes for the better? Hopefully the new generation of kit makers will earn more of the market and create an incentive for the old fashioned kit makers to make improvements.
Allan
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 6,360
- Points
- 728
i know you are not responding to me but All my models in build logs are single planked never have i double planked a hull
No ,that not my issue ,Bob has a lot to say but nothing to show and I do not buy that nonsense that he cannot show “customers l” builds,that is the most ridiculous hogwash I ever heard lil
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 6,360
- Points
- 728
oh ok i thought you were asking for examples of single planking a hull.
lets not get personal and sling challenges we know where that leads to at least Bob has something to say as opposed to the other 23,241 members who post nothing.
Nothing personal here just a general request ,every post images on the forum that is one of the purpose ,regardless kit ,scratch or restoration builders
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2020
- Messages
- 2,220
- Points
- 488
I don't mind single planking if the hull is to be painted, otherwise I prefer double planking.
1 mm birch 3-ply is quite flexible for basic bending. If spiling is used there is no need for edge bending
I think the main thing is people find kits to their tastes. And ever since there have been kits, if you want to take it up a notch, feel free to get some additional materials and bash away. Spiling is more for those who are capable of competent bashing anyway.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2021
- Messages
- 139
- Points
- 143
Going back to my apprentice days as a boatbuilder/shipwright with this discussion! The purpose of spiling at full scale is to figure out how to cut a plank from flat stock that can be bent around a curved shape without signficant edge-setting (in geometrical terms, the ideal is to bend the plank in one axis only, with some twist allowable). For this to work, the spiling batten needs to resist edge-setting as much as possible, so we often used thin plywood for this. It allowed us to take the shape of the plank off the frames and planking already erected accurately, so we could cut the next plank accurately, so in theory, one could make planking out of plywood as well. The main limitation is not its lack of flexibility (that is actually desirable) but that once in place, fairing the surface tends to go through the outermost layer of veneer and expose a lot of end grain, which is a rot starter. Plywood is mostly used as planking on boats with hard chines at the seams.
I think making "spiled" planks as kit parts is problemmatical, since the point of spiling is to derive the flat shape of a plank from the faired shape of the frames. If the faired frames deviate from the theoretical shape even a little, planks cut to patterns will not fit and may be more work to correct, which then makes them narrower than planned, with a cumulative effect. But if the hull is properly faired and the plank is lined (laid out) correctly, then it should be possible to make individual spiled planks from relatively narrow flat stock without a lot of short grain, although the effect of working at smaller scales might be challenging. At full size, we tried to get the spiling correct to within 1/16" (1.5mm) on boats and no more than 1/8" on larger vessels to make shaping go quickly. These kinds of tolerances are not achievable at scale, and I suspect most people would not want to work with scale width planks at smaller scales. But there is nothing to stop you from making spiled planks in larger scales, or from spiling planks that are wider than scale as a concession to size, and it should be possible to do it from normal sheet stock of moderate width.
As an historical curiosity, the Beetle Cat, a small catboat made in large numbers by the Concordia Boat Company, used planking patterns. The builder, Leo Telesmanick, developed the system to streamline production. By the end of his career, the patterns had become so worn from being traced onto generations of planking stock that Leo knew how much to allow outside the pencil line for a good fit. He had also committed to muscle memory the rolling bevels along the plank edges, and could often make them with a single pass of a bench plane. But he was building boats on a rigid form from mass-produced components for the frames, so the variation in shape from one boat to the next was minimal.
Fred
I think making "spiled" planks as kit parts is problemmatical, since the point of spiling is to derive the flat shape of a plank from the faired shape of the frames. If the faired frames deviate from the theoretical shape even a little, planks cut to patterns will not fit and may be more work to correct, which then makes them narrower than planned, with a cumulative effect. But if the hull is properly faired and the plank is lined (laid out) correctly, then it should be possible to make individual spiled planks from relatively narrow flat stock without a lot of short grain, although the effect of working at smaller scales might be challenging. At full size, we tried to get the spiling correct to within 1/16" (1.5mm) on boats and no more than 1/8" on larger vessels to make shaping go quickly. These kinds of tolerances are not achievable at scale, and I suspect most people would not want to work with scale width planks at smaller scales. But there is nothing to stop you from making spiled planks in larger scales, or from spiling planks that are wider than scale as a concession to size, and it should be possible to do it from normal sheet stock of moderate width.
As an historical curiosity, the Beetle Cat, a small catboat made in large numbers by the Concordia Boat Company, used planking patterns. The builder, Leo Telesmanick, developed the system to streamline production. By the end of his career, the patterns had become so worn from being traced onto generations of planking stock that Leo knew how much to allow outside the pencil line for a good fit. He had also committed to muscle memory the rolling bevels along the plank edges, and could often make them with a single pass of a bench plane. But he was building boats on a rigid form from mass-produced components for the frames, so the variation in shape from one boat to the next was minimal.
Fred
How many potential members of this forum are lost because of the difficulty of planking their first model with no experience to call on? If shaped hull planking. helped them to get beyond this stage it might increase the number of people taking up this hobby. Those purists who wish to start from a balk of timber and cut their own planks (while not procreating standing in a hammock) could continue to do it their way and enjoy feeling superior.