Soleil Royal by Hubac's Historian - Heller - An Extensive Modification and Partial Scratch-Build

[Hubac's Historian]

I also believe that this is what is intended by the stern and quarter drawings by Berain.  Lately, though, I have been stuck on an idea about how exactly, that main deck (I had mistakenly written "quarter deck" balcony, above, but that is the top most, single window on the QG) gallery is to be supported, where the corner wraps to the QG.  What I'm looking at and thinking about is an enlargement from this Van de Velde attributed painting of the Battle of Barfleur.  I wonder whether you have seen this work before, Marc:

 

Soleil Royal is facing off against Britannia, in the center of the painting.  The painting, itself, is quite large: 4' x 8', which would mean that the section containing SR would, itself, be large enough to discern some sense of detail, if only one could view it in person.  The trouble is that nobody seems to know where this painting currently resides.  It is most likely in private collection.

 

Anyway, when one enlarges SR, and focuses on the area where the corbel supports to the main deck stern balcony reside, it appears that the outer figures of Winter and Fall are placed a bit further outboard than shown in the Berain stern drawing - such that the arms of these figures appear to literally support the corners of the stern balcony where it wraps to the quarter galleries.

 

You'll have to maximize the image in your home browser (is best to get a big enlargement) to even see the fuzzy detail that I'm referring to, but it seems possible (and practical, for that matter) that the builders might have made small variances from the intended ornament, in order to more reasonably support the stern balcony, at the vulnerable corners.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[Hubac's Historian]

For half a minute, I considered simply adding extra figures at the corners, as I will soon have extras from Popeye2Sea but that would spoil the thematic harmony of the decor; there are only four seasons, not six.  Although, here in New York, it only seems as though we have two seasons.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[Nek0]

Same here with this Ludolf Bakhuizen painting of the battle of Barfleur (1693) the two outer figures are very close to the balcony. But I would not trust these paintings from an architectural point of view. Look for an example at the height between the first and the second deck, and the number of gunports on the quarter deck. I will stuck to the drawings of Berain. 

And yes, I was talking about the third deck that has an opened gallery with it's two windows.

 

[Hubac's Historian]

While I love this Bakhuizen portrait, I agree that he is to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

The Van de Veldes are a different animal, though.  They hold a much higher degree of credibility, in my book, because there is such good consistency among portraits of their better known English and Dutch subjects.

 

From a construction standpoint, it would simply make more sense to have support at the extreme edges of what is already a lightly built, and vulnerable structure.  But one can never go wrong to follow what is known, and that is Berain's intended decor.

 

Ultimately, I will mock it up both ways, when the time comes for that, and see which makes more visual sense to me.

[Hubac's Historian]

I've been slowly organising the bow structures.  The hawser inserts have been glued in, re-inforced along the back edge, and faired with a little putty.

 

That enabled me to layout and engrave the "hunting ports," simply copying the 1" spacing of the guns that preceed it.  Honestly, I feel I may have engraved a little too deeply, but there will be several layers of paint and a series of washes that will minimize that to a degree.

 

The hinge strops were cut from thin styrene sheet, and although it is not really visible in the following pictures, I was able to nicely simulate the hinge strap nail heads, by pressing the point of a common sewing pin into the back of each strap, three times.  I still need to make small ring pulls for the port lid lifts, but I'll have to experiment to find a method and material that looks good in scale - they are so tiny!  I'm learning a few things about tiny metal work on Popeye2Sea's SR build log, right now.  The work he's doing, there, is really astounding!

 

In the meantime, though, I am building up the anchor linings.  These pictures don't show it, but there will be a filling piece between the lower main wales.

 

After gluing in the first strake, parallel with the lower main wale, I realised that I would need to adjust and taper the second strake so that the following strakes aligned better with the planking and middle wales.  Maybe I should have redone and made this adjustment on the first strake, but I think if it really bothers me, I can putty the joint between 1 and 2 and re-scribe; there-in lies the beauty of plastic.

 

To finish, the anchor linings will he sanded flush and for texture with really coarse 50 or 60 grit paper.  I will simulate their treenailing, just as I eventually will for the rest of the hull with the tip of a hypodermic syringe.

 

[amateur]

I'm no expert, but isn't that first strake above the main wale a bit awkward: it disappears in one long, very narrow taper, while at the same time it is heavilycurved inward. How would that strake have been fastened?

 

Jan

[Hubac's Historian]

Those are excellent questions.  What I can tell you is that the anchor lining protects the hull and wales from the anchor flukes as they ship the anchor out of the water and then lash it to the channels, so it's shape follows the arc or sweep of the flukes during this manouvre.

