Hubac's Historian

This will be my Derby themed entry: The winner of my re-scaling derby is the red horse, on the outside track! A copy of him has also been placed above the headrail escutcheon, where it is more apparent how the decreases in scaling affect the overall appearance and position of the horse carving. The middle horse was an intermediate re-scaling effort, and the top horse is just a copy of my original path tracing. It doesn't seem like much, but the heavy 1/32" I gained between the bridge of the horse's nose and where the cathead timber projects will probably be enough clearance to make the whole thing fit seamlessly, while providing (IMO) a better, more streamlined interpretation of the original Berain/Compardel rendering. The reason this works is that there is actually a solid 1/8" of clear passage between the headrail escutcheon and the cathead timber. That space is increased, slightly, by the longer-bias distance that the horse head carving can project from the escutcheon before it hits the cathead. If need be, I can cheat the headrails back a good 1/32", without it being apparent. Fortunately, I still have the first SR I built all those years ago - against which I can see these relationships and take measurements. Here's a shot of the original drawing: Here's a shot of the rendering without the background. This doesn't show up so well, without the white background, but it is a little less cluttered without the black line drawing that is the original tracing layer. In any case, I think the lower profile horse is more in keeping with Berain's intent. The headrail escutcheons are different, so necessarily, my horse is a little more elongated, but I can live with it. Alright, one last picture that sucks a little less than the others: I'll still need to edit the Roman tunic so that it re-connects with the angel figure, but I am tired and have had enough for the night.

Great observation, Dan, regarding the arched main deck ports. This is how Heller has moulded them, so that the port sills run parallell with the wale strake just beneath them. With regard to the cathead timbers, you have brought my attention to a bit of a design problem; a problem, whereby the standard kit architecture isn't going to allow me to simply add this horsehead detail, as it's currently drawn. Because I was planning to use the kit headrails (a nice detail of the Heller kit that would be difficult to improve upon, from scratch), I had not bothered to draw them in. I have simply suggested the top edge of the headrail escutcheon, as it relates to the horsehead. The Berain drawing/Compardel Painting of the bow, show the cathead timbers extending out, just forward of the bridge of the horse's snout. The following link takes you to a nice waterline model of the Heller kit, which shows pretty clearly the standard relationship of the cathead timbers to the headrail: http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=G2K1cdzB&id=F0B0CE36616C3A6F325006FC8C3F0F2B17225E49&thid=OIP.G2K1cdzBhSy9N9CHzi3MpAEsDJ&q=heller+soleil+royal&simid=608024584384217243&selectedIndex=2 As I've drawn it, the cathead timber would want to run through the horse's snout, in order to be properly supported by the cathead knee. I'll have to take some measurements to see what sort of clearance I have. Perhaps, i can just re-scale the drawing of the horsehead a little bit, but more than likely I will have to redraw it altogether, if I want to keep this detail.

Great work on the interior, EJ! One thought that occurs to me has to do with the "dreaded sanding phase". Naturally, there will be a ton of dust. What is your plan for making these interior compartments, at least temporarily airtight, so that they don't fill up with dust?

In the following series of pictures, you can see that the armament is now fully in place. This enabled me to correct a few positional errors in the quarter deck cap rails. There is some overlapping of detail on one of the ornamental end caps, as it overlays the plank scallop detail, but some of that scallop detail will remain visible, and as can be seen in Berain's black and white drawing - where certain details overlap, the dominant detail seems to prevail; in this case, the end cap ornament is the dominant detail and so it will not be reduced. I still have not corrected the problem of overlapping lines, where paths intersect and certain path objects are intended for the foreground and others for the background. I suspect this has something to do with the fact that I have not yet "stroked" the paths, but I am going to make a test copy of the document soon, in order to test out a few different ideas about how to solve this problem. I drew in a lower port accent for the main deck ports, which will be affixed to the wale strake just beneath the ports. I've omitted this new detail, in the areas reserved for where I am going to re-locate the main and fore channels. The location of the waist ladder is one port aft of where it appears on the model. This gives me better visual balance, relative to the vertical skid timbers that are evenly spaced, just forward of the ladder. Also in place, now, are the scupper ports on the lower and middle deck levels. Here, one can see the protective anchor sweep, and just forward of that on the lower battery, I've drawn in a 15th "hunting port." The first Soleil Royal was pierced (along with La Reyne, before her) with 16 ports on the first battery. While my inclusion of this forward-most port still leaves me one shy of her actual first battery piercing, it is still one port closer to accuracy than the Tanneron model, which is pierced for 14. I am told that, in practice, this forward most port would not - for the most part - have been armed, except when in chase, the next gun aft would be shifted to this forward pointing port. Again, including this detail is a good example of an attempt on my part to create a better impression of accuracy; although, of course, if one counts the ports they will realize that one port is missing. I haven't decided whether I will simply scribe in the port detail and add hinge strapping, hinge barrels and a ring bolt, or if I will actually cut in the port. The spacing between the anchor sweep and the hawser detail is tight, but workable, and in reality, a little less congested than I've drawn it. I'm just not good enough with the software to properly depict the foreshortening of the bows and how the hawse holes should appear in plan view. Next, I'll fill in all the railing detail and then I'll start filling in the quarter galleries and the frieze details. I realize that this is all incredibly tedious, on my part, but I find it helpful to see exactly how the arrangement of details falls in relation to each other. I can now see, for example, that my window surround, just forward of the quarter gallery, will need to be simplified quite a bit.

