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

[druxey]

Good recovery with the mast!

[Hubac's Historian]

Alive and kickin’, part II.

 

I have finally painted the last bulwark to satisfaction.  Here it is, dry-fit:

 

 

I have fitted all the channels and scraped away paint in the glue locations:

 

 

A couple of troublesome little details needed to be resolved.  First, I was thinking about how the plank-ends of the f’ocsle and quarter deck were supposed to resolve, over the last exposed beam.  My first instinct was to have the plank ends exposed, with a slight overhang beyond the beam.

 

The more I studied other models, though, it dawned on me that this would not be correct for French practice in the latter half of the 17th C.  Take a look at the following examples:

 

 

On Michel Saunier’s SR, the plank ends are let into the last beam, which is dimensionally deeper to accept the plank thickness.

 

The same can be seen on the louis Quinze:

 

 

above photos courtesy of Marc Yeu

 

So, I decided to cut back my deck piece, and I will in-fill a strip of styrene with a just-broken edge to highlight the demarcation ever so slightly:

 

 

My f’ocsle beam isn’t perfectly straight, apparently, but this discrepancy will be concealed by the f’ocsle break railing and belfry.  You will see the detail at the deck entry points.  I will also apply a simple half-round moulding to cover the joint between the beam and the applied strip.

 

Next, I realized that I needed to cut-back more of the kit deck ledge so that I could abut my quarter deck beam to the hanging knee, as I did at the f’ocsle.  This shortening of the Q-deck also provided more clearance for the main halyard tackle.  I’m not sure if I’m correctly referencing the line, but it reaves through the large bitt, just aft of the mast (with a piece of blue tape on it).

 

 

Lastly, I wanted to make-up the supporting brace that ties each successive level of the stern together.  I laminate two pieces of 1/16” stock together, and leave them to dry over a camber former.

 

The one caveat is that I wanted to introduce ever so slightly more camber over the next two levels of the stern.  I had done so, along the top edge of the mid-balcony rail.  Here is how that compares with the former:

 

 

The difference is barely perceptible, but it is one of many small details that will improve the overall perception of the thing.

 

For my lamination, I applied three pieces of green tape to the center inch of the former:

 

 

And the match was spot-on:

 

 

When I get to the top tier of windows, I may do as many as six pieces of tape, as the camber would be greatest at the poop and poop-royal decks.

 

Well, that’s where things stand for now.  Hopefully, tomorrow, I will glue-in the bulwark.  Then, I can cope the brace to delineate the upper limit of the second window tier, while strengthening the bulwark connection.  Then, I can pattern the window piece in cardboard and do an exact layout drawing.

 

Thank you all for your continued interest in the project.

 

Best,

 

Marc

 

[popeye2sea]

Beautiful work!

 

BTW, you are correct about the line. The tackle is what is referred to as the halyard. The part above it that runs over the cap and suspends the yard is called the tye.

 

Regards

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you Henry!  I knew I could count on you for correct rigging terminology.

[t_corret]

Wonderful work and great painting!

 

[druxey]

Lovely progress. The edges of forecastle and quarter deck had the plan ends butted into the recess along a beam of larger scantling as you surmised. Shipwrights tried never to have exposed end-grain that would absorb moisture and then rot. In addition a very slight lip along the upper edge of the beam would act as a spurnwater to direct water to the outboard edges of the deck.

[Ian_Grant]

10 hours ago, t_corret said:

Wonderful work and great painting!

 

Yes, your painting is incredible!

[Kevin-the-lubber]

The weathering of the deck is lovely as well!

[Hubac's Historian]

‘Very much appreciated, gentlemen!

[Hubac's Historian]

Last night, I spent a few hours fitting the stern cross-brace that delineates the upper limit of the middle tier of stern lights.  I took a few pictures that illustrate the degree to which the starboard side projects aft-wards, beyond the same point on the port side.

