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

[druxey]

Glad you don't have to make that over after all, Marc!

[dvm27]

HH wrote "As a near-sighted person for most of my life, I am adjusting to the mid-life reality of constantly removing my glasses for close work, while simultaneously resisting the pressing need for bi-focals/transition lenses.  This is the status of my mid-life crisis."

 

Ha! I use bifocals and 5x Optivisors for my modeling. Wait till your midlife crisis advances to senior crisis...

[Kevin-the-lubber]

I have more pairs of glasses than model kits and only this morning have been re-trying random pairs to see what works best this week. I’d almost give my right arm to not need glasses for close work, but as I actually need three arms, going down to just one would be a major setback. If Darwin was right, maybe we’ll eventually evolve a spare: one to hold the piece, one to hold the screw, one to take the drill from between the knees while not dropping the screw or piece. And if it could be an extra long size that’d be nice.

 

Marc, I think where you are really making the difference is in your eye for the part, and then the finishing. Even I could probably rough out some of these parts in a 2D fashion, but seeing the compound angles and relationships is a special skill - I for one would probably have a workbench littered with discarded attempts, if I even had the patience. And then the finishing, because all of that careful smoothing is what brings it to life, makes it a miniature sculpture rather than a small block of hacked plastic, along with the paintwork. As I’ve said before, I could certainly make these parts using 3D modelling, but I’m not at all convinced I could give them any life with that as the process. It’s that engineering vs art conundrum and your work is very much in the latter camp.

[Hubac's Historian]

Wow, Kevin - that is such a very nice thing to say!  Thank you very much!

[EJ_L]

I will echo Kevin in his statement of your ability to see all of these compound angles and layers and translate them from 2D to 3D. I work in construction reading 2D plans to visualize 3D buildings, but even with all of that practice, I struggle to see what some of these artists try to convey in their pictures. Your model, aside from being simply astounding, has done a lot to help me understand the make up of these vessels complex curves and angles and how they interact to form the complete picture. You pick out details that are easily overlooked and workout incredible ways of making these difficult pieces look, maybe not simple, but doable. Bravo!!

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you EJ!  I am honored that you guys continue to follow this build and it is immensely gratifying that you are able to take something away from it.

 

As I told, from the start of this build, the kit I’m building first belonged to my next-door neighbor, who served as an important mentor in my life.  Mark Hansen spent countless hours of his personal time, teaching me how to do things.  I enjoy posting the build log because I view it as an extension of that goodwill to other builders who might want to play around with this stuff.

 

I do spend an embarrassing amount of time looking at Puget portraits and studying models, but I think that much of this model’s charm has to do with the fact that it has a-symmetries and imperfections and it is full of compromises.  It does consistently represent, though, the best that I was capable of at any moment in time.  Hopefully, the project won’t plateau, and I’ll keep learning from all of you and your own fantastic builds, and it will all just get better and better.

 

A big thanks to everyone for sticking with this project.  It really means a lot to me!

[GrandpaPhil]

This model is incredible!  

I have learned a lot watching it be built.

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you GpP!

[Hubac's Historian]

A lot of small odds and ends have been happening.  I’ve smoothed-over and re-touched the upper bulwark joint.  I painted and installed the starboard spirketting and the quarter deck beam.  I’ve fitted and installed the last little piece of the frieze, where it bridges the bulwark joint.  I’ve also installed all of the starboard channels.

 

One aspect that has provided a series of mis-steps is the buttressing knees of the channels.  First, I could not locate the card template I had made for the port side, so I made a new template.  Then, the first knee I fitted was made from slightly thinner styrene than what I used  on the port side.  After the second knee, I found my original template!  So, even though I will remove the first too-thin knee and replace it, I manually faired the first two knees to the correct profile.  The third knee I installed was too tall!

 

I decided to take a break from that frustration, for a moment.  The port side gallery bracket is well-underway and coming along nicely.

 

Last night, I was in the mood to take a stab at a pretty challenging re-design.  As previously discussed, the kit head rails are now a generous 1/8” too short, after increasing the hull width at the stem.  To attempt to use them, anyway, would result in a visual compromise that would only serve to draw heaps of attention to its wrongness.

 

Even on the stock kit, there are numerous problems with the way these rails were designed.  Most significantly, the forward escutcheon rises above the level of the sprit-mast, where it becomes an encumbrance to the rigging.  Secondly, the low-sweeping arc of the rails makes it very difficult to craft plausible supporting knees, which the kit omits, in the first place.

 

Since, I have to re-make the rails, I thought I’d try and solve these two additional problems, while also improving the grace of the arc.  My plan is to extract the forward and aft medallions, as well as the acanthus stiles that connect the three rails.

 

The pattern I arrived at, I think, does a reasonably good job on all of these fronts.  The three rails taper, gradually, from 3/4” across the rails at the aft medallion, to 1/2” at the forward medallion:

Arriving at this pattern was just a matter of holding the stock part to the model and taking a measurement for the increased length, as well as figuring out the point at which the arc could transition into a slightly more shallow curve (just aft of the cathead support).  Then, it’s just a process of drawing and erasing arc segments with a set of French curves.

