On 25/04/2014 6:11 am, "RH Hutchins"  wrote:

> My impression is that Australian woods have greater strength than do
> American woods, especially softwoods typically used in framing.

Hi Bob

Here in Melbourne where most houses are timber framed, houses built up to
about WW2 are more likely to be Oregon (Douglas Fir), than Australian
Hardwood. The section sizes and spacings are all the same. Studs were 4 X 2
at the sides of openings, or 4 X 1 1/2 elsewhere, spaced at 18" centres.

The earliest positively dated timber framed house I have worked on was built
in 1889, and seems to be mostly Oregon.

My house (a Californian Bungalow) was built in 1927, and has a hardwood
frame. My parents place (also a Californian Bungalow) was built in 1926 and
has a frame entirely of Oregon except for the sub floor.

The house I've been working on for the last 6 months was built (woefully
badly) around 1907. Mostly Oregon, and low grade Oregon at that.

After the war, Australian hardwoods became the normal building material in
Melbourne. OBHW (ordinary building hardwood) is a term that I'm glad I never
hear any more. OB was supplied unseasoned and is incredibly heavy.
INCREDIBLY HEAVY. I can't stress that enough. Unloading a truck load of
timber, or standing completed walls up was back-breaking, energy draining
work. The only good thing about OB was that it was easy to saw, nail, and
chisel. Oh, and it smells great.

On drying it shrinks, twists, bows, and cracks. I think generally it was
seen as being a lower quality material.

According to my 1922 James Moore and Sons flyer, Oregon was 37 shillings 6
pence per 100 super foot, Australian Hardwood 27 shillings 6 pence. So a
premium was paid for Oregon.

Now that we seem to have established that bundles of 4ft laths are
responsible for North American 16" stud centres, wouldn't it be a hoot if it
turns out that unwanted 4ft 6" laths were shipped off to Australia, and that
determined our 18" stud centres! It's plausible.

Mick Dowling