 

First, I layout a series of widths, from the centerline I scribed into the brace, using a pair of overlapping tic-strips to accurately record these inside dimensions.  The resulting layout is within a heavy pencil line of where I need to end up:

 

 

Then, it’s just a back and forth process of fitting and fettling to get a nice cope with proper bevels to match the interior tumblehome:

 

 

Not quite there, yet

 

 

Closer.  You can see how much deeper I have to let the brace, on the port side, just to reach the planking rabbet on the  starboard side.  Still more to go, though.

 

 

 

At this point, I was far enough past the starboard plank rabbet to trace the round-up line.  Just take a look, though, at the degree to which that round-up line is out of square:

 

 

I was going to trim to the round-up line and glue-in the brace, before calling it a night, but I decided to let it sit overnight.  I am glad I did.

 

This morning, I took a look with fresh(er) eyes.  Here is crude illustration of what is happening to the round-up, as the stern rises and becomes increasingly out of square.  On the left is a basic plan view, where we are square at the waterline, and the starboard side (dotted line) begins to project further aft than port - up to a heavy 1/8” at the tafferal:

 

 

In an exaggerated way, the right side of the drawing illustrates what is happening with my arc of round-up, as the stern rises.

 

Two things are at play here.  As the tumblehome increases, the segments of that round-up arc become shorter, and give the appearance of being flatter.  More significantly, though, as the stern grows increasingly out of square, the round-up arc becomes increasingly tangential, so that it does not bellow-out beyond the stern profile.

 

Much of this project of reverse engineering amounts to tweaking things so that they look right, even if they aren’t right.  My inclination, here, is to tweak the round-up arc, at this level, so that it is a tighter radius across this shortened span (hash line furthest right); then, I will restore some projection beyond the starboard stern profile.

 

The other consideration is that the upper stern balcony, at this level, will certainly provide a sense of projection, but it may amplify this discrepancy when viewed against the lower balcony - particularly, if I do not alter the arc of round-up; one viewed against the other like winding sticks.

 

 

So, what say the real shipwrights - does what I am proposing make good sense?  Is this a reasonable hedge against my stern beginning to appear flattened and twisted?

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[Bill Morrison]

I am always amazed by your work!

 

Bill

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Marc, could I seek your advice please. For the Cutty Sark I want to paint the cabins so that I have a kind of varnished teak effect - how would you achieve that? What base colour and others would you use and how would you get an even finish with ink?

 

I'm getting not too far off it using a light wood (kind of sand coloured) base layer, then dark brown ink followed by a yellow-orange ink, and while the colour is generally about right, I'm struggling to avoid the ink becoming a bit blotchy here and there. I find too that if I go back and re-wet the dried ink it just clumps up and spoils, so think whatever is the best way has to be done during the initial laying on.

 

 

[amateur]

Hi Marc,

 

It is difficult to assess from your pics: it looks as if it is heavily out of square in all directions. 

But at the same time, your fingers looks like the legs of an elephant (size-wise, that is)

 

In other words: I find it difficult to see which is the better solution: ignoring it, or trying to correct. 

I had some problems (long ago) with the stern of my Prins Willem, and discovered that a twisted (as in: upper arc not more or less parallel to the lower one) stern drew quite a lot of attention. 

Can you tweek the startboard-hull to get the angle more or less the same to the port-side? a non-twisted stern that is out of square is perhaps less distracting than a stern that is curved in various ways along its height.

 

(typing I realize that what I am really asking for is a kind of a mock up to compare both solutions.....)

 

jan

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you, Bill!

 

Kevin, let me think on it, and I will respond more fully.

 

Jan, I considered altering the starboard profile, much earlier in the build, because I saw this problem coming.  I decided against it at the time because I needed every bit of space available to me to lay out the frieze and the quarter piece and the Africa figure - all relative to the amortisement.

 

Seeing the problem in my imagination, and then seeing it in concrete reality, though, are two different things.  So far, the whole stern has been coped together so carefully that these discrepancies of square aren’t really apparent unless you know to look for them.

 

The round-up appearing to flatten out, though, seems likely to draw more attention to this problem area of the stern.  Fortunately, the second balcony doesn’t wrap to the quarters.

