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

[Hubac's Historian]

Hey Dan,

 

It is not too late.  In fact, I've only done these few tests.  I like your idea, and I can see that it would produce fine results.  The trouble I see is that, without a drill press set-up into which you could chuck a .033 bit, it will be nearly inpossible to keep the bit on track, and within the narrow confines of the styrene strip - which itself, would have to be double stuck to the table.

 

You could greate some kind of sandwich jig with a measured line of holes, but the bit has to travel, square through the jig material - whatever thickness that needs to be to produce a large number - and still hit the strip dead center.  Easier said than done.

 

Then there are process considerations.  As best I can see it, your process is a six step process: drill the strip, part the strip into squares, part the rod into approximate lengths, glue the rod through the washer onto the hull, nip close, file to final length.

 

My process is four steps:  part the washers, glue the washers, slice the rod to a finished length, glue the rod.

 

At this stage, I've gotten really quick at picking things up with a knife point and placing them.  There would be something mechanically satisfying in knowing that the rod actually goes through the washer, but the end-result is the same, I think.

 

On an average night, I should be able to place a near full broadside of washers.  Another night to do the bolts.  Four nights total, which isn't bad for my timeline.  A solid suggestion though, Dan, and yet another example that there are multiple good approaches to do anything.

[shipmodel]

Marc - 

 

I take it all back.  I took a look at what .033 actually looks like, and I am impressed that you got even one centered hole.  Great work.

Will you be applying them to the hull before or after you paint the planks?  

 

Dan

[Hubac's Historian]

All of this detail gets added on before painting.  In fact, I probably won't paint anything until the hull is assembled, the lower transom built and interior gussets and supports for the second gun deck are in place.  I want to get all the major handling out of the way before I put finish colors on.   I will probably even have built up and installed the quarter galleries, up to the main deck level, before paint.

[Nek0]

On 23/09/2017 at 6:51 PM, CédricL said:

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.

 

 

 

Hello Cedric ! 

Thank you for your appreciation on my plans, I have to say I'm also impressed by what you're doing on La Reyne, and I can't wait to see the first pictures of the build !!

Concerning the nails, the size of the head is 1/5 of the thickness of the piece of wood, for a std planking. For the wales, in the XVIIe century, nails had semi round heads, for a decorative purpose. They were called "orange head nails" (clous à tête d'orange). I don't know if there is a rule for the diameter of these semi round heads, I used the monograph of the Ambitieux as a guide... But as they are bigger than the std nails, it only take one nail per member... 

Since in the XVIIe century ships had alternate bulkheads, it would give something like this.

I have no information about the bottom of the hull. We have some measurements such as  -and I will write it in french because these are some very specific words and I don't know them in english, thanks if someone can translate- "le creux, la distance étrave - étambot, la longueur quille au sol, la quête et la hauteur de l'étambot, l'emplacement du fort, la largeur max et la largeur à la lisse d'Hourdy, le fait que comme La Reyne il ne soit pas ou peu frégaté..."

But no further information on the waterlines, or "the shape" of the hull. So I did what I liked, studying other ships of the same time. I used the monograph of L'Ambitieux as a guide, but I gave my Soleil Royal less cheeks.

 

 

[Nek0]

On 25/09/2017 at 2:08 PM, Hubac'sHistorian said:

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

Hello Marc !

Good work on these anchor linings ! 

As we said earlier in the XVIIe century there was probably no treenails at all, but even later in the XVIIIe century, treenails/iron bolts was only for the lively works. Dead works should only receive iron bolts whatever layout you choose.

What you're doing for the bolts and washers is quite impressive at this scale.... 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you, Marc!  I will tell you that I have been thinking about your suggestion for the anchor lining - that it should fill-in completely between the lower main wales, right up to the stem.  After looking through my image database, virtually all French models confirm this detail.  I will do so, as well, but only after I add on the bow extensions.  The anchor lining will provide the added benefit of making this joint a little stronger.

 

I am also now changing my mind again and leaning towards representing only regular iron nails in the deadworks, but I will have to arrive at a method that suggests a believably subtle pin-prick.  Dan's earlier suggestion to draw-in the nails with a mechanical pencil does not work well on this particular model because of the pronounced moulded grain.

 

For the sake of comparison, I will also try to simulate tree-nails with a sharpened syringe needle.  What I choose may depend upon which effect reads better visually.  In that instance, even if the type of fastenner isn't correct, there has at least been some attempt made to show fastenners in a sensible pattern.

