Jump to content

SAINT PHILIPPE 1693 by Heinrich der Seefahrer - Heller - 1:92 - converted from Soleil Royale kit

Recommended Posts

Hello friends of the unusual today II start a short cut: SR2SP !


We all knoe HsH's enormous rebuild of the SR out of the box towards her real apearance. - and this remembered me on my mistake 40 years ago when I at adding the last flag torn my SR from the desk down on the floor accidentaly. 


I also read in Cederic L. rebuild to Le Rheyne and both together motivated me to plan a rebuild of SR as Sankt Philippe - short cut in here : SP-

I'm still awaiting my Ancre monographie.  

It might be possible:






le-saint-philippe-1693 (2).jpg

Edited by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Edited thread name to orthography
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the Heller kit that bugs me more and more - although I have zero inclination to correct it, at this point - is the height between gun decks.  Heller’s model allows for a very generous 7’, or so, of headroom;  with those allowances, even Kristaps Porzingis could man the guns.


This is something Cedric pointed out a long time ago, and as time has gone on, it is more annoying to me, but I accept it for what it is.  In this over/under comparison with the St Philippe, you can really see the difference, as compared with what should be.

Edited by Hubac's Historian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heinrich, you mentioned earlier that a Frenchman was building a model of La Reyne, on another forum.  Do you have a link to that build page?


Cedric, who is Belgian, began his build-log on LaRoyal Modelism, where it still exists.  I would be interested to see, though, if someone else were building La Reyne.

Edited by Hubac's Historian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

The thing about the Heller kit that bugs me more and more - although I have zero inclination to correct it, at this point - is the height between gun decks.  Heller’s model allows for a very generous 7’, or so, of headroom;   (...)



So it might be some idea to cut the 4mm or 0,157“ away under the gunwale. So the woodstructure ends again under the gunwale but 4mm less. This would be a heavy violation and might not confirm to the thumbledome of the hull. So I might have produced an offset in the structure. So it might be easier to lift the CWL optical and sand off the gunewale replacing it by Evergreen stripes? Or less interventional to brighten the gunwales by Evergreen stripes to get the very same effect. This must be tryed on the hull-copy directly. Perchance nothing could be canged and we have to accept that the sun king wants a ship towering over all the other ships in the fleet...

His Majesty was egomanical and powefull enough for such absolute solutions. Those ideas were an integral part of the absolutistic world - we should judge about old times with their eyes not with ours... _ex_antefante_ is right way i.m.h.o.  not the always best informed view from the Miss know it all _ex_post_ perspective.


Let us wait for the Ancre book with the scaled plans we will see if we realy are in trouble. 



I think about the turn-over of my kit 40years ago and by this I'm horrorfied. So I think about a very solid stand for the kit. A cross as long as the hull and wider than it's beam. Two turenes wooden columns with screws inside will take the wight. The lateral forces will be taken by two even higher collums on the )0( - former with a block on top. This block's one inner side does cling to he hull and a screw will go right into a parallel wood to the floor cross. The modern screw's ends will disappeare under the signum of the sun king. So hopefully the lateral force and listing danger is banned. By this I got far far into future - but isn't it better to notice such ideas than to forget?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, EJ_L said:

Heinrich, looking forward to seeing this project. I have a feeling this is going to be a fun one!

I think in the same way, Hubac! Now back to the historical facts about SR and SP.


I'll try to list the main data side-by-side... so back soon to the bookshelf:


Edited by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Picture insert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm really afraid of is the figurehead and I think about it too often. But perhaps as it is three drecks high a three time so large figure might be a good idea - some Tamiya in 1/35 might be helpful... 😝😄



Edited by Heinrich der Seefahrer
2nd picture added to show the high of the figurehead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose you could cut away the upper most wale and spacer plank above the next wale, which would then become your new top wale.  Then, you could sand away every wale beneath that; shift the lower and middle deck ports down, in the vertical plane, to align with the new, corrected deck heights.  Then, you could add back on the wales, correcting their sheer - particularly at the bow.  But the cutting down and filling in of the gun port tops would be quite a lot of work.  Huge amount of work.


You would also need to cut back in a rebate for the fitting of the upper bulwarks.  It’s all doable, but it is labor intensive and probably not worth it.  Then, as you mention, there’s the question of to what degree cutting the top wale down cuts into the slope of the tumblehome.


In my view, it’s just not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





...that seems to be a plenty of work nearly a rebuild (after cutting down the hull down to the keel). It is much more work coming up to me than a hand full of changes I dreamed of. That is a pitty but I think it is good to stay on the save side. Better playing with Evergreen a bit on the wales and doing some minor plastic surgery on the hull. It makes no sence to tear down everything with no garanty to get a nice smooth thumblehome again - and I didn't want a staircase as newish boardside... 

So moderation is the order of the day - sounds silly with a Sunking's threedecker, but that's what it is: safe.


Okay I've got some good and some bad news: the good is the information, the ordered kit it is on its way to me. So sadly I'm still - since the 14.XII.'18 waiting for the hole project's basis the Ancre 5,2kg pacel and squaremiles of plans...



Edited by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can definitely make a very compelling model of the St. Philippe, without going to modification extremes.  It just requires acceptance of certain hard realities of the kit.


Earlier, in my modification of the upper bulwarks, it was pointed out to me that the main deck port frames appeared to run perpendicular to the top wale, as opposed to parallel with the underlying (in this case, imaginary) framing.  Well, since I had the extra set of bulwarks, I convinced myself that it was worthwhile to sand away the aft 7 or 8 port frames and replace them in the correct orientation to the top wale.


It’s a small detail, but I am glad I did it because the upgrade lends just a little more credibility to a kit that is full of silly errors.  But, then, the actual size of these main deck ports is exaggerated - they should be smaller, as displayed to good effect on the St. Philippe model.


I accept this design defect though, because on the balance - the frames are nicely moulded and my ornamental port enhancements worked out well enough; although, if they were the correct size, in the first place, I would not have had to let the very tops into my sheer strake, in places.


I was thinking, Heinrich, that I could pay the favor forward and send you the forward halves of the scrap hulls that I’ve been cutting from and experimenting with.  The starboard side has a pretty severe heat warp in it, along the upper wale, which is why Popeye2Sea, had to start over, but the port side is good.  


Perhaps you could use these to experiment with cutting down of wales and replacing with Evergreen to see whether you want to go that route.  The upper bulwark pieces still have enough frames attached that you could extract them, if you wanted to correct the port frame issue.


I just want to save one piece to experiment with upper bulwark paint protocols.  I will say, though, that I felt much more free to cut into my good hull because I could do a dry run/dress rehearsal on the donated kit parts.  This really gave me the confidence that  the broadening and lengthening of my hull was probably going to work out.


Private message me with your address, if you are interested.

Edited by Hubac's Historian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there will be a plenty to be done even if the hull isn't cut in to pices - the partly replacing of the wales and bulkwalks will make some problems on its own.


But lket us walk to something more theoratical.


We have got several pictures of SP's transom floting around in the internet. I cought the oldest one and compared to the Ancre picture of the transom:


The most intersting fact is that the number of gunports under the transom was doubled and beside enclosing the first balkony there were hidden gunports added to incres the  fire power of the weak transom.


A pair of round windows are also added by enclosing the balkony. As far as I understand Mr-Delacroix in L'AMARANTE monography the french nobels didn't allow artillery pices in their "livingrooms" - so the lowest lart of the stem area isn't room for the officers or they changed their mind 53 years later on the building yard of L'AMARANTE ans  51 years later at LE RENOMMEÈ - much more smaller ships than the flagship of the Sun King. So what do you thing? 




Here we have some two level of floor transom - in a very well known original style (perchance it shows the newer/rebuld SP?) I belief the left side of the picture to be an originally Cassieri drawing - it is his style of ink and wash drawing.  On the other hand there are some reconstructions in the web with a typical dark blue but this redrawing doesn't fit with the original skulptural draft...     