 

I think I won’t really have a sense for how this will all play out until I can draw a few different arcs of round-up onto the brace, so that I can compare the perception of winding with the balcony below.

 

Now that I have the fit where I want it, I do not think that I will attempt to let the brace further aft.  Instead, I’ll glue a strip of styrene to the aft face and that will give me a little extra material to play with.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Re' the problem you've set out; I think I would veer towards what you're proposing, exaggerate the curve. What's the difference at the top measurement-wise? I do agree with amateur that any material twist may be visually noticeable. I guess a factor for me would be whether there is furniture or better still a mizzen projecting out over the stern that would break the view into two halves and somewhat change the perspective. Another line of enquiry would be two arcs off the centreline rather than a single arc; exaggerated, to create a 'pointed' face with each side true to the centreline but slightly different to the other side. The one sure thing for me is that whatever I did I would stay true to the centreline, to avoid an optical impression of a twisted model.

[amateur]

The flattening out is the same as with the decks: the same curve is used at every point., measured ftom the centerline. 
For decks increasong the curve doesn’t look good. I guess the same applies to sterns (but  I’m not sure). I think it is the arc you see, not the distance in ‘height/depth’ between the .centerline vertical’ and the sides.

 

But again: it comes down to ‘what is pleasing to the eye’. I’m affraid the proof is in the eating of the pudding

 

Jan

[Kevin-the-lubber]

You may well be right - it's hard to know without having the model in front of oneself, there probably is no 'standard' answer and, as you say, it's best to go with whatever best tricks the eye.

[Hubac's Historian]

Okay, Kevin - thank you for your thoughts on my problem.  I agree that whatever happens, it should all pivot from the centerline.  I will mess around with all of that later.

 

Now, as for painting teak:

 

Like mahogany, when teak is used for brightwork, it often has the same iridescent ribbon stripe.  I believe there are numerous ways to go about this.

 

The inks are nice because they are only semi-opaque.  If I were to modify your particular approach - after my medium sand basecoat, I would apply a slightly dilute solution of the orange ink with a fine sable brush - not too wet - in the long flowing lines of ribbon stripe; not too sparse, and not too dense.

 

Once I was satisfied with that, I would spray a satin varnish seal coat to lock that all in place.  Next, I would do the same with your slightly darker ink color.  Seal it under satin.

 

Finally, I’d apply a washcoat of near-full-strength ink to get into all the creases and panel lines.  Because the stripes are sealed-in, you can then cut the wash ink back with a wet brush, until you achieve just the right depth of color and blending of the stripes.

 

Last, I’d seal the whole, again, with one more coat of clear satin varnish.

 

Achieving the stripe effect, at scale, is difficult with a brush, but my advice would be to not overthink it.  As long as the first ink color, the orange, is not such a striking contrast from the base, then it should show well if you make light, sweeping gestures with a barely wet brush tip.  You can do and re-do to your heart’s content, right up until the satin coat.

 

If you are good with an airbrush, and have the appropriate fine nozzle tips, you can probably achieve the same or better result.  I don’t know enough about ink viscosity to make any suggestions for airbrush thinning, though.

[Keith Black]

 Marc, I hope you don't mind me posting Eberhard's build log. His technique for painting with inks and washes is pretty incredible. See post #572

 

 

 

[Kevin-the-lubber]

Marc, thanks, I simply hadn't even thought of varnishing between coats and I think that'll be the thing to try. I was getting a fairly good (for me) first ink layer, then losing it with the next one. I have thought discovered that washing up liquid and a nail brush is very good for stripping off paint and ink!

 

Keith, ditto thanks. I've used much the same approach on the CS deck MK2, which I'll post about on my log once I've got the 'teak' items finished. The deck wasnt at all hard to do, just time consuming and, for me, very much part of the learning journey. Mine has come out a bit darker than I was aiming for and not nearly as nice as Marcs' decks, but it'll do and I'll know next time to use a lighter range of colours..... and seal in layers as here again I've slightly lost position when washing with ink. All good fun though, and probably my favourite aspect of the build.