 

The stock rails on the model:

The sweep is so low, your supporting knees must be practically flat in profile.  The forward medallion is also way too high:

By contrast:

There is, now, at least some elevation to create a cyma-curve for these supporting knees.

I think the curves are more fair now, as well.

There is a lot of work in these, to bring them to fruition, but I think this is a solid starting place.

 

Edited May 15, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[druxey]

Nice progress, HH, even if a little frustrating at times.

 

I find that it's much easier to do final shaping of standards on channels after they are fixed in place. There is a better chance of getting them similar in profile that way. also there is no issue in holding them while you shape them.

 

Headwork is always a bear. Your present pattern looks good. The head timbers athwartships have a bevel in order to meet the rail(s) at the correct angle.

[Bill Morrison]

Wow! I keep getting more impressed with your work and your model. Your dedication to this ship is so obvious!

Bill

[Hubac's Historian]

I had a series of epiphanies in the grocery store.  First of all, the exact positioning of the aft medallion matters a great deal, because it determines whether the cathead timbers will clear the headrails.

 

Last night, when I was positioning the stock headrail to take a measurement at the figurehead, I was looking at it from the outboard perspective; I had failed to consider that one of the modifications I made was to recess the beakhead bulkhead into the upper bulwarks, so that there would be an “actual practice” plank overlay of the beakhead bulkhead.

 

When I got home, after putting away the groceries, of course, I positioned the stock headrail piece where it actually needs to be.  I discovered that the shortage is much closer to 5/16”, rather than the heavy 1/8”th I had previously based my pattern on.

 

It also dawned on me that I had not even bothered to place the sprit-mast to even see whether the forward medallion was actually now below it.  What was I thinking?!

 

Anyway, these were not difficult alterations to make.  Here is headrail pattern 2.0:

The other important consideration is that the beakhead grating has to flow into the headrail on a steady incline, so the top edge of the headrails can’t dip below the line of the grating.

 

Of course, the next question is whether I will have room for the pixie figure that I drew, just aft of the headrail:

 

I’m not sure about that:

Although, it could simply be a matter of re-scaling the figure.  When I drew her, it still had not dawned on me that the Berain bow drawing does not account for the forecastle deck.  The figure I drew is “stretched” in order to accommodate that reality:

 

Perhaps she can be somewhat reduced in scale to fit comfortably between the headrails and that first port opening.  I may, ultimately, need to alter the aft medallion to copy the actual Berain design because the Heller version adds width to this critically tight spot.

 

That’s a problem for another day.  At least I have the length and sweep worked out. 

[druxey]

The 'bag' or curve of the pattern appears to be almost down to the cheek in your photos. Of course it may be the angle the pic was taken at, but the Berain shows a considerable gap between the lowest head rail and the upper cheek. Perhaps more revision is in order?

[Hubac's Historian]

As always, David, your perceptions are right on!  For one, the following pic is more representative of the space available to me:

I would like to have more space, but then I’m compressing the width of the three headrails, between the upper cheek and the beakhead grating.  The three headrails also require interspaces; slightly less than a half inch at the forward end (after revision) isn’t a lot to work with.

 

The fact remains, though, that this design process remains fluid, because I haven’t even gone to the vellum, yet, to delineate the rails and position the stiles and figure out what to do with the aft medallion.

 

As always, this kind of feedback is welcome!

Edited May 15, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[druxey]

So many things to juggle at once! But you enjoy a challenge - don't you? I realize that some compromises are needed in this area. Have fun with it.

[John Clements]

At last found time to catch up with your build now. Great progress and as others have said dedication and skill beyond many of us - and patience, too. My model has come perilously near to ending up in the bin with frustration more than once.

I was thinking about the work you are doing at the moment, and the obvious error in the forward end of the headrails being above the sprit. I decided to leave it as I couldn't see my way to altering the kit, but on a second look and comparison with the St Philippe, I'm wondering if it is that the sprit is set at too shallow an angle. Certainly the sprit on the SP is noticeably steeper.

[Hubac's Historian]

Hi John!  Thanks for the kind words.  Yes, that is the primary problem with the kit head; the sprit-mast angle is too shallow.  I have seen one builder I know correct the angle, in the first place and then all of these gymnastics were not necessary.  Unfortunately, this did not occur to me until it was too late to do that.

 

I’m not disappointed, though, as I thought the headrails could do with re-working anyway.  I never really liked their sweep, even though they closely follow the Tanneron model.  Lastly, even the supporting knees on the SP monograph are at a rather shallow angle, so I think my mods will present well, in that regard.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Hubac's Historian

[Ian_Grant]

Thanks gentlemen for mentioning this. I've added a note on pg 1 of my SR instructions, for when (if?) I get to her.

 

Cheers!

[shipmodel]

Hi Marc - 

 

I know I'm coming in late to this discussion, and I agree with you all.

But it seems to me from looking at the photos that you could fairly easily raise the steeve of the bowsprit.

 

Cut off the angled support under the bowsprit close to the deck.

Replace or adjust the cutoff piece with one that will give you the steeve that you want. 