 

The sweep does seem extreme, and that leading corner sharp (and perhaps more prone to rot), but what I am doing (as with most things I am doing on this model) reflects the artitst's view of what I have seen in contemporary sources.  I am trying, through my research, to include the missing details of a period ship of this type; the details that should be there, but the execution is always a visual interpretation.  I literally just draw directly on the hull until I like any given layout.

 

A good example of my basis for this detail, and its execution, can be found in this  Van de Velve portrait of the French warship Neptune, which was a contemporary of SR.

 

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/136158.html

 

In the end, I am interpreting, with my artistic eye, another artist's view of the actual object, which would be subject to perspective and their own artistic choices.  As such, these choices are always vulnerable to error.  I try, whenever possible, however, to base my choices on the most reliable artistic sources - the Van de Velde family.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[yancovitch]

nice!!....gee when this is finished, it's gonna be  the heller soleil royal bible :)....

[Hubac's Historian]

Also, to answer your questions:

 

I'm not absolutely positive, but the ends of each plank were possibly nailed with two nails, but probably tree-nailed, and then tree-nailed in-between on frame locations.

[Hubac's Historian]

2 minutes ago, yancovitch said:

nice!!....gee when this is finished, it's gonna be  the heller soleil royal bible :)....

Maybe, my friend, but I will say that what Cedric is doing to convert the kit into La Reyne is the ulimate kit-bash and he deserves all the glory for even attempting it.

[yancovitch]

he sure is!!.........but it ain't plastic ..........

[Nek0]

Hello Marc, 

you were right, you placed the anchor lining in the right place, and the hunting gunport is well placed too. I find the engraving is just fine. 

Concerning the thicker sweep, it has not to be "attached" because it is the same piece of wood than underneath. One planking is of double thickness in the "sweep" area and is trimmed to match the standard plankings anywhere else. 

Be careful, between the first pair of wales the thickness of the planking matches the thickness of the wales until the bow. 

 

 

[shipmodel]

Hi Marc, Jan - 

 

If French practice at the end of the 17th Century is any guide, the hull planks were fastened with alternating wooden treenails and iron bolts.  At butt ends I suspect that two bolts would have been used in the more problematic areas under strain.

 

Not a definitive answer, but highly probable.

 

Dan

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

1 hour ago, yancovitch said:

he sure is!!.........but it ain't plastic ..........

Actually, like me, he is using the plastic shells.  Most of it will be scratch-built, though

[Hubac's Historian]

That's a fascinating detail about the double-thick planks, Marc.  Was that a particularly French practice, or one more generally in use throughout Europe?

 

I have also seen before this detail of running the filling plank between the lower main wales all the way to the stem.  Again, I'm wondering whether that was particular to the French.  Last night, I happened to be filling this area in, and I chose to shape the plank in line with the forward and aft curvatures, instead of to the stem.  The choice was based, mostly, on observation, but also for aesthetic purposes.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[yancovitch]

so sorry!..i was referring to neko's work......just discovered all these talents, and i'm yet getting people mixed up ....sheesh!.....where is cedric's build that you mentioned?...........

Edited September 21, 2017 by yancovitch

[Hubac's Historian]

Here is the link to Cedric's build of La Reyne:

 

Astounding concept!

[CédricL]

8 hours ago, Hubac'sHistorian said:

That's a fascinating detail about the double-thick planks, Marc.  Was that a particularly French practice, or one more generally in use throughout Europe?

 

I have also seen before this detail of running the filling plank between the lower main wales all the way to the stem.  Again, I'm wondering whether that was particular to the French.  Last night, I happened to be filling this area in, and I chose to shape the plank in line with the forward and aft curvatures, instead of to the stem.  The choice was based, mostly, on observation, but also for aesthetic purposes.

 

Hello Marc

 

Great great work ! (I'm quite jealous to see your progress in comparaison of my work  )

 

About the "Anchor path", I remember that Gérard Delacroix made a comment about that, and if a remember it correctly, they were no double planking on that path, just the outer planking of the hull who was locally thicker. Ask him, he will certainlu explain it better than me.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Hubac's Historian]

So it seems we have a solid concensus among our French speaking  friends: the anchor lining was simply a double thick plank trimmed down into the shape of the lining and faired back to the level of the surrounding planking.

 

So, to answer the earlier question about fastenning, it seems that Dan's answer is the best and most probable.

