Heinrich der Seefahrer

Hello John, I very much appreciate your build and the colouring in particular. Thank you very much for the sharing of the kit.

Hello John, I very much appreciate your build and the colouring in particular. Thank you very much for the sharing of the kit.

Great build you stated, as I have got the same kit in the stash. I very much like your article.

Yes Marc, lighter blue, greenish blue and there my bee a possibility in milled glass. So that's it at possible colours coming close to blue before 1706 came to progress - but for this deep blue we do see in here you would need Lapislazuli stones to come to this intensity of the colour and the opacity of it. During the next time I will do a series of tests due to the expertise of Dr. Kremer from www.kremer-pigmente.com to this topic and hope to bring some light into the darkness...

As manyof us do have got their problems with the french manual of the kit here the English translation for you: https://www.hismodel.com/_filemanager/download.php?Id=86

As many of us do have got their problems with the french manual of the kit here the English translation for you: https://www.hismodel.com/_filemanager/download.php?Id=86

Thanks for the answrts... I do think the big problem is that that there is a timeline for Prussian Blue was developed in 1706 by Johann Jacob Diesbach and the formula was published in 1724 so the restricted use of blue was open for a massproduction - so before 1706 only blur stone could be milled and mixed with oil to get blue colours amd was extremely expensive comparable to gold; after 1706 the situation changed to a cheaper blue analog to the huge price of vermillion red and after 1726 the hole thing changed to a complete availability of blue for anybody. But Landström did put blue where he wants and needs it even on a SAINT PHILIPPE 1693... where it couldn't have been. That is the very reason why the 1747 ANEMONE is completely on it's own right in blue but a pre1706 ship could only have limited amount of of blue in it's coloursheme. Between 1706 and 1726 the situation is complex but reasonably blue will appeta much more often on the ships of primeure rang. So I do not fight against blue I do doubt too expensive solutions even the wealthy sunking couldn't afford. And colouring of fabric for clothing is something complety different and the reason why I argued blue fabric as underlyer for grit or Fleur-de-Lys solutions - keeping the fabric fixed down on the wood.

YOUR PROTOTYPE Dear Marc, to fight a bit against the blue SR so I started a little Facebook group called 'HELLER SOLEIL ROYAL BUILDERS' and I try to argue for your way of red-ing the model colourly arguing that the blur colouring doesn't came from the Paris Museum but from the Landström's illustrations. I like to take the VASA as an exaple: certaily he was right in the royal Swedish colours So Airfix took the plans, bought a Landström book and we came hunderds of thus modell kits following the colour sheet and thousands of modelbuilders are shocked of their work of their school days. By the way the very same it was with SAINT PHILIPPE, too. Till JCL voted for red in his Monograpy. So you, Marc, started a revoloution as the Swiss colleague didn't finish his SR till now from the 90-95 (XXth century) on. 😉 So I would like your argumenting support by the possibility of publishing some of the pictures inviting the colleauges into ww. modelshipworld.com so they upgreat their comunity to more serious modelbuilders and kitcollectors - would you agree? because the Heller guys left this faded but original document in the drawer of the Paris Museum and went enthusiasted towards this Lindström illustration who earned a lot of money in the 70th (XXth century) to illustrait decorplans if the 60th to 90th (XVII. century) mostly colourfull and misleading a hole industy of kit producers that hat to agree with the mainstream idea what a SR does look like. And your work is the bestvway to change this direction to the REALISTIC ERA OF SR-BUILDING and you are the one figure head.

From time to time an acquisition of books is helpfull in DU BOIS FONT ON FAIT LES VAISSEAUX... I found on page 76 the following not to the picture: So we have to deal with the ROYAL DUC and the van de Velde pictures are absolutely showing REYNE. Sobthe detailling could be taken from this picture. Showing finest details and the correct number of windows. But most importantly we do have got a complete couronnament the rest is mirrowable.