...but perhaps I compared the wrong SPs this looks like some coloured copywork..



What is very interesting is to compare the two SP transom drawings with their several interesting differences in detail - the famous Italian sculptor Cassieri - but I don't know if he worked in France when SP was build - I know kim for the decoration of L'AMARANTE in 1747... so the SP on the left side may be a rebuild of the one on the rigth side.

The 1663 SP was a 74 gun ship, rebuilt at Tolulon March '89 till May 90. After the battle of Barfleur (29.May '92) she was beached and burned by the english on the 2nd of June.

So the 2nd SP ist the 90-92 first rang ship I deal with in here, followed by another 74gun ship under Louis XV in 1722 - this my match to Cassieri as sculptorist so the let side may show the 2nd 74 SP we know about or the 3rd SP in all. So the SP I'm going to build is the SPII.

But let me look in some books in between and perhaps I'll find some more answers.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

I figured out three new pictures of the SANKT PHILIPPE at Mons 2018...


The decks are very straight and the very importent point seems to be:

At SP gunports don't cut in the gun wales without very aft!


So it might be easier to rebuilt/cutoffandrelocate the wales... 





Edited by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that, on this model of the SP, the sheer of the wales, near the quarter galleries, rises sharply enough that the aft three, or so, gunports cut completely through the wales - especially at the main deck level.  On the Heller/Tanneron models, the aft most ports cut into, but not through the top wale.


You could sand away the wales completely, and increase the degree of sheer of the wales, to match this, but unless you also adjust the moulded sheer strake just above the main deck ports, you will see an unflattering narrowing of the distance between the top wale and this sheer strake.


I’d have to check, but I believe the rabbeted bottom edge of the aft upper bulwark runs paralell to this moulded sheer strake.  That being said, the moulded sheer strakes/drift rails above this first one, increase in sheer as they extend aft, so that the planks in-between are wider aft than they are in the waist.


My frieze obscures this fact of the kit architecture, and it would seem that a conversion to the SP would also require scraping away the SR ornaments and drift rails to make room for the diamond-hatch frieze of fleur-de-lis.


If this (the widening aft) happens to also be true for the space between the rabbeted bottom edge and the first moulded sheer strake, then increasing the sheer of the top two wales so that they run parallel to that first moulded sheer strake would be an improvement to the authenticity of the model, in my opinion.

Edited by Hubac's Historian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here for the very end of the year a short and funny little update to the laveratory doors...

Due to the curved hull and walls and due to the deck's form the door can't be opend propperly.


If you are a baroque Rubens-liked person you can't get in!


Edited by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Error whiped out
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what the drawings show, Heinrich, but as I recall, those doors on most ships were polygons such that when opened, the top cleared the beams and the lower cleared the deck camber.  I'll have to do some digging to find the reference and see if actually was in use at the time of your ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, paulsutcliffe said:

Sliding doors??

Psul, I thought also in this direction shortly. Also... but by the „working of the wood“ (as we say in Gemany) due to the hyproscopiale ballance a sliding door will be very impractical on a wooden ship.

Also there was a bucket (making it a real {while in Versaills the nobels used any floors corner} WC!!!)  with water. So if this falls everything is wet and nothing will slide anymore.

So sliding door is a very roomsaving and 1st view idea but nothing for a ship wet as a wooden ship of the line.

Sorry for the disapointment... so lets share us these ugly frustration...

The door knob shoud have avoided me from following this path of ideas for a longer time.😭

Edited by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Smily added
Link to comment
Share on other sites


They did use sliding doors for the officers "facilities" later on but in the period of this ship, probably not.  That's why i think they may have paralagrams as such as the one I've sketched below.  I've seen that shape on some of the older ships with the massive stern balconies and also for the doors to the officier's facilities and the captain's or admiral's "office" in the galleries.   When it opens, the bottom clears the deck and the top clears the beams.   It may have to have flipped top to bottom depending the deck and beams camber along with the rise in the deck as it goes aft.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...