 

I will find a way.  Herbert Tomesan suggests very shallow nail holes on his models.  The trick is to find a repeatable method that will look good thousands of times.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[Nek0]

Hello Marc !!

I will try my best to answer these questions, as well as those in the PM.

You have to think now what should be the final aspect of your model. Like you I love the wood, I feel it's an organic and warm material, and I like it to be unpainted. When you build this way, it exists "conventions" or "habits" that are approved but don't represent the reality of a ship, but show the method of construction. It's the case for the nails, iron or treenails, that don't really show on a real model. They don't show because, as you mentionned, nails are iron, and iron rusts. So the nails were put down 1/4 of an inch (6 mm) into the planking and covered with mastic. And if you look closely to the hull, you should see the mastic, but not the nails ! (cf HMS Victory's hull) 

So, you can choose to represent a natural wooden version of a ship, and put the nails but it will be for intellectual purpose only and not a sincere representation of the real ship. It's what I do.

Or you can choose to paint your model for a faithful vision of the ship. But in this case, you should keep in mind that the "nails" or mastic dots should be really really inconspicuous, or even invisible at a 1/100 scale.

Also, if nowadays we like the natural wood, it was not the case in the XVIIe century, they liked vivid colours. (the more vivid the more expensive...) It is generally admitted that the first SR was black, blue, white, and "belly of the doe" with golden linings. 

Concerning the "gold", it was gold. In the XVIIe, there was still enough money to use real gold on the prestigious ships. In fact, only the ships with names with royal or religious meanings were golden. (such as "Soleil Royal", "Royal Louis", or "St Philippe", "St Esprit"...) But ships with others names were painted with yellow of Naples. (such as "L'Ambitieux", "Le Téméraire", "L’orgueilleux"...) 

So if you would like to represent what the ship really was, you should use a golden paint. But if you choose to represent a natural wooden ship, indeed I think it's better to use some yellow ochre. 

At last of course you do what you want, blue or even red with yellow ochre mouldings maybe, it's your ship !   You can do whatever you think it's the best, but I like to say that we have to know what we are doing, and WHY we are doing it, so we can argue and justify our choices. 

Good luck my friend !

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Nek0

[Hubac's Historian]

The funny thing is that I just sent Marc a PM, discussing this paint issue, among other subjects.  But, I had not yet read his last entry into my build log.  For the sake of the public conversation, I will copy and paste the relevant portion of that message - the irony can't be beat!

~~~

it seems that a number of well-known French models make use of the color (ventre de biche), as a painted color, on the dead works:  Le Fleuron (red, yellow ochre, ventre de biche), Le Temeraire (Tusset model), and Le Ville de Paris are three well-known examples.  But then, I was looking at the replica of Hermione, and she too appears to have her deadworks painted in this brownish, yellow color.  And then, I looked once again, at a second Peter Monamy painting of the destruction of SR, which focuses on the bow:

Here, too, ventre de biche appears to be a deliberate and applied color.  What all of this means for me is that I will have to work up a series of paint samples; one that is a lightly weathered, natural wood tone, one that is VDB freshly applied, and one that is VDB lightly washed to show a little sea grime.  As this is going to be a diorama model, I just want to avoid an overly painted looking model; sort of the way a girl wants to look as though she isn't really wearing make-up, if that makes sense to you.

~~~

 

And, by the way, I also agree with Marc that one must first understand what was, or likely was, before taking any divergent paths.  The question of combining yellow ochre for much of the moulded work with gold for the important sculptural work would be an artistic decision for me on the basis that those golden ornaments would then stand out better, in relief; they would be more impact-full.

Edited November 19, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[shipmodel]

Nek0 - 

 

Well said, sir.  Very well said. 

 

I am also on the artistic side of the artist/engineer spectrum of model ship builders.  I do not think of myself as building a miniature ship, but creating a sculpture that resembles, to a close degree, the look of a particular ship.  The historian in me insists that I get as close to the actual look as I can, but I recognize that this is forever to be out of reach due to the limitations of scale, technique, and my poor talents.  It is nice to see that this philosophy is shared by others.