Hi E.J., Is that a mast plate I see at the base of the foremast? If so, was thst stock or an add-on. I ask because I often wonder what I will do when it is time to step masts. On such a big ship, a re-enforcing mast plate makes sense to me. Or would mast-partner (I think they are called?) wedges be adequate. Curious what your thoughts are on this issue.

Interesting insight into the evolution of rigging, EJ, and the transfer of complexity closer to the working areas of the yardarms. Must have made for less clutter and tangle of lines, especially in the heat of battle when damage is making a mess of the decks.

Ah, yes - I think you are right about that! That would make sense. Thanks, Vossie.

Thank you for the comment, EJ. You raise a good question. This antler carving is one that I was hoping to keep without altering it or re-creating it. It's one of the details that the Heller kit really does well. Although it differs from the Berain drawing of this detail, in some ways I think it is a more elegant execution. In truth, my hand-drawing does not completely accurately mimic the lines of the antler details. As moulded, they take up even less space between the ports than my drawing shows. Try as I might, I just could not get the lay of the line right on those, but because I wasn't planning to re-create it - good enough really seemed adequate for the purpose of assessing the total layout. What I may have to do is slightly alter the leafy scrolls of the port enhancements, here and there, wherever they encroach too much on the antler things. For the most part, though, I don't think these two details will interfere with each other.

