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

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Hello,

short news in here to practical work:

 

- the hull

- the stands

- the plans

- the note's booklet

 

did enter the new flat safely and in good healthy condition. And some sqms for workshop and gent's smoking room is available... 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Hello friends!

 

Now all the papers are in the new flat and my hull also. Tomorrow I will rework on the plans to come again into the project. The first step will be to rework the LD to get the hole hull stiffer for the planking I suggest at the moment.

 

EDIT:

But first thinks first! The deck will minimize my finger's space to work in the hull So first the gunports than the decks. A single pint of planing vanishes a tanker load full of avoidable problems. 😁

 

 

THE GUNPORTS:

 

There is clear evidence from the pictures that the inner frame of the gunport could allways be seen. In German we call it Trempelrahmen... I have to leaf through the monography to find the correct English termicus technicus. Sorry for this. 

 

 

My second step will be to give the hull more deepness at the gunport frames some 4,2mm for the frame and 0,5mm for the inner planking is measured.

 

@Hubac's Historian Do you think this is enough? So this will be the next job imitating the gunports inside. What does the frame around the gunport look like? What joints are obvious and must be shown? 

 

 

THE DECK:

 

The third step must be the painting of the deck's surface in Revell Aqua 88 matt... but still thinking about the joints of the planks and if the thicker bars between must be darker as they were from oak instead of marple or some softwood? Edit: I really do think about trying out the method for the stand on the planking of the LD to get a feeling for the work and I can copy the planks rightbfrom. the plan... "Sadly nothing will be seen of this work." some of you may say... I do think its the right place to hide my trial-and-error-elaborate: Deeeeeep in the hull. (The Orlopdeck might be the better place.) 

 

 

FIGHTING THE FLAT:

On the testing hull Marc sent me  

the borderline of the Flat (what is the right termicus technicus here?) is very obvious.

 

 

Before my first sanding of the hull this surrounding line (and the much too low placed waterline) casted onto the planking in typical 70th manner disappeared first. I got rid of them both with a greshly opened scaplell. Than ut is time to mark the bulkheads onto the hull and figure out where to place the bulkheads. And I do think I do not do this 89,1° from the PLAN N° 1- or is this completly wrong? 

 

 

But the beech plywood is in my personal opinion not fine enough to take this job. 

 

So I do have to fix a "under-keel" of 7×2mms from. plastic to scribe the lines onto so I am quite prepared to set the cutoffs of the lines plan onto he hull

 

 

to look in the first place for the right filling blocks at the deadwood to get it from a Heller shape into a SAINT PHILIPPE one. 

 

The secons critical point is the very sharp turn of nearly 110° from the Flat into the Underwater Hullside at midship. 

 

To get the hull with its "rounded edge" on the border towards the Flat into a

 

mostly correct shape without sanding a hole into the hull... 😬 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Scetch added and actions sequence changed

[Hubac's Historian]

So, am I correct that you will give the interior the full Dafi treatment?

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

10 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

So, am I correct that you will give the interior the full Dafi treatment?

 

😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yes Marc I'm crazy - but not in this way... 🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

I will do the hull model without rigging. So at - yeeeees- first with a new planking and with some extra detailling to the hull. But I will not start to crowed figures of the hole crew under the deck - but I will also do a living scene. That's not my direction of building models in a state of a living scene to build it such cramped as it was this would take away it's elegance at all. The ship will be placed on a stand as it would be the most time of its life - if you like to name the scenic situation a bit before this happens :

 

 

"Inspection before refit to beattle" (okay the guns are on their carriages - I have to admit that's wrong so the guns will the left away.*) .

I may place a group of Officers (takeing prototypes from the monographie's drawings) on the "appearance balcony" on the transom with ome plans in hand and rolled under the arm and a figure somewhere discreet on the deck side due to scale matters - but nothing like @dafi 

 

Okay, we are both German, we are both for shure crazy in modelbuilding, but I must stand on my own personal privat psychatrical diagnosis:

 

Heavy Baroque Cherubined Emotional State Disease with a complete lost of any sence to austerity.

 

But you can stay calm, Marc, in chase of an unexpected 

 

 

sudden attacks my couch doctor gave me the backdoor key to the psychiatric ward to join the rest of us in the conferenceroom astonishingly named "Padded Cell" ... 😉

 

 

_____

*But the carriages stayed on board or did the went to the arsenal, too? 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Pictures added

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

This is the only opportunity to remove all the misplaces gunports... 

So I need an exactly measured stand to do the measurements of the hull and the 1/92 plan to combine both. 

So I do nead a propper "measuring stand" - best making use of the holes for the stand in the beech plywooden board in the center line, isn't it? 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Hubac's Historian]

I realize, now, that I did not answer your question, Chris.