 

Dan   

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Tonight, I finished up the gun carriage tackle through-bolts.  The following series of pictures attempt to show the impact of adding this detail.  Only the second picture manages to capture the bolt within the washer, such are their size.  I'm not sure whether it is a correct detail, but I also decided to bolt the edges of the anchor lining.  Although, I now realize that the linings would have simply been a double thickness plank trimmed to the shape of the lining, I decided to bolt the "edges" anyway.  Next, I will experiment with some sort of shallow nailing pattern for the rest of the planking.  I think if I chuck the tiniest drill bit I own into a pin vise, and simply make a few turns into the plastic, such that the bit's point just makes an impression, that that might be enough to show some kind of fastening pattern.  The linings will be "nailed" between edge bolts.

 

P.S. I'm not sure why the above text is underline formatted, because I did not do that deliberately, and underline in the toolbar is not highlighted, when you select text in that block.  I can't seem to correct it, so there it is.

 

If you look closely, you'll see that I even placed carriage tackle bolts on the skids that frame the ladder, because the skid frames took up all available space, immediately next to the affected ports.  I'm not sure whether that is a correct detail, either, but it seemed like the sort of accommodation a builder would make under the circumstances.

 

I'm approaching the end of my lower hull modifications.  Those are a lot of tiny bits of plastic!  After the "nailing," I'll do the bow and stern extensions, re-locate the hawse-holes, and then I will probably focus on making the alterations and additions to the upper bulwarks.  After that, I will have to figure out my drawing problem.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[CédricL]

Hello Marc,

 

It really become an impressive model !! Grrrrrreat work.

 

(PS: I made some "progress" on my build and will translate the text in order to post now only here in place of la Royale'  forum for the future. Will send you a PM later).

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you very much, Cedric!  I believe it is now possible to see the hidden potential in the Heller kit, in order to make it a better model than it already is.  So I will keep plugging away.  I'm very excited to see your progress, Cedric!

[Hubac's Historian]

I have been busily mapping out and drilling nail impressions in the deadworks.  I haven't put a caliper to the bit I'm using, but suffice it to say that it is near impossibly small.  There was some trial and error to arrive at a bit that left a plausible impression, and that didn't overheat and clog with melted plastic too quickly.  I still have to stop the Dremel and clear the bit every 15 holes, or so, but that's much better than the 5-8 range.

 

As a quide to my spacing, I am using the exposed timber heads of the caprail.  This works out to about 5/16", on center for the most part, but there are several instances where I'll have to run a row or two at 1/4" spacing, in order to maintain overall consistency.

 

In the waist, and for about six ports aft of the waist ladder, the nailing pattern runs perpendicular to the waterline.  With the hull half sitting on the table, I simply use a try square to align my blue painter's tape guide for keeping my lines nice and straight.  As the sheer rises, further aft, it has become necessary to skew my tape guides ever so slightly, by eye, so that my nailing pattern doesn't run too far askew of the gunport framing, with which it should remain parallel.

 

After much deliberation, I have decided to mimic the alternating nailing pattern that Dan Pariser used for his very thoroughly researched and excellent Queen Anne's Revenge.  I have known Dan for a long time now, and there is nothing he does without considerable thought and research.

 

Here are a few pics of my progress, so far.  They are hard to make out in the black plastic, and after priming and painting they should just barely show as faint impressions.

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[Nek0]

It looks very good !!

 

[CédricL]

Hello Marc,

 

That's a great job you did !

(and something I will not try I think, how many holes ?)

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you, Cedric!  So far, I'm only two thirds of the way through one hull half, and that doesn't include the upper bulwarks.  I could project the math and figure out, roughly, how many holes there are a side, however, I don't have the thing in front of me, right now.  My guestimate would be somewhere in-between 2,000-2,500 per hull half.  The upper bulwarks will add considerably to that.  Maybe somewhere in the range of 8,000 holes when all is said and done.  It's okay, time is still on my side.

 

Either today or tomorrow, the spare parts that Henry (Popeye2Sea) has so generously donated to my experimental hull expansion project - "Le Franken-Royal" -  should arrive.  The hull parts he is sending me were too badly warped to make a model from, but the small bits I need for the bow and stern should be perfectly useable.  I'll use what's left to work up paint samples.  I really want to see what impact different primer colors (flat black, primer grey, flat white) have on this color Ventre de Biche.

 

When are you sending me updates, Cedric?

[Hubac's Historian]

Earlier this week, I received a box of spare parts from Henry (Popeye2sea) from an earlier attempt to model the ship.  Despite his excellent paint work, Henry found that he couldn't overcome the badly warped section of the port bow.  So, he eventually started from scratch with a new kit and is in the midst of an excellent and highly detailed build-log, of which a number of you are already familiar.