Sometimes I worry that the forum moderators will close my build-log, if they don't see any signs of activity. With that in mind - this post is something of a place marker, but it does illustrate progress on the drawing and highlights a few of the areas where designing to fit within the kit architecture presents specific challenges and/or limitations. This is my work area in Gimp. For this picture, I've hidden the white background tracing layer, which is my digitized hand-drawing. With the main wales located, and the first three batteries in place, and properly located, she is beginning to look like a ship of war. With the water line raised and the sheer line reduced, slightly, I think she sits pretty in the water: The next three pics have the tracing layer visible, and I've scaled the zoom to accurately reflect the size of the actual kit. This first shot of the bow shows the difficulty of designing the filligree between the knees of the head; rather than a parallel space between the knees, the space widens as you move outboard from the stem. This means that the elements that make up the filligree can't simply be drawn once and copied, but must be drawn individually to fit. The "X" shaped bits are supposed to frame shell carvings (which I may not model at this scale because the detail would be so tiny), are placed to correspond with the vertical ballusters that unify the three rows of headrails: The arched, main deck ports also presented unique challenges that were not readily apparent until they were duplicated and placed along the upper bulwark. First, my hand drawing did not accurately reflect the height and width of the actual ports; I drew them about a 1/16" too tall and almost a 1/16" too wide. However, the space they can fit into, along the upper bulwark, is tallest aft and tapers to a more narrow space in the forecastle. When you factor in that I also, initially, exaggerated the domed arch, and you add on the scrolled port enhancement, then the whole thing becomes really crowded, among the antler escutcheon carvings (not sure what else to call them): I had to re-draw the port several times, duplicate it and place the row of ports until I was satisfied that the composition did not look too cluttered. I have yet to correct the bow angel's extended hand, which no longer rests upon the smaller port, but I will do so soon. Now, while the whole thing is very busy looking, when I consider the Compardel drawing upon which these port enhancements are based - then I think that my layout is actually better balanced and less cluttered looking. This has to do with the fact that the Berain (black and white) and Compardel drawings of the stern quarters reflect a more exaggerated sheer of the wales, as it intersects with a less pronounced sheer of the actual gundecks; the wales, the ornamentation and everything else outside the ship appear to rise rather sharply, while the gun ports, themselves, cut more steeply into the wales than is shown on the Heller kit. I have tried unsuccessfully, just now, to post a sketch of The Monarch of 1668, which illustrates quite nicely this more pronounced sheer of the wales, on a ship of the First Marine. You can see that the aft-most ports cut completely through the wale. I will post this pic later, from my home computer, where it is easier to do so. The reason for this variance has to do with the fact that the Heller kit, and the Tanneron model upon which it is based, reflect latter 17th C. Architecture of the Second marine - namely, the Foudroyant of 1693. This fundamental difference between what I am trying to represent with the first Soleil Royal and the inherent inability to accurately represent the correct sheer of the wales on the plastic kit drives purists nuts; that, among other architectural inaccuracies. I don't mean for that to be the case, but it is a compromise that I am willing to make because, in the end, I think it results in a less chaotic assemblage of details. I am thinking about adding the leafy port enhancement that is shown beneath the port sills. This would simply be affixed to the wale strake beneath the upper bulwarks, and omitted wherever the re-located main and fore channels make it impossible to include them. As a related aside, a Belgian modeler named Cedric - whom I mentioned much earlier in this build log - is, in fact, closing off the Heller ports and re-locating them, and the wale locations so that he can more closely model La Reyne. So, to be more clear - it is not impossible. Cedric has already begun by cutting his hull along the same raised waterline I am proposing, sanding away the wales and using the kit port lids to seal off the openings. This promises to be a very visually rewarding project, on his part, and one that I think will be very complementary to what is happening here. I commend Cedric for his effort and attention to detail because what he is doing goes to a level that I am not willing to take my project. Here is a link to his build-log for La Reyne, where he recently posted an update with pictures: http://www.laroyale-modelisme.net/t19428p25-la-reine-vaisseau-de-premier-rang-au-1-90-eme?highlight=La+Reine+++Heller+Customise One can immediately see, in Cedric's pictures, how cutting away the lower hull drastically improves the impression of the hull as a viable sailing ship. You can begin to see a few of the details that will be added in: scribed scarf joints into the wales at appropriate intervals, and the through-bolting for the carriage tackles. There are a number of other small details, like this, that can be sketched in now, with the gunports in place. regarding the thin wale strakes that frame the railings of the sheer line - they will be mostly scraped away to make room for the upper bulwark frieze. For now, I'm showing a short, moulded nub beneath the scalloped detail at each step in the sheer. I'm not sure how I will ultimately resolve that, but for now, I like this. You can see the 1/4" re-location, forward, of the aft most port on the lower deck, that makes a little extra room for the lower finishing of the quarter gallery. I have the tracing layer for the quarter gallery on a separate layer that I am not showing right now. Of course, aspects of the QG are not lining up so neatly with where I would like those transitions to land, so that will require digital manipulation, when I get to that part of the tracing. High-lighted in red are two parallel lines that (in-board) indicate where the stock kit architecture ends and (out-board) shows the 3/8" extension piece that is necessary to close-in the lower stern walk. The blue line beyond that indicates the round-up of the upper stern, which is probably exaggerated. I will have a better sense for the depth of that when I begin making card templates to offer up to the stern, for patterning of the framing elements. Finally, while I am cutting away the topmost step of the Heller sheer, I am adding back a lower-profile, continuous rail that extends forward to the rail cap. The reason for doing this, primarily, is that it buys me back a little extra real estate (in-board) for the upper most "poop royal" deck that will have to be lowered, somewhat, and the camber increased, slightly, towards the middle of the deck, in order to work within the reduced sheer. The depth of the deck, fore and aft, will also need to be shortened, somewhat. I haven't drawn any of that, but I know it can be re-worked in a pleasing way.

I think it is quite remarkable that men went to sea in seas like this - and much worse - aboard wooden ships! Fantastic picture, Ken.

Goodwin seems to suggest that the exterior planking was cut flush with the framing and that the port housing for a Capital ship like RW, changed a little, over the course of the 18th C.

Good question. I'm not sure what the answer is, but a good starting point might be H.M.S. Victory: http://www.prdobson.com/album/hms-victory/photo/120/ A little later, I'll reference Goodwin's Englishman of War

Wow - that's frustrating how un-reliable the kit plans are. Good catch!

Whichever way you go Ken, it is going to come out well because your work has been so clean, so far. Do whatever you are comfortable with and have fun with it.

I was wondering the same thing, Ken. Your first planking is really nice and clean, but the finished model is immensely improved by following traditional practice. One of the Forum moderators - Chuck - has an excellent series of two videos that describe the layout and spiling of continuous planking using simple math, tools and techniques. Though I'm still a plastics guy, I will be coming back to this when I transition to wood. The learning curve under his tuteledge is a speed-bump instead of a mountain. I will post the thread link.