Tonight I am working on the outside shapes of the hull's lines... if I am on the right track I do drawca thin pencil line as CWL /L. F. right through the single point at what the joining of the bulkhead's outside/planks inside and the CWL/L. F. hapoens. By this I should get a L. F. wandering up the hull from page to page whennlefing through as the falling keel is rectangular to our point of view. Uppps this copy isn't as good as I though it would be - the laser printer heated and cooled the paper so it shrinks and is not 101% as I hoped. But as I only do need one side I will take the better portside.) 😬

Oh Marc I think about the view through the ports isn't my theme it is the view into the deck from the opposite side in the middle of the UD but I thought and should have talked/written more about the inner side of the bulwalk at the forecastledeck the quaterdeck and those that pile on it. So you would have a single thickness to deal with above the bulwalk form the side the forcaste deck and the quater as measuring the decks breadth and... you are right - compared to SAINT PHILIPPE at SOLEIL ROYAL there is very much less of the UP's inner planking viewable to public. 😬 So sorry for my charge you are perfectly right! And... As the racks with boats does fit into this area, also, much less will be seen and if not with much light - a number lines with a darker red fineliner may do the job for you... So the only real inner bulwalk to deal with is the aft end of the QD and the inner side the transom where several planks are to be represented... ...an area I deal a lot with vdVdY's drawings and their pure evidence to decoration even there at the inner side of the transom. And where JCL only placed some single signal flag box... ...or two at the very next cut... ...but the difference in planing's thickness is obviously there and a point the cladding couls deal with by a layer's doubling, couldn't it? "Never let perfect push away good - if good is good enough. ", as Charlie Bishop mentioned in his last video of Chadwick.

But you are the lucky guy with a proper f'c'stl deck 😜 I have a complete deck's hight plus a bulkwalk open to the sky. And this is my main reason for arguing againsrmt yiur solution - you cannallways see the innerside of the opposit bulkwalk. Sorry, Marc, but due to the horrible design of the lightblue UD side I do have to announce a disagreement here. I absolutely think it would be worth the effort at SR in what you invesred so much heart blood to change something to the inner side of the UpperDeck. Even if you do just "clad" the inner side by a sheet of plastic with the planks, joints and nails being scribed in. Noting more but even thus to avoid a view on the backside of the kit's part. It is just inscribed, clued onto the inner side of the parts and then the gunports are cut out files and with a fine graveled paper sanded (for lady's finger nails polishing). This will give you a unquestionably inner side of the UD. Claffingbby a sheet is easy amd thdre are two seperated bulkwalk inside drawings on the 1/100e plan with the deck's top view in the middle. And dueto the huge area contaminated with pladtic glue you can trust in the given bond for all the other items that have to be well fixed to withstand the riggings forces. Sorry for being so hard but this are my 2p to this subject.

ORIENTATING IN THE HULL So lets walk through the SAINT PHILIPPE 1693'S hull in 16 steps to get some idea of the details we do have to deal with - as these cuts were made in order of the Bulkheads. Sobfor me it is very important to get these details in mind to figure out where to do what kind of detailing and how muchbis needed. The pictures are taken from the booklet - as you can see the quality isn't the best you ever have seen. I am quite happy only having to deal with the upper decks and the viewable parts through the gritt and gun ports. So we do start on the first bulkhead frame 24 walking backwards looking onto the stem - Here it gets obvious there is no f'c'l deck installed. and the hull side thickness on the upper deck is much morevthan the cupboard's backwall you got given by Heller. Also the big knees to support the deck above could be viewable - I have to check this out by a simple balsa wooden dummy from different angles of viewing into the hull also the tow benting(?) N°83 may be obviously seen due to it's contrast to the light floor's planking. Nowvwe are admidships and here admidships wevare turning arround walking bulkhead by bulkhead our way towards the stern and transom. Where much more detail work under the deck will have to happen. Also I do think I like to show the main block with it's in Germany called Turk's head on it. Also the upper capstan is in the eye's sight. So some of the nice detailing to the officer's accomodation's doors are hidden Or barly viewable through the gun ports but as painted white I may be forced to imitate them - at minimum as a coliured drawing on a piece of paper. The more up we do come the more light is in there so I will then have to detailling all the doors. And I donot believe into an unplankt inside of the transom and at minimum it will have been painted if not given some carving relief. These QG will be a big theme when we do come to their construction. As I decided to alter the transom's dozbtfull pair of gunports in the MD I will have to alter the tiers of the transom. The QGs do make me more nervous than I though tjey would do. So this is our journey through the hull.