[druxey]

It seems that the suggestion of making the angles of the outer aft edges the same will at least simplify the problem considerably. Do I understand the right side drawing to be plan view from above, or are the deck levels different on each side?

[Hubac's Historian]

Keith - thank you for posting this excellent link.  I believe strongly in this kind of cross-pollination - not the least for which, I now have a new interesting project to follow.   That is some beautiful work, Wefalck!

 

Kevin, I’ll be jumping over to your CS page, in a moment, to catch-up.  I’m glad this has been helpful, and I love what you are doing there.

 

Yes, Druxey, that is my poor approximation of an overhead plan view.  I’m attempting to show how, at each level that I have installed one of these braces, the round-up becomes increasingly tangential.  I agree with you and  Jan that the best solution to the problem would be to true the starboard profile to the port profile.  Unfortunately, the time to do that has long passed; I might have done that before framing-in the stern counter.  At this point, though, the whole lower QG is established and it would create a weird break to true the bulwarks above the level of the lower gallery rail.  Not to mention the fact that the starboard quarter piece has no place to go, but where it currently resides.

 

I think I have no choice but to play with perception, in this instance, so I will draw some lines on plastic and see what that looks like.

 

A big “thank you” to you all for looking-in and offering suggestions.  More to follow.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[wefalck]

I don't want to divert your log, but perhaps a couple of comments on imitating wood from my perspective:

 

I don't use inks, I only use acrylic paints. The simple reason is, when you apply ink to a barely porous medium, such as a base-coat of acrylics, the next application of ink or paint will simply wash away the previous work - unless you used a permanent ink. This would be different, if you used the ink say on paper, because it soakes into the paper and gets trapped in the fibres.

 

I prefer to acrylic paints, because one can work fast, it only takes minutes for the washes of paint to dry. Some people use artists' oils, but there you will have to wait several days between applications, even if you work quite 'lean' with a solvent, rather than lineseed oil as medium to make the paint flow.

 

Acrylics, particularly when applied with the airbrush seem to have a slightly porous surface, which is good, because a base-coat applied with the airbrush provides a good key for following washes applied with the brush. However, once you are done with your 'wood-graining', as it was called as a recognised trade, the pattern will look like wood, but not the surface - it will look like just what it is painted. By applying a coat of gloss varnish, you achieve a similar effect as when applying a penetrating sanding-sealer or varnish to wood: the varnish makes the light being less reflected from the surface roughness, it is being dispersed into the paint layer, giving the imitation wood 'depth'. Over this first coat of gloss varnish I apply a couple of coats of satin-varnish, say if I want to have the sheen of 'oiled' wood. For 'varnished' wood I may apply a mixture of satin and gloss varnish to give it the right sheen (but this may also depend on the product you are using). For 'bare' wood, such as decks, I spray on a final coat of matt-varnish.

 

It is also important to apply the washes of acrylics with a brush and always in the direction of the assumed wood-grain.

[t_corret]

I doubt my ability to understand what the main issue is, but that has never stopped me yet from talking!  Are we seeing a left/right angle deviation on the sides from a dead level waterline base to a centerline perpendicular as you look down the length of the hull from the rear? I would be tempted to use a hairdryer to soften the inside of the sides and clamp  them with felt padded clamps (to protect the wonderful paint) to a carefully cut wood block fixed to the deck that would support and allow them to mold to the proper angle.  It's tricky but can be done with minimal risk to your work so far. If we are looking at a deviation of port and starboard length from a dead level waterline running longways to a free floating perpendicular at the stern, well you are a master of adding and subtracting small amounts of plastic to this model. A little bit done to each side may be an answer. I will be quiet now.

[Hubac's Historian]

No worries, Wefalck - technical know-how, such as this, is always welcome here!

 

T_C, I struggle to explain the problem, but it may be easier to visualize with better photography.  I’ll try to take some better pictures a little later on.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

2 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

Unfortunately, the time to do that has long passed

I take it that the variance is too big to bodge with a bit of styrene to bridge the gap? Or a bit of both, slightly trim one side and build up the other, as T_corret suggests? And while it's a crazy idea, that there's no scope to flex the hull to bring it more in line (though you'd just be transferring the problem)?