I think the staircase looks amazing, Ken. Nice and clean and not overly fussy. Great job!

Just re-visiting this build, and I am completely awed by your progress, and the resourcefulness of your build! Really great work!

Hi Ken, I'm loving your build-log, so far. You're off to a great start, and I look forward to following along. I've always loved the RW, as one of the last great, albeit transitional, ships of the spritsail topmast era. She's an elegant vessel, and I have every confidence that you'll be able to pull this off, nicely, considering the lovely pictures of your easier build. All the best, Marc

Sharpening chisels is a subject with much variation according to personal preference. The nice thing about "micro" tools is that it is a micro job to tune them up and keep them sharp. This is what I do with all of my edge tools. I bought a two-sided oil stone at Home Depot a number of years ago. I use the coarse side to shape my bevel, and the fine side to refine my edge. Then I move to a ceramic "stone" that I bought from Woodworkers Supply that never dishes out from wear, to further refine the edge. Then I move on to a 5000 grit wet stone. At each stage, I'm lapping the back of the tool to help work the "wire" that forms along the edge, so that at the next and final stage, the wire releases and I have a truly razor sharp edge. The final stage is to strop along a piece of leather that I've loaded with a superfine abrasive compound make by Tormek. The key to all of this - whether or not you manage to keep the bevels of your straight chisels perfectly flat or slightly rounded - is to always pull the tool across the stone or strop so that the edge is trailing. Often, you will see someone working a single edge tool back and forth across a stone, but I have found this to be counter-productive, as you inevitably end up grinding micro-bevels into the tool edge that prevent you from refining a consistent hone along the length of the edge. a final micro-bevel is considered, by some, to be a desireable feature, but that, in itself, is a whole other subject of conversation that doesn't even apply to micro carving tools. In the absence of stones, one can achieve the same degree of bevel shaping and edge-refinement with non-loading sandpaper, in a number of grits, upon a thick piece of glass (1/4" or thicker). When it comes to gouges or any other type of curved, edge tool, it does take some practice to learn how to roll the tool along the stone so that the whole edge gets honed with each pass, but this is not so difficult to master. Usually, micro chisels are not made of such hard steel that it is laborious to re-shape and sharpen an edge, if you mess it up. If you follow some sequence of sharpening like I laid out, you'll he able to keep a razor edge for quite a while, simply by stropping, before the compound deforms the edge enough to necessitate re-sharpening. Even then, I find that the ceramic stone is as far back as I need to go to quickly re-shape and hone an edge.

Of course, I'm offering this advice without having done much small-scale carving myself. All of my relief carvin has been for furniture projects with a few full-figure reliefs, in my mix of experience. I can well appreciate how much more difficult it must be to follow the grain, at small scales. The upside, it seems to me, is that very little material has to be removed, in order to achieve a nice effect. The trick is removing the right material. I will say, though, that the few times I have tried to use EXACTO type blades for smallwork - i have found it difficult to control depth of cut. The longer blade bevel, of even miniature carving gouges and chissels affords you more control over the cutting action.

Hi Meddo, I'm not sure if you are doing this already, but one thing that I have always found helpful, with this sort of relief carving, is to trace in a center line throughout the length and all details of the carving. This gives you a reference line to carve to and makes it easier to smooth out and shape the surfaces. It should be said that this line isn't always an exact centerline; on a leafy scroll, for example, you may skew the line closer to the top of the scroll, in order to carve a more accentuated cove, on the other side of the line. Or, sometimes, the opposite would be more appropriate. Whichever you do, though, it's going to always be a constant back and forth with the blade edge to adjust to the ever changing grain direction, as you work your way through the carving's shapes.

She's really taking shape, EJ. It's amazing how big these models are.

I love the light EJ - the cabin looks great! I'm glad that you have decided to re-create the six window configuration of Berain's stern. Doing so, however, will mean that you will need to re-scale and re-create all of the window framing and ornament from scratch. I was curious to know how you were going about mapping out a new layout and also what your plans were for reconciling the ornamentation.

Vossie - you are speaking my language! Ha ha! I see what you mean, now, about workflow as it relates to building up a design. That three-D stuff you're doing is incredible. And I have thought about the potential for using 3-D modeling, not just to develop a valid hull-form for Soleil Royal (whenever I get around to a full scratch build, but of course, I'll have to build a few smaller models from scratch to learn that kind of modeling), but to do a virtual tank test to see what sort of handling characteristics my mock hull might have. I mean, why not? The technology is there to work as a virtual naval architect. All it takes is time, which in middle-age, is in remarkably short supply.