This drawing is renamed from ROYAL DUC towards REYNE so And due to this we have got the possibility to look at an original drawing of ROYAL DUC in its nativ decor made 1668. The window's lozenge lead framing is as shown on the vdV drawings in the lower tier and it looks like this is the same ship's drawing as the curtains inna better solution here were clearly laural garlands no curtains of reefed fabric as it looked like on my enlarged photo copy it may also be the angel you do view onto the transom. So I think we do look onto the very same transom in the vdV drawing and the scaled plan of the transom - and there weren't any big alterations without changing the name at the 24. VI. 1671 in a ceremony. Alterations so it looks like were made onto the windows tier. These were altered from 7 windows in a row towards 5 twin windows in a row with wedge stanchions between every 2nd window. The Quater Gallery shoes a number of six instead of four windows. But there is no obvieous interventions in the sulptural appearance as far as I do see now. Only the shield holdingbangels seam to be changed to bounded pirats/barbarians - showing the ships job much netter to fight privateers and pirats. All in all the earlier version looks a bit more glamour than the later. The upper tier didn't chance but the "round gun ports" in the transom of the UD did move from below the first and third window (from the CL) to the Position below the first and second stanchion - so much more to the CL to minimize listing. These may be errors of the artist or absolutely real alterations on the preparation of the rebaptisting. I did ask Cederic for support due to those complicated questions. What do you say? May this be right due to my evidence? Or am I moving along the very wrong track of a self fulfilling prophecy?

You can buy this booklet (titel in the picture above) at booklooker or ebay for about US-$20 and DRACENE is a flotilla leader. Mondfeld wrote the decoration was made in parts by Pierre Puget. The drawings are quite basic due to the only outline drawings of the hole decoration. The four "Tafel I to IV" sheets are in the back of the book. It is very important that this is noted in the discription's text. Here some pictures for your... Hope this helps for your built.

Marc pointed ozt that we do not now what the REYNE was looking like when she had had been ROYAL DUC so my concerns are are these pictures showing the sorbered ROYAL DUC of 1672 with all it's changes and after the rebaptistung towards REYNE? Do I have any chance to get her "back dated" to the 1668 state of decoration? What drawing is a proofed ROYAL DUC wand what picture is for shure showing a REYNE one? That sonds like a rivet counter - but I do not unwillingly build an other ship. It is like planing to build the VICTORY of Trafalgar and ending with this version that may be for the best reason being called the "real VICTOTY" as the famius ship served over 100 years in this shades of black and white...

Hello friends in the as unsolvable closed thread about TERRIBLE - here the link to all that are interested: we figured out very important content about the close relative of SOLEIL ROYAL 1668 - the ROYALBDUC later rebaptisted to REYNE/REINE. The renaming may also been gone aside withba more sorber decoration. This realtionship was announced by Marc with the followingbsimple few and important words: "As a side note: La Reyne is the closest known corollary to Soleil Royal. Same yard, same designer, built a year apart, and only slightly shorter in length and breadth. The sheer presence of SR would have been very similar to this vessel. Perhaps, she was a little bit taller at the stern in 1670, if she carried a poop royal deck." In stead of a repetition of the development of the knowledge let us jump into the important points we do have as evidence and knowledge: Sometimes you can trust in Wikipedia more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Royal_Duc_(1668) than in a 26 year old book of Jean Boudriot who's discriptions show a 76 gun ship. On page 319 we do finde some information we do not got presented unter the First Sunking's Navy at the very beginning. So the key documents of ROYAL DUC are the following tetralogy: and as scaled(!!!) drawing of the transom. The pure amount of details in these 380 year old drawings is incredible : The galliin is very Dutch innstyle with its V-shaped structure and the figure head shows a horse riding man with a (kind of duke's crown or) contemporary stylish turban. There are a four circle round gunports for the VIII pounder guns of the backdeck. When we do walk along the hull aft we pass the cathead coming to the fenders and stairs This pictures of four tiers of gunnery's muzzels gives an impressive picture of the pure force brought to the battle line by ROYAL DUC in her two beattes she fought. She took part in the two beattes of Schoonveld on the 7. and 13. VI. 1671 (N.S.) and as LE REYNE thevship took part in the a beatte of Texel on 21. VIII. 1673. Under both names she acted as flagship of Vice-Admiral Jean d'Estrées. Turning to the quater gallery there arebstraight structured of an (fake?) window enclosed single tier with lozenge lead structure. The very first window is/can be used as a gunport. (In the middle of the Anglo-Dutch-War this may have been a secret information... were the vdVs spys in their second profession?) The deck above the nicely shaped and figured roof isn't integrated in a kind of bigger artwork and so the officer's accomodation only got a pair of luxuriously framed windows. The coat is usualy ermine (stoat/short tailed weasel) in heraldic symbolism looking like this: Allways black on a white background - not to be confused with a fleur-de-lis! When we look at this vdV ink paintung we do recognize easily that foreward looking gunport in front of every battery deck below&beside the gallion. The wide gap between the piercings through the hull is very interesting. These for now I do hope on a cooperation with Cederic due to support e ach other. ROYAL DUC had hat the following armament : LD 16 × XXXVI ryl. frc. pound 14 × XXVIII rfp MD 30 × XVIII rfp UD 26 × VIII rfp F'c'st'l&QD: 18×VI rfp ,Here both views added to each other. ROYAL DUC's scilpturing program was more elaborated than the one after her rebaptism. So I have to look for differences like a hawk to figure out what ship is infont of me on the paper.