 

Henry sent me more parts than these, but these are the primary components with which I will perform some of the more substantive modifications of my build.

 

Henry quartered the hull for the sake of easier shipping, which is fine with me because I only really need small sections of the lower hull, at the bow and stern, in order to broaden and extend my hull.

 

O

Above, you can see the extreme warping of the port bow.  The boxed model must have come in contact with intense, direct heat at some point before Henry bought it.

 

The upper bulwark pieces will provide me with all of the arched main deck port openings that I need, in order to straighten the run of these ports on my model, as well as the 3/8" extension I need at the stern.

 

The stern plate enables me to broaden the stern and include the missing sixth stern window of the Berain design, without having to build all of the window opennings from scratch, or cast extras from my existing stern plate.

 

Likewise, the beakhead bulkhead should enable me to broaden the bow.  And the tafferal figures of Europe and Asia may be useful for lengthening the ones I have so that I don't have to model these figures from scratch.  All in all, these parts represent an enormous time savings and I am extremely grateful to Henry for making this happen!

[michel saunier]

Outstanding work
But I think it is a shame to have taken as a reference the Heller Royal Sun, itself inspired by the Tanneron model, with many errors and anomalies compared to the reality of the true Royal Sun. The work would not have been more difficult and you would have obtained a very correct model.

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you Michel. I appreciate where you are coming from, however, I have discussed at length why I am doing what I am doing with this kit, so I won't continue to justify it.  Follow along, if you like, or not.  It is, of course, optional.

[yancovitch]

of course, one could have done this or had done that.....but i love the creativity, and challenge, of hubac doing this build, while digging into the history and imagination, to create a much closer rendition of the ship that heller, in spite of their limitations, went out on a limb to create.....who's manufacturing anything like this these days?......just bang bang video games.....that's where all the michael angelos, and da vinci's of today are.....creating backdrops and scenery for movies and video games ......in a way this is an expression of deep respect and appreciation for the heller company.......

[Hubac's Historian]

Well said, Vic!  Thanks for that.

[Bill Morrison]

"Outstanding work
But I think it is a shame to have taken as a reference the Heller Royal Sun, itself inspired by the Tanneron model, with many errors and anomalies compared to the reality of the true Royal Sun. The work would not have been more difficult and you would have obtained a very correct model."

 

Actually, there were at least three ships named Le Soleil Royal , the first is depicted in the famous paintings by Berain, Louis XIV's official decorator of the ship.  Heller's and Tanneron's models are clearly not this ship.  However, in the book Les Vasseaus du Louis XIV, which shows detail drawings of many ships of this period, the Tanneron model clearly depicts a 104 gun ship of the line with the beautiful lines of the period.  Interestingly, the author shows the waterlines of these ships coming to the lower wale, which, if done on the Heller kit, looks more appropriate to a heavily Dutch-influenced design. Many of Louis XIV"s ships were influenced by Dutch designs with typically more shallow waterlines.

 

I have long believed that the Tanneron model in the Musee de la Marine, hence, the Heller kit, is of the second Le Soleil Royal  of 104 guns.  Several paintings of this ship in battle exist which portray a ship very similar in appearance to the Tanneron model, which may be more accurate than it is generally thought.

 

Anyway, I believe that you are doing a terrific job, and I may choose to emulate you in the near future!

 

Bill Morrison

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you, Bill.  You are correct that the Tanneron model is of the second SR, ex Foudroyant.  The issue you raise about the sheer of the lower wales, particularly at the bow (where they rise too sharply) is one that I do not feel is worth the effort to correct on the Heller kit.  In a full scratch build, of course, one would be free to correctly lay out the gun decks, the port openings and the position of the wales, relative to the waterline - as have NekO and Michel.  With this sort of thing, though, one does have to draw the line somewhere.

 

I appreciate that you are enjoying the build, Bill . 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[Bill Morrison]

I agree that the sheer of the lower wales would be too much to correct.  However, I feel that the most egregious errors in the Heller kit can be repaired with the result that a decent model can be made.  The first, an error made by the Heller craftsmen, concerns the closed quarter galleries. The Tanneron model clearly depicts open galleries, which I believe to be correct. The second stems from the fact that Tanneron died before finishing his model. Hence, there is that large slot in the knee of the head, which Heller faithfully reproduced.  Heller also molded flimsy belaying pins along the rails that are not depicted on the Tanneron model.  Indeed, belaying pins did not come into use until well after the destruction of the ship.  I have made these corrections in my model.