 

For my model, I think this means that I must fill-in all of the current sweep plank lines and re-scribe to match the surrounding plank lines.  The problem I see has to do with a few completely non-sensible lines that are really close to the wales.  This is one of the pitfalls of the plastic model.  I think the solution - the compromise - is to ignore those lines that are too narrow, because raised to the level of the wales they will really stand out, and then scribe to match the others.

 

Thanks for that insight, guys!

 

And Cedric, don't worry; the planning you are doing now will save you many headaches throughout your build.  I was equally frustrated when my drawing ground to a halt, but doing some detail work on the hull has re-invigorated my excitement, as I see the small details I drew come to life.  Those gains will sustain me for a while, when I eventually am forced back to the drawing board so that I can at least work out the quarter galleries and all of the large figures that surround them.  I am hopeful that changing internet providers will solve the problem, as Spectrum/Time Warner is really terrible.  Maybe it's just a matter of my modem being too dated.  Maybe, at least for a little while, FIOS will be better until it just isn't anymore.  Maybe, maybe, but I am not a computer guy.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[Nek0]

Concerning the XVIIe century, and the Soleil Royal (or La Reyne), we should apply only iron bolts and no wooden treenails. 

Jean Boudriot probably made a mistake showing wooden treenails for the hull of his Ambitieux. 

Here is a short text by Gérard Delacroix:

 

Il y a en ce moment dans le forum plusieurs discussions relatives au nombre de clous ou de gournables par membre, clous et gournables destinés au maintien du bordage des coques.
Il y a surtout un malentendu quant à la signification du mot "membre" ou à son interprétation qui est, semble-t-il, la clé du problème.
Dans le V74, Jean Boudriot, s'appuyant sur les textes existants, indique 2 clous par membre ce qui n'est pas faux mais qui porte à confusion car, en cherchant bien, quelle valeur faut-il attribuer à "membre" ? 
La solution est donnée par Blaise Ollivier qui précise qu'un membre peut être un couple mais aussi et surtout un des éléments d'un couple et à partir de là, on comprend mieux pourquoi certains textes parlent de 2 clous par membre et d'autres de 4 clous par membre (les 4 clous pouvant être remplacés par 2 clous et 2 gournables). JB s'est peut-être fait piéger car après le V74, il est passé à 4 clous dans les monos suivantes.
Pour ce qui est du nombre, pour ma part et suivant les textes et devis que j'ai pu consulter, je dirais 4 clous par couple dans les œuvres mortes. Pour les œuvres vives, au XVIIIe siècle, 2 clous et 2 gournables par couple, pour le XIXe 4 gournables toujours par couple bien sûr. Pour le XVIIe, vu les membrures discontinues, on applique 2 clous par membre (donc varangue, genou ou allonges) et sans gournables.
Tout ceci pour la marine d'état. Pour le commerce, il n'est pas certain que l'on trouve les mêmes dispositions car les constructions sont moins imposantes et les pratiques des chantiers civils sont différentes. Idem pour la Compagnie des Indes

 

Below is the google translate:

 

 

There are currently several discussions in the forum concerning the number of nails or gournables per member, 
nails and gournables intended for the maintenance of the shelling of the hulls.
Above all, there is a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the word "member" or its interpretation which is, 
it seems to be, the key to the problem.
In V74, Jean Boudriot, relying on the existing texts, indicates 2 nails per member, which is not false but 
confusing because, looking well, what value should be attributed to "member"?
The solution is given by Blaise Ollivier who specifies that a member can be a couple but also and especially one of
the elements of a couple and from there, one understands better why certain texts speak of 2 nails per member and
others 4 nails per member (the 4 nails can be replaced by 2 nails and 2 gournables). JB may have been trapped
because after the V74, it passed to 4 nails in the following monos.
As for the number, for my part and according to the texts and quotes that I have been able to consult, I would say
4 nails per couple in the dead works. For the lively works, in the eighteenth century, 2 nails and 2 gournables per
couple, for the XIXth 4 always gournables per pair of course. For the seventeenth century, in view of the 
discontinuous frames, 2 nails per limb (ie varangue, knee or elongate) are applied and without gournables.
All this for the state navy. For trade, it is not certain that one finds the same dispositions because the 
constructions are less imposing and the practices of the civil yards are different. The same goes for the 
Compagnie des Indes

 

Note: "couple" = bulkhead, "member"= half, or piece of a bulkhead, "gournable"= wooden treenails, "nails"= iron bolts.

I hope it is clear, it's not easy to speak english with such a specific vocabulary.  