Thanks Marc, so these three poctures do open a great possibility (and temptation) to invest a Heller hull into the ROYAL DUC... If we do deal with 1670 TERRIBLE the very flat and Dutch appearance of this nearly 90° angle of view is of extreme intrest in contrast changing to the typical vdV viewing angle making the hull's side suddenly becoming a wooden wall. The couronnament seems to be wearing a cruel to watchbhead (Medusa?) surrounded by the ring of trumpets spears flags helbarts and other terrible stuff for warfare. Beside this and down to the floor of the handrail of the first tier's balcony are two sculptures on the corner of the transom and QG. Between the windows of the lower tier ar stanchions wedge shaped holding the balkony above. Below any of this a curtain is imitated and innthe very middel a royal cote of arms. The QG gives only ane tier and an elaborated roof to us the deck below is only represented by three framed windows not becoming integrated into the QG at all. compared to other desings a bit boring. We do get a compensation for this by the sculpture atbthevhull/transomncornen holding something infront of her stomach. A box - so she is a Pandora? This may fit to the terrific content in her box. This drawing of the portside sculpture doesn't give much to us idea how she was shaped. So I would like to give her this figure holding her hand before her sluggy breast symbolizing the horror of getting old - as a first guess. TERRIBLE's figure head looks like a seahste with a rider -, behind it there is a sheep's fur to preserve the gallions highest tier from damage. All these detailling isn't enouvh to start a reasonable reconstruction of TERRIBLE so we can close this thread as "unsolvable" and do turn to ROYAL DUC to look if I can figure out the same as Cederic with his REYNE was able to figure out. Marc gave me the most important note very humble as a "dide note" as he calls it: "La Reyne is the closest known corollary to Soleil Royal. Same yard, same designer, built a year apart, and only slightly shorter in length and breadth. The sheer presence of SR would have been very similar to this vessel. Perhaps, she was a little bit taller at the stern in 1670, if she carried a poop royal deck." Sobwe can save the half of our work and evidence shifting both over to the ROYAL DUC as a solution of our investment in time and research.

Thanks Marc for this very helpfull comment and the reasonable advises. The idea of removing the gun ports is the one to do something between 1/24" to 1/12" so the cut off on the one side doesn't pierce the hole wale. I decided to lift the wales by a at the ends slimer and slimmer getting thicker layer of sheet on the upper side and sanding wedge on the underside (or the other way if too less bent). So I do never attack the stiffness of the hul by removing the wales completly... also if it would be necessary to do so (for example at FORT's or SCEPTRE's hull) I would do this step by step. By this I will get a mixed surface and as the hooking of the bars has to be under complete reconstruction at all - I don't mind. The ingraving of the wales joins is wrongbso it has to be repaired - why not using this moment to redo the hole thing? At the end the hull does gets 2mm or 0.0787" thicker by the reworked planking also the wales must be thicker two - certainly not absoloutly in the same measurements but they will have to raise to stay out of the planking far enough? For my idea to do the model more freely by rebuilding the TONNANT 1693 here the figure head I wrote about that was drawn into the side lines plan by Edmond Paris. Do I do hope I did write in an understandable way.

Thanks Marc, great stuff like allways! But are we dealing "still" with a REYNE or a ROYAL DUC at these pictures?

