A History of Technology, vol. 5, Oxford Univ. Press, p. 355,
states the problem: There was an upper limit of around 300 ft.
on the length of a wooden ship because wood couldn't provide a
rigid bow-to-stern connection, and tension from wave-action
increased as the length grew. The British Shipbuilding Industry
From 1870 to 1914, pp. 13-4, said pretty much the same thing,
while Alexander Laing's American Ships, pp. 409, quoted a
shipwright as to the opinion that the six-master clipper ships
(region of 330 ft. in length) were My response to this critique
is to say that yes, there is some upper limit on wood-hull
construction boats, but that the 300 feet citations above are
guesses and opinions based on the observation that few attempts
were made to build wooden ships over 300 feet. The reason why
not was that by the time that expanding commerce in the second
half of the 19th century would have demanded larger vessels,
iron was becoming a cost-effective material to use in hull
construction. So, the necessity to b