 

Re' my build log, not much to see over there right now. I don't want to photo-bomb yours (Oh but I'm down with the kids, know all the lingo) with what I've done since but, briefly, I used double-sided tape to join the decks, worked well, and repainted such that it's much closer to my lucky test piece. I doubt I'll post until I've finished the deck section as there really isn't much to show, but I have made some nice (in my eyes anyway) small tweaks to some bits and pieces after visiting the ship a couple of weeks ago.

 

Wefalck, that's more advice that I'll store and experiment with. I love the inks though, as they also dry quick but go through a setting stage where if I catch the moment I can guide them close to what I'm trying for. But I emphasise I'm an absolute beginner at all this and still have mountains to learn. I think Marc's suggestion to varnish each layer will address your correct observation that subsequent layers result in a puddle of pigmented mess. As I've learned!

[Hubac's Historian]

Yeah, I’m afraid there’s no flex in the hull.  I have gusseted and interlocked every stage of the construction, so that the whole thing is almost absurdly solid.  The bowsprit would break off in a stiff wind, but the rest of it would survive an earthquake.

 

Addition and subtraction to the aft edges of the upper bulwarks would, I think, draw more attention to those areas because they would not look right, afterward.

 

In preparation, I glued some styrene to my brace.  I’ll take better pics tonight, or at least I will try.

[Hubac's Historian]

I’ve done a fair amount of hemming and hawing over a number of things, but I eventually arrived at the place(s) I think I need to be.

 

For clarification of the earlier discussion; this is the essential problem of my stern winding out of square.  Note, how the starboard aft edge of the upper bulwark increasingly extends beyond port:

 

 

I thought I might try drawing arcs of round-up that ranged from extreme to conservative:

 

 

I started with the extreme line (far right), but ultimately - a more slight increase of round-up (middle line), appeared to me to be the most organic possibility.

 

Here is what my ultimate choice of round-up looks like from the starboard side:

 

 

It is just enough, I think, to help balance this incongruity - if not completely.

 

It seems to me that I can also help balance this out when I make the upper stern balcony.  Here, I have pulled a uniform cardboard template just away from the port side, so that the outboard edges of the stern balconies align:

 

 

I think this will help align visual perception at the exact point where it is most important.

 

At the end of the day, I am pleased with the slightly increased camber of this bridge-piece:

 

 

One thing that has become interesting to consider is this:  in gluing up the aft bulwarks, I was very conscious of establishing a realistic sense of tumblehome, as the bulwarks rise.  Even accounting for my initial increase in breadth, in the early drawing, I inadvertently maintained the slab-sided verticality of the kit stern.  In the left margin, I have noted the discrepancy between where I have arrived, dimensionally, versus where I began schematically:

 

 

Pictorially, here is the discrepancy for real:

 

 

What is completely fascinating is that the upper width of the stern is almost identical to the stock dimension.  Here is the stock poop deck, in place:

 

 

Even though this is not where I thought this project was going, when I started, the improved sense of tumblehome was well-worth the sacrifice in stern-width.  This isn’t perfect, but it looks more  right than wrong:

 

 

 

A montage of development for the next tier of stern lights:

 

 

 

The pilasters of the lower balcony rail don’t seem to align, but this is not reflective of reality.  Again, it isn’t perfect, but it’s pretty close.

 

After drafting:

 

 

 

 

This isn’t perfect.  The drawing can  be improved upon with the carving tools, themselves.  For the most part, I think this works.  I wonder whether I should follow the Berain drawing a little more closely and include an extra line of horizontal window mullions.  The false side lights, at this level, have five horizontal lines, but I am trying to balance this tier with the actual stern lights below.

 

Just for fun, a different iphone filter - Le Soleil Noir:

 

 

As always - thank you for looking in.  Bon noir!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[t_corret]

When you drop out the  color, the precision and delicacy of your painting really shines forth. Bravo!

[Kevin-the-lubber]

From here, Marc, there is so much going on around the stern that I doubt the issue will notice. It certainly doesn’t stand out in the photos.