[Hubac's Historian]

So, Dan is correct for the 18th century, but only nails would be appropriate in the seventeenth century.

 

One point for clarification: what exactly is meant by "dead" and "lively" works?  Are the dead works the framing of the bow, or are dead works the wales and lively works the planking?

 

This discussion does bring to mind the timber remains that were ressurected from under the parking lot in Cherbourg.   If memory serves, there is a picture of a massive timber, which appears to be a section of keel.  Whether there is any evidence of tree-nailing vs, iron bolts I can't say from memory, but these are reputed to be the ships (along with SR) that were burned at La Hogue.  I believe they found five wrecks.

 

Also of note are the remains of La Belle, which is a good example of a late 17th Century merchant ship.  I will investigate these matters and see what there might be able to see.

[Nek0]

"Lively works" or "oeuvres vives" in french, is the portion of the hull immersed in water.

"Dead works" or "oeuvres mortes", is the portion of the hull above the sea.

 

[Nek0]

Next to Cherbourg, at Tatihou, there is a museum that displys the artefacts of the wrecks of the battle of La Hougue. But the big section of planking of the SR you're talking about is not there, and no further indication about iron bolts and wooden treenails.

Here is a link with a bunch of pictures of what is displayed in this museum. 

 

http://5500.forumactif.org/t2499-musee-tatihou

[CédricL]

Marc (Neko),

 

I suppose that this principe of iron bolts per "member " (as given by G. Delacroix) is also valable for the wales ?

Till now, I'm unable to find the size of the head for those bolts (wales) but clearly I suppose that the ones of the hull herself stayed hidden under protective coats and paints.

Your plans of the SR rocks !!

Were did you fins the correct informations about the bottom of the hull (in french: les façons avant et arrière) ?

That's will be a big problem for me in order to draw the hull of La Reyne.

 

Marc (Hubac's Historian),

 

About headaches, I was busy with the sheer of the decks, scrapping the molded guidelines on the inner side of the halve hulls of my kit when, I just had the bad idea to mesure the distance between them....  

 

Between the lower first guide and the second one, upper level to upper level, the distance is 26 mm, between the second and third 25 mm.

As th kit is 1/100 scale, it gives heigts between plankings of 2.60 m and 2.50 meters, what seems to be far too much compared with the datas given by Michel Saunier.

 

Another problem to solve....but Labor omnia vincit !

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

I'm in the middle of reading a fascinating paper from the Texas Historical Society, concerning the excavation, forensic research and reconstruction of a viable hull form, it's framing, planking and fastenning that resulted in the construction of two large scale models of La Belle.  As the ship was actually a ship of the navy, an armed barque longue or corvette, there may be some pertinent things to say, there, concerning nailing vs/in-tandem with tree-nailing.  I will return to that, later, after I've had a chance to read through the whole thing.

 

Cedric, I see your point about 'tween deck headroom on the gun decks.  That would make it possible for men 6' and taller to stand straight without any fear of hitting their head.  Naturally, the run of the guns must bear some reasonable relationship to the tumblehome of the hull.

 

I know that you are using AutoCad for your drawings, however, if you think it might be helpful, I can forward my GIMP drawing to you, to use as a tool for mapping out the run of the guns.  My drawing is a very reliable scale layout, across the length (excepting my 3/8" stern extension, just above the stern counter) and height of the hull/upper bulwarks.  This was absolutely critical for accurately mapping the frieze.  For your purposes, though, all of the stock port locations are shown where they are supposed to be (except the aft most port on the first battery, which I moved forward 3/16").  Perhaps you could play with this drawing to re-loacate the run of your wales and guns.  I think that, necessarily, whatever solution you arrive at will have to be a compromise of sorts.  Let me know, if you are interested.

[Hubac's Historian]

Okay, so I've read through the following dissertation on the forensic reconstruction of La Belle. Despite my previous inaccurate assumption that she was a merchant ship, she was indeed a navy barque longue, or armed corvette.  As such, she fell under the auspices of the navy, and I will presume (again, at the danger of being oh-so-wrong), that her particular fastening would be reflective of navy practice, all the way up to first-rate ships.

 

Here is the paper:

 

http://www.academia.edu/9817712/The_Model_Reconstruction_of_La_Salles_Ship_La_Belle

 

The wreck of La Belle, a contemporary of SR, consists of the entire keel, a small section at the foot of the stem, a longer section showing the rake of the sternpost, and a rounded section of the starboard side - up to within a plank of the lower main wale, at midships.  Ceiling planking and the remains of various internal bulkheads survive.

 

Of particular interest to this conversation is the description of planking the interior ceiling, either before or in tandem with the exterior planking, and then finishing off the ceiling planking with a "filler piece" that ran along the top edge of the top-most ceiling plank, between the frames and flush with the interior face of the exterior planking.

 

In this passage, there is a discussion about the type of fastening that happened on the interior, ceiling planking and also the exterior planking below the waterline (the lively works), as that is all that remains of the wreck.  What the research team first says is that the models only represent the iron fasteners for which there is definitive proof of their existence.  That proof appears mainly on the fastening for the interior, ceiling planking (in the hold).  What they say, that is interesting to me, is that the exterior planking shows evidence of more "regular" auger holes (for tree-nails) through both the frames and interior planking (where the holes become less less regular because controlling the path of the auger was difficult) of the ceiling.  Again, all of this would be below the waterline.  Using tree-nails below the water line makes good build sense, as they expand with moisture and draw the entire structure tighter.  Perhaps, La Belle, then incorporated an alternating system of iron nails and tree-nails, or iron nails only, in the "dead works."

[Hubac's Historian]

By the way, the paper is a great read on 17th C. French practice, in general, as it draws upon both the Album de Colbert, other sources, as well as the tangible evidence of what once was.  And the paper describes the main determinants for all the major structures that made up a wooden ship of this type.  Extrapolating, one could simply expand that knowledge to the size of whatever vessel they are building, and I don't think they could go too wrong. Always - multiple sources must be involved and educated guesses must be made.  This paper explains why they believe their guesses were most probably pretty close to accurate.

[Hubac's Historian]

Last night I closed in the last few planks of the anchor lining.  I puttied the joints, sanded the surfaces flush and with texture, using 80 grit paper.  Then, I scribed back in the plank lines, following the plank lines of the hull.  I even scribed in the narrow lines, despite what I said earlier, because the span without those plank lines would appear too broad.  This, in my opinion, was worse than the unrealistically narrow plank line being brought to the surface.  Lastly, I refined the profile of the lining with a knife and broke the sharp edges with a few scraping passes if the blade.

 

I was experimenting with a sharpened sewing pin chucked into the Dremel, to see if I could make convincing nail impressions.  The results were difficult to keep consistent; either too deep, or too shallow, or the pin would develop an accretion of melted plastic, that would subsequently polish the plastic surrounding the pin hole.  I will need to continue experimenting, there.

 

Whether it's wholly right or wrong, I am leaning towards represeting a combination of iron and treenail fastenners in the dead works.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[Hubac's Historian]

For my next forray into uber tedium, I'll be affixing the through-bolt and washer assemblies - 4 per gun port.

 

The sawed off lower hull is my laboratory for figuring out how best to go about anything, really.  I'm using really thin (.011) styrene strip that is .033 wide, which I slice into tiny squares and glue into position with my toothpick and knife application technique.

 

To the right, you can see that I first applied the squares horizontally, as squares:

I wasn't satisfied with how they looked because I felt this layout emphasized whatever small inconsistencies there were between squares, in a negative way.

 

So, then I pitched the squares on their diagonal axis, so that they show as diamonds.  In this scenario, IMO, these small irregularities read like what you would expect of a hand-forged washer:

 

I was hopeful that I could use the Dremel tool to drill for the styrene rod "bolts," so I pin-pricked the diamond centers to sort of pilot the drill.  This didn't work though.  The Dremel was too aggressive, and would jump off center and obliterate the washer.  Transfering the drill bit to a pin vice was not much better.

 

Finally, I settled on cutting really thin slivers of the styrene rod, which I DID NOT flash with a lighter, and then dropped them on center with a tiny dot of glue.

 

the circle within a diamond is really hard to make out, but this enlargement gives some idea:

I think the detail will pop more when they are darkened with paint and maybe dry-brushed with a lighter gray to pick out the circles.

 

I'm thinking that I might experiment with a few flashed bolts to see what that looks like over the washers.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[shipmodel]

Hi Marc - 

 

The bolts and washers look good.  You are much better at slicing off tiny pieces of rod than I am.   

 

I don't know if it is too late for this suggestion, but there is a technique that works for me in situations like this - I drill the holes for the bolt heads before I part off the washers from the styrene strip.  A simple jig will give you a line of holes .033" from each other and centered along the strip.  Then you just have to cut between the holes.  You can drill into the hull where you want the bolt to go, then pin through the washer and into the hull with your bolt.  Glue, clip and clean up.

 

Hope that can help you.

 

Dan