 

I look forward to following your progress.  I have great interest in these ships!

 

Bill

[Hubac's Historian]

I believe that the correct interpretation of the Berain drawing, that is my avatar, would be a closed middle deck level of the quarter gallery; an open walk that wraps to the stern at the main deck level of the QG; and a shallow amortissement at the quarter deck level of the QG.  

The Berain design of the QG (my avatar), however,  is quite a different animal than the one portrayed on the Tanneron model, which as you mentioned before Bill, likely represents the second SR of 1693.

 

There is another Berain schematic for the QGs (which agrees very closely, from side view to stern view with the known Berain drawing of the stern) from which I believe that Tanneron derived his concept of the ship from, and which in my opinion, represents a likely refinement (and a paring down) of many of the same motifs from the re-fit of 1689 into the re-construction of 1693.

photo credit: Michel Saunier

 

It is known that when Foudroyant of 1693 was re-named Soleil Royal in the midst of her construction, her ornamental scheme was also re-done to reflect the glory of the previous ship.  This is merely my opinion, however, I am fairly certain that the above stern drawing dates to 1689, and corresponds very closely with the first QG (as I have described in detail, earlier in this build log).  This same ornamental scheme for the stern was very likely recreated for the second SR of 1693 because it is truly a masterpiece of design.  Again, this is my educated guess based on the undeniable agreement between the stern and the second QG.

 

The second QG drawing does not exactly mirror the Tanneron model, however, there are striking similarities, nonetheless.  This second QG design (IMO) appears to reflect the progressively more austere approach to ornamentation that begins in the late 17th century until it's disappearance altogether in the 19th century.  I am probably wrong, but this is what I think to be the case.

 

As to the question of whether the QGs had open walks, throughout, this seems to have been a feature of ships from the First Marine of Colbert, of which, the pre-re-fit Soleil Royal would likely have possessed, but not the Second Marine ships from 1693 onward.  As there are no reliable representations of the ship, prior to 1689 (again, my whole theory revolves around my belief that the first QG represents the re-fit decor), it is un-known what she really looked like in her very first incarnation. 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Hubac'sHistorian

[michel saunier]

Do not think I criticize your work that I admire in its constitution.
When the second Royal Sun of 1693, it would seem that the sculptures of the one of 1669 were deposited during its refit in 1688, because damaged. They would then have been repaired to serve for the decoration of the ex-Foudroyant.
For the Tanneron, this was what a French modékiste, Commander Vichot, had told him in his time as administrator of the Musée de la Marine in Paris.
Good suite

[Hubac's Historian]

Michel, I do not feel slighted in the work that I have done, but I know well that you can't look past the inherent flaws in the kit.  Some of these flaws have been addressed, so far, and many others will be modified as I go.

 

While now, in large part thanks to you, I know the difference between what the Heller kit is and what it should be - my experiments, here, are purely for the fun in making and to see what is or isn't possible with a plastic kit.  The end result, I promise you, will be a much better facsimile of a French first-rate from the latter half of the 17th C.  However, by the very nature of the build, it won't be the perfect picture.  Just a better picture.  Dramatically better, even.

 

Thank you for this letter from Commander Vichot.  I will have to translate this later, on my home computer, where I can tile screens and transcribe directly into Google Translate.

[Hubac's Historian]

I have read the Vichot letter, and it is just exactly as Michel has explained.  The letter resurrects an older question for me:  the original decor of 1669 was initially designed by Peter Puget, and later refined by Jean Berain in 1668/69 for the refit.  Do Puget's drafts for the original decor still exist in any way shape or form?  At the Louvre, Brest or Toulon, maybe?

 

 

[michel saunier]

The original design of the SR 1669 remains a mystery. No trace of Pierre Puget in Brest but against Toulon for the Royal Louis of the same time. Some speak of Caffieri, others of Charles Le Brun.
The only sure indications are the provisions of the windows of the stern, according to the measurements of the rooms made by Intendant Desclouzeaux during the refit of 1688. It is obvious that Berain took advantage of a quasi reconstruction of this stern, because, as said Desclouzeaux "all the highs are completely rotten". This is confirmed in the refit quote of Louis Hubac.
In Brest, Paris, Toulon, Rochefort, apart from that, no trace to my knowledge.
friendships

[CédricL]

Hello all,

 

For those interested by this french article (in PDF), just send me a PM.:

Have a nice day.