Hello colleagues! As the SAINT PHILIPPE 1693 gets more and more a start the 23 year older TERRIBLE doesn't want to be forgotten. But the really important questen is: TO WHAT NAME HAVE YOU REALLY BE BAPTISTED!?!?!? As the 1670 decoration is much more straightforward than the 1693 one. I voted for the three van de Velde drawings to get in this reconstruction's drawing and testfit modelling project on the next Heller hull. I think I will figure out some standards for the work on the I. and II. Sunking's Navy favouring the older one due to her sculptural decoration and these link between Dutch and French style. There are some unsolved questions about the ordonance. We do have got on both vdV-ink drawings following evidence (and open questions) : QD: 5guns/5ports Back: 4 guns/4ports UD: 13 guns/13 ports MD: 14 guns/14 ports LD: 15 guns/16 ports Transom 0 guns/4 ports B'h' B'h: 0 guns/? ports EDIT: 4ports/0guns for the blh' blh' but we do see a very very Dutch style V-shaped construction. With a (crown or) turban wearing person definitive on a horse a the figurehead. ROYAL DUC The vdV drawings are full of such incredible detailling you only do catch on the fourth or seventh look on these fine lines. These do add up to a minimum of 51 guns per side - so it is a very early 102 gun ship. 😳 But this colliding with the notes in on page 15 there is only one TERRIBLE of 1678 construction by L. Hubac constructed Length 148 ryl. frc. Feet** Beam 36 rff Draft 17 6 rff The battery 16 × XXXVI ryl. frc. pound.' 12 × XXVIII rfp 20 × VIII rfp 4 × IV rfp So we have got only 80 guns instead of 102 barrels. Terrible problem. The pictures wre usually named as ROXAL THERESE - but this didn' t fit to the numbers either: Built in 1668 in Toulon by G. Rodolphe L: 142 rff B: 36 rff 😧 17 rff The battety was of 76 guns (heaviest an un onown number of XXIV rfp). When searching the list for a ship coming close to the 102 guns there only is the by Landström made popular couloured variation of this decoration plan of the DAUPHIN ROYAL in 1667 with its 100 guns - but obviously she had had some completly other kind of decoration less Dutch and completly the French style was developed. So we are right to look for some older ship and do not find anything... Also the SOLEIL ROYAL (in a typical 60th Landström colouring her in too much blue) of 1669 doesn't have the numbers (110 guns with 112 ports) and the simplyfied decor we are after. Okay then let's follow the popular Wikipedia way with this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Royal_Duc_(1668) There are the wikipedia data fitting to the pictures but not to my printed source above. Armament: 104 guns: 16 x 36-pounder long guns + 14 x 24-pounder long guns on lower deck 30 x 18-pounder long guns on middle deck 26 x 8-pounder long guns on upper deck 18 6-pounder long guns on quarterdeck and forecastle And at page 310 under DIVERS DÉCORS DE VAISSEAUX 1670-140we do find La REINE (ex ROYAL DUC) we fo find the following well known drawing: But by leafing through the sides I wasn't able to figure out any list with REINE/REYNE/ROYAL DUC in it. But it must be a First Sunking's Navy ship as the decor looks like but most important the cote of arms do show the red and gold Navarra symbol*** and this was changed in in the mid 70th****. Officially it was in use from Henry III. 1589 when King Henry IV. of Navarra became King Henry III. of France untill 1790 when the revolution destroyed any monarchy symbolism. But very early in his reign Louis XIV. decided only to use the three golden fleur-de-lis on a lapislazuli blue shild as the French cote of arms. (Read, memorised and forgot the exact date.) So if anybody may have his Winfield's SHIPS OF THE FRENCH NAVY 1620-1691 at hand could you kindly double check these numbers - mine is some in the pile of boxes ready for removal. So that's a real pitty to deal with a working pair of drawings that doesn't fit to any of the given ship's data sheets of the 70th. 🤔 Looks problematic. Here we can see both drawings in the LD side by side: So there are 16 ports and I would say 30 guns in the LD of the bow portside view as the stem port was used for firing to the front. So this cooperates with the starbord's stern view counting 15 barrels - this isn't helpful for the identification of the ship but due to the cote of arms I think it will be best to stay with a launch date between 1666 and 1679. So if it is LE REYNE I would call her ROYAL DUC (btw meening "royale duke" - a title of the king) as she was rebaptisted on the 24.VII.1672 and as she took action in the two battles of Schooneveldt in the Anglo-Dutch War with her original name. If we do figure out she is the ROYAL THERESE I would call her by her older name SAINT ESPRIT (untill 1671) due to the first baptisted name accordingly featuring the older type of the cote of arms what may be altered with a rebaptistion. @Hubac's HistorianHistorian how do we "get this cow from the ice" (as we do say in Germany when you have to solve a complex problem)? I do not trust Wikipedia very much and would like to prefere Jean Boudriot - but his data from 1995 may be overtaken by newer evidence? ______ *royal French pound = 489,5 g **royal Frei foot = 324, 8mm Interestingly the Back's guns did have round ports to fire on the quater deck - firing on an enemy boarding party or against mutiny??? *** "Gules, a cross, saltire and orle of chains linked together or, in the fess point an emerald vert. " ****our 70th the important time... 😁 ***** https://www.agh.qc.ca/articles/?id=20

This is the only opportunity to remove all the misplaces gunports... So I need an exactly measured stand to do the measurements of the hull and the 1/92 plan to combine both. So I do nead a propper "measuring stand" - best making use of the holes for the stand in the beech plywooden board in the center line, isn't it?

😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yes Marc I'm crazy - but not in this way... 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I will do the hull model without rigging. So at - yeeeees- first with a new planking and with some extra detailling to the hull. But I will not start to crowed figures of the hole crew under the deck - but I will also do a living scene. That's not my direction of building models in a state of a living scene to build it such cramped as it was this would take away it's elegance at all. The ship will be placed on a stand as it would be the most time of its life - if you like to name the scenic situation a bit before this happens : "Inspection before refit to beattle" (okay the guns are on their carriages - I have to admit that's wrong so the guns will the left away.*) . I may place a group of Officers (takeing prototypes from the monographie's drawings) on the "appearance balcony" on the transom with ome plans in hand and rolled under the arm and a figure somewhere discreet on the deck side due to scale matters - but nothing like @dafi Okay, we are both German, we are both for shure crazy in modelbuilding, but I must stand on my own personal privat psychatrical diagnosis: Heavy Baroque Cherubined Emotional State Disease with a complete lost of any sence to austerity. But you can stay calm, Marc, in chase of an unexpected sudden attacks my couch doctor gave me the backdoor key to the psychiatric ward to join the rest of us in the conferenceroom astonishingly named "Padded Cell" ... 😉 _____ *But the carriages stayed on board or did the went to the arsenal, too?

Hello friends! Now all the papers are in the new flat and my hull also. Tomorrow I will rework on the plans to come again into the project. The first step will be to rework the LD to get the hole hull stiffer for the planking I suggest at the moment. EDIT: But first thinks first! The deck will minimize my finger's space to work in the hull So first the gunports than the decks. A single pint of planing vanishes a tanker load full of avoidable problems. 😁 THE GUNPORTS: There is clear evidence from the pictures that the inner frame of the gunport could allways be seen. In German we call it Trempelrahmen... I have to leaf through the monography to find the correct English termicus technicus. Sorry for this. My second step will be to give the hull more deepness at the gunport frames some 4,2mm for the frame and 0,5mm for the inner planking is measured. @Hubac's Historian Do you think this is enough? So this will be the next job imitating the gunports inside. What does the frame around the gunport look like? What joints are obvious and must be shown? THE DECK: The third step must be the painting of the deck's surface in Revell Aqua 88 matt... but still thinking about the joints of the planks and if the thicker bars between must be darker as they were from oak instead of marple or some softwood? Edit: I really do think about trying out the method for the stand on the planking of the LD to get a feeling for the work and I can copy the planks rightbfrom. the plan... "Sadly nothing will be seen of this work." some of you may say... I do think its the right place to hide my trial-and-error-elaborate: Deeeeeep in the hull. (The Orlopdeck might be the better place.) FIGHTING THE FLAT: On the testing hull Marc sent me the borderline of the Flat (what is the right termicus technicus here?) is very obvious. Before my first sanding of the hull this surrounding line (and the much too low placed waterline) casted onto the planking in typical 70th manner disappeared first. I got rid of them both with a greshly opened scaplell. Than ut is time to mark the bulkheads onto the hull and figure out where to place the bulkheads. And I do think I do not do this 89,1° from the PLAN N° 1- or is this completly wrong? But the beech plywood is in my personal opinion not fine enough to take this job. So I do have to fix a "under-keel" of 7×2mms from. plastic to scribe the lines onto so I am quite prepared to set the cutoffs of the lines plan onto he hull to look in the first place for the right filling blocks at the deadwood to get it from a Heller shape into a SAINT PHILIPPE one. The secons critical point is the very sharp turn of nearly 110° from the Flat into the Underwater Hullside at midship. To get the hull with its "rounded edge" on the border towards the Flat into a mostly correct shape without sanding a hole into the hull... 😬

Hello Frank, great work you show in here highly interesting as I did find my REAL DE FRANCE by Heller kit again and I am struggling to build her for the decoration of the living room, too. So my question is do you think the Corel kit is worth this 600 to 700 Dollars budget and the addtitives you have to pay for. So with the wood you paid more than a thousand Dollars? Is in your oppinion after all this time the quality reflecting the money?