Pin it in place with brass if necessary for strength.

Redrill the hole for the heel of the bowsprit.

Fill and paint and the joints should disappear.

 

Or there could be a problem that I am not seeing.

 

Dan 

[Hubac's Historian]

I’ll have to search through sold old pics, Dan, to find the problem that you literally can’t see, anymore.  I’ll be back in a bit.

[popeye2sea]

Reseting the steeve of the bow sprit should not be a problem. The complication is getting the doubling for the spritsail topmast back to vertical afterwards.

 

Regards,

[Hubac's Historian]

There is certainly the issue that Henry raised, which I wasn’t even considering.  My trepidation with raising the steeve of the the bowsprit has to do with a cap block that I glued to the middle deck to receive the end of the bowsprit.

 

This block is made of poplar, which is the same stuff I made the dummy carriage blocks from.  The idea of drilling blind, through the beakhead bulkhead into two dissimilar materials (wood and plastic), where the existing entry hole overlaps with the new hole center, just makes me queasy.  There are numerous opportunities for this to go very wrong, and the reward just isn’t worth the risk for me.

 

I thought I still had pictures of this block, but amazingly I do not.

[CaptainSteve]

It's been quite some time since I last looked in on your work, Hubac (alas, studies have meant that my modelling room has remained unvisited for many months). I am absolutely blown-away by your progress, and I could spend many study-days just drinking in the photos of your work. Your research and attention to detail is producing a true piece of art. Keep it up. 

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you for the kind words of encouragement, Cap’n Steve, and for taking the time to look-in!

[Hubac's Historian]

I’ve completed and am in the process of painting the stern archway brackets.  The channel standards are coming along, slowly, after a little excise and replacement.

 

I have continued to tweak and play around with my new headrail design.  The bottom rail width still requires a little tweaking, but the symmetry and taper are already an improvement over the stock rails.  Here  are the carved elements that I can definitely recycle:

When I re-incorporate stock carvings, I like to undercut the carvings with the tip of a #11 blade, in order to give a better sense of relief; the idea is similar to the process of metal chasing brass castings, for example.  The carvings end up looking crisper, overall, and it is an easy thing to achieve with backward scrapes of the blade point, heal first.

 

The pilasters have been re-spaced.  I wanted them to neatly correspond with either the fleurs of the Xs of the trailboard, but the abbreviated design of the trailboard made that an impossibility.

 

It just occurred to me, as a matter of fact, that I will have to re-check my tentative pilaster layout to ensure that it does not intersect with the run of the gammoning.  On the stock kit, this consideration is moot because there are no ‘thwartship supporting timbers that the gammoning must pass between.  Here, though, those supports will align with the pilasters.

 

I have decided that I will design the aft medallion to closely follow the Berain drawing.  The stock medallion is nice, but it interferes with the horse and pixie sculptures in ways that are un-tennable.

 

As always, thank you for your interest and for looking in.

[yancovitch]

wow such an immense amount of studying just to learn the terminology of all the parts of the ship........with me, i'm afraid it's 95% reliant on my eyes and 5% on knowledge.....and to watch the creations of a master carver is amazing...it's just that i can't figure out yet if this makes me feel totally inspired, or totally hopeless ......hmmm...i think it's probably both at the same time............i just think i'll just take refuge in my pride of ignorance...and continue to enjoy watching the gods at work 😄

[Hubac's Historian]

Personally, I know I can always rely on David, in particular, to know what everything’s name is.  He has increased my vocabulary tremendously, these past five years.

[Ian_Grant]

Marc, I see you went with a painted figurehead too, as opposed to all gilt. Nice!

[Hubac's Historian]

Thank you, Ian!  Yes, my argument is that such an enormous surface area as the figurehead would not have been fully gilt, by this point in the 17th C.  After trying a few different schemes, I discovered that I really liked this grey wash over the white of the horse.  There is something reminiscent of ancient marble, in its appearance, and I have decided that the flesh areas of the four seasons figures will receive the same treatment.

 

While I am sure that some observers of this project take silent issue with aspects of my color scheme, which is their right, of course, oftentimes these stylized choices are intended to highlight the remarkable beauty of Tanneron’s sculpture work.  The grey wash, for example, really picks out the finely molded facial features of all of the figures in a way that doesn’t translate as clearly through gold paint.  In fact, the colors I have chosen are color-coded to specific features of the ship in a way that delineates the many layers of detail and ornament that are present on the model.

 

Whether the actual SR was quite so vivid I can not say.  I suspect, though, that there was a more extensive use of color than previously believed.

[Bill Morrison]

Ancient marble sculptures were actually painted.  Their paint has been washed away by the ravages of time. In fact, carvings on ships were often painted not gilded because of the expense, as evidenced by findings on the Wasa. Marc, I love your work on the sculptures.

SR I is pictured quite well by Berain. The blue and gold is quite striking, and it indicates to me that the gold is not gilded because of the expense and the wasting effects of salt water. I assume that not even King Louis XIV would throw away gold to that extreme.

I would love to find similar paintings of SR 2.

Bill Morrison

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Bill Morrison
To add a comment.