Hubac's Historian

That's the greatest feeling - to see this thing you've been working on really take shape.  Congrats, Dude, she looks incredible!

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.

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.

Thanks Don! I'm both scared of and excited for that complicated rigging. Those crows feet are difficult to build although, now that I have done a couple I have a better idea of how to do them. What is worrying me about these next ones though is that they attach to the stays which, while tight, when I go to tension the crows feet are going to want to pull upwards. The first one I did attached to the bowsprit which was solidly fixed and the last pulled on the shrouds and while they had some play, they were a lot stiffer than the forestays are. To help with this I am going to have to put more tension on the yard and mast and create downward pressure on the stay to counter the upward pull of the crows feet. I know I can make it happen but it will be a slow process with continual adjusting until it is right. I start working on it tonight so we shall see what develops.... 

Well I managed to get the fore course yard bent and rigged. That one was by far the easiest of the three yards to rig as the top and top gallant both use crows feet on their halyards... so that will be fun...  Also I will add rope coils on the belaying pins once all the rigging is secure. I don't want to clutter up the places I need to work any more than they already are till the end. 
 
It is nice to finally see the yards going on though. These are the last major components before completion. I still have other work to do with the lanterns and anchors, not to mention the miles of rigging just to get the yards up but, still it is another big step closer.
 
Now to the pictures because, that's what we are really here for anyway...

Rigging definitely became simpler towards the end of the 17th century and into the 18th. Doing away with the crows feet and relocating the vast majority of the blocks on the running rigging to working areas of the yards instead of out in the open spaces between the masts made a much cleaner and simpler system for operating the yards and sails. During battle this would have been a huge benefit as now instead of having the complicated rigging of a crows foot shattered, only one rope would need splicing or replacing. 
 
What is sometimes hard to imagine is why it took so long for these things to gt figured out. Most of us have grown up with information mostly readily available. Even before the internet there were libraries and mail through which knowledge could be gained and shared. Record keeping has been fairly standard for most of the past 2 centuries and so to think back to a time where things changed so slowly due to the amount of time it took a new idea to travel is hard to imagine.

I appreciate the fatigue factor, but you are getting really good at them.  Ratlines look amazing, dude!

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.

Back to work on La Couronne this week and I have started to build the foremast yards. Not a whole lot to do for them as far as blocks go and since there were no foot ropes in this part of the 17th century I don't have to worry about those either. It is interesting to note that in the earlier part of the 17th century, the rigging attachments to the yards was relatively simple but once off the yards, it became much more complex as it travels through a series of blocks and crows feet down to the deck. As time goes on and we come to the late 17th and 18th centuries, the rigging becomes more complex on the yard itself and simpler as it travels down to the deck.
 
Tonight I start building the parrels and halyards. I need to go bead shopping first on my way home from work. I found some beads that I think will work at Hobby Lobby a few months back. My main concern is if they are too big for the scale. They do not have to be an exact match but if 3 beads goes around the mast that will not work! Anyway, till then here is a picture of the yards so far.

You may need to build an actual dock for her!

Technically, they would not be diagonal unless sailing however, as I am building for my own enjoyment, I could place them however I want! 
 
I am planning on setting them square however which makes her width about twelve inches and so my case ill probably end up around 14 inches deep. that would be too deep for most of my standard depth cabinets and shelves but I am planning on building a new curio style cabinet that is designed around La Couronne as a focal point. The rest of the spaces will be for other collectables of the Admiral and myself. 

You are right in that thinking. Luckily I am building the case myself so I can make it however big I need but as I want to have the case done long before the cross section will be complete.... it is indeed a chicken/egg issue.

EJ,
 
Find out where you would display her first then work from there.  To build at a size you like, may not help if you can't display her.   This is one of the "chicken/egg" problems that I think most of us have run into.

hmmmmmm.....nice idea....i would build it a scaly where naval figures are available to purchase if possible....really adds to perspective me thinks....

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

I agree that is probably what those are. Makes more sense than antlers though I wasn't sure as my moldings are rather blurry so I wasn't sure.

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

Hello All,     
 
Again thanks for your likes and some very kind comments on my build.
 
Yesterday the weather was quite bad, wind and rain, so I had a good spell of building time. The result of this was the completion of the port linings and a few trial things which I'll report on later.
 
For the linings I used the off cuts from the first planking strips. I cut the linings using my very useful guillotine to get them uniform. I fitted them, they were a good tight fit and after a good drying time I trimmed and sanded them, all went well and I'm pleased with the result. When I fix the second planking I will leave the appropriate gap around the ports.
 
Ken
 
 
 

The "antler" carving looks like standard acanthus patterns.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WOW! Great start and I am comforted to see that I am not the only one having trouble with the port layouts on this ship. There is indeed a huge amount of decoration which makes the spacing difficult to get everything to fit. That brings me to wonder if the thinking that all the decorations would have been the same size and evenly spaced or if there would have been changes made to them to fit as space allows. Obviously they would not have moved the ports, wales, or any other structural components to accommodate the decorations and so I would think that the carvers would have had to measure each individual space and modify their work to fit. Much like you had to do for the filigree between the knees, you may need to change the sizing on the "antler" carvings.