 

I am not fluent in metric, so I will explain my thinking in imperial measure.  At 1/96, 1/8=1’.  On the lower gun deck level, the exterior planking, framing and interior planking would amount to something like 14-16” thick.

 

When I was doing this, I used 1/8” square styrene for the lower deck ports.  Strictly speaking, if the hull plastic is about a 1/16” thick (6” at scale), I ended up with 18” hull thickness, at scale.  This is maybe a little heavy, but that is not so critically important at 1/96.

 

Then, when I did the middle deck ports, I used .100 square stock.  What matters is the sense of depth and the apparent graduation, in frame thickness, from the lower deck to the middle deck.

 

Often, when I think about these issues of scale, I have Dan Pariser’s voice in my head: “if it looks right, it is right!”

 

So, an 1/8=1’, a 1/16”=6”, a 1/32”=3”, a 1/64” is completely and utterly irrelevant!  Nobody is splitting hairs beyond a 1/16”.

 

If you want to scale interior planking, .030 would be just fine.  When in doubt, go a little lighter.

 

As for port framing...

 

Sometime in the past year, I noticed on Andre Kudin’s magnificent Fleuron that the port sills were visible through the exterior planking.  I had never seen this detail before, and so, it looked egregiously wrong to me.  I also know, though, that Andre is not someone who would arbitrarily do something that wasn’t grounded in actual practice.  Subsequently, I have come to understand that this is, indeed, an element of French practice; with the port sill extending over the top edge of the exterior planking, it creates a better gasket for keeping water out of the framing.  It makes good sense!

 

For all practical purposes, this would be the only visible port framing convention that anyone might represent on a model.  At 1/48, and maybe 1/72, it makes sense to show this on a wooden model.  However, I don’t think that engraving this into textured plastic, at 1/96 makes any practical sense; it would be a significant labor, and it would be very difficult to make it look good.

 

As for aligning port openings with the SP plans, this is another monumental labor.  I think it is useful to keep in mind that the height between decks, on the Heller kit, is pretty exaggerated; a 7’ tall person would be quite comfortable manning the guns.

 

So, if you truly feel compelled to move port openings, then that will necessitate re-locating decks, and completely relocating the run of the wales;  you will, invariably run into problems where the pre-existing kit architecture is not amenable to this kind of reverse-engineering; so, for example, your port alignment and broadside deck heights may look right, but the stern chase ports have been re-located too far up the transom and your hawse hole entries are now on the middle deck level.

 

Maybe not exactly these problems, but something significant like that, for sure.  If you choose to accept it, the beauty of the Heller kit architecture is that it is consistently wrong, in this regard, across all of the decks, and the spacing between the ports is sufficient that this doesn’t look so wrong, in isolation.  It is only when you place the Heller kit right next to something credible, like the SP monograph, that these exaggerations jump out at you.  

 

Consider, also, that legions of serious model people adore the Tanneron model, as they should.  Yet, many of those same are quick to point out the flaws in the Heller kit, which are real.  They are not making it up. However, very few of those critics acknowledge how closely the Heller kit mirrors the Tanneron model, structurally.  It is a very close copy.  In my opinion, Heller did an admirable, if seriously flawed, job of reconciling all of the fragmentary primary sources for SR and filling in the blanks.  The Heller Victory is still the gold standard for an accurate plastic sailing ship model, but the Heller SR is not such a poor consolation prize.

 

SIDE NOTE: If anyone has an unbuilt Heller Victory laying around (mine is in PA, at the moment), it would be interesting to measure the distance from moulded decking ledge top to the underside of the next moulded decking ledge.  There are approximately 70 years between these two first-rates, and it seems reasonable that the height between decks - even among separate nations - would not have changed much, if at all.  Because the Heller Victory is based on something concretely measurable, it would be interesting to note the difference.

 

So, I guess what I am trying to say is that struggling so hard to try and make the Heller kit conform to reality will ultimately be a frustrating experience.  I think you will have more fun with this, if you embrace certain realities of the existing kit architecture.

 

If you have simply increased hull depth, through the ports, you have done more than enough to improve the scale realism of the model, IMO.

Edited February 25, 2021 by Hubac's Historian

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Thanks Marc for this very helpfull comment and the reasonable advises.

 

The idea of removing the gun ports is the one to do something between 1/24" to 1/12" so the cut off on the one side doesn't pierce the hole wale.

 

I decided to lift the wales by a at the ends slimer and slimmer getting thicker layer of sheet on the upper side and sanding wedge on the underside (or the other way if too less bent). So I do never attack the stiffness of the hul by removing the wales completly... 

also if it would be necessary to do so (for example at FORT's or SCEPTRE's hull) I would do this step by step. 

 

By this I will get a mixed surface and as the hooking of the bars has to be under complete reconstruction at all - I don't mind. The ingraving of the wales joins is wrongbso it has to be repaired - why not using this moment to redo the hole thing? 

 

At the end the hull does gets 2mm or 0.0787" thicker by the reworked planking also the wales must be thicker two -

 

certainly not absoloutly in the same measurements but they will have to raise to stay out of the planking far enough? 

 

 

For my idea to do the model more freely by rebuilding the 

 

TONNANT 1693 

 

here the figure head I wrote about that was drawn into the side lines plan by Edmond Paris. 

 

Do I do hope I did write in an understandable way. 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

ORIENTATING IN THE HULL

 

So lets walk through the SAINT PHILIPPE 1693'S hull in 16 steps to get some idea of the details we do have to deal with - as these cuts were made in order of the Bulkheads. Sobfor me it is very important to get these details in mind to figure out where to do what kind of detailing and how muchbis needed.

 

The pictures are taken from the booklet - as you can see the quality isn't the best you ever have seen. I am quite happy only having to deal with the upper decks and the viewable parts through the gritt and gun ports. 

 

So we do start on the first bulkhead frame 24 walking backwards

 

 

looking onto the stem -

 

 

 

 

 

Here it gets obvious there is no f'c'l deck installed. 

 

and the hull side thickness on the upper deck is much morevthan the cupboard's backwall you got given by Heller. 

 

Also the big knees to support the deck above could be viewable - I have to check this out by a simple balsa wooden dummy from different angles of viewing into the hull also the tow benting(?) N°83 may be obviously seen due to it's contrast to the light floor's planking. 

 

 

Nowvwe are admidships and here admidships wevare turning arround walking bulkhead by bulkhead our way towards the stern and transom.

 

 

Where much more detail work under the deck will have to happen. Also I do think I like to show the

 

main block with it's in Germany called Turk's head on it. 

 

Also the upper capstan is in the eye's sight. 

 

So some of the nice detailing to the officer's accomodation's doors are hidden 

 

Or barly viewable through the gun ports but as painted white I may be forced to imitate them - at minimum as a coliured drawing on a piece of paper. 

The more up we do come the more light is in there so I will then have to detailling all the doors. 

And I donot believe into an unplankt inside of the transom and at minimum it will have been painted if not given some carving relief. 

 

These QG will be a big theme when we do come to their construction. 

 

 

As I decided to alter the transom's dozbtfull pair of gunports in the MD I will have to alter the tiers of the transom. 

 

The QGs do make me more nervous than I though tjey would do. 

 

So this is our journey through the hull. 

[Hubac's Historian]

In order to do something about the upper bulwark thickness, I decided to increase the sheer cap thickness by a 1/32” - about 3”, at scale.  This will be your primary visual reference for the upper bulwark thickness.  I thought about planking the bulwark interior surfaces, but decided it wasn’t worth the extra effort because of the way that the bulwarks join with the lower hull

Edited February 27, 2021 by Hubac's Historian

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

2 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

In order to do something about the upper bulwark thickness, I decided to increase the sheer cap thickness by a 1/32” - about 3”, at scale.  This will be your primary visual reference for the upper bulwark thickness.  I thought about planking the bulwark interior surfaces, but decided it wasn’t worth the extra effort because of the way that the bulwarks join with the lower hull

But you are the lucky guy with a proper f'c'stl deck 😜

 

I have a complete deck's hight plus a bulkwalk open to the sky. 

And this is my main reason for arguing againsrmt yiur solution - you cannallways see the innerside of the opposit bulkwalk.

 

Sorry, Marc, but due to the horrible design of the lightblue UD side I do have to announce a disagreement here. I absolutely think it would be worth the effort at SR in what you invesred so much heart blood to change something to the inner side of the UpperDeck. 

Even if you do just "clad" the inner side by a sheet of plastic with the planks, joints and nails being scribed in. Noting more but even thus to avoid a view on the backside of the kit's part. 

 

It is just inscribed, clued onto the inner side of the parts and then the gunports are cut out files and with a fine graveled paper sanded (for lady's finger nails polishing). This will give you a unquestionably inner side of the UD. Claffingbby a sheet is easy amd thdre are two seperated bulkwalk inside drawings on the 1/100e plan with the deck's top view in the middle.  And dueto the huge area contaminated with pladtic glue you can trust in the given bond for all the other items that have to be well fixed to withstand the riggings forces. 

 

Sorry for being so hard but this are my 2p to this subject. 

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Hubac's Historian]

You have to remember that SR has a gangway that connects the forecastle and quarter decks, thus overhanging and obscuring any view of the waist.

 

The upper bulwark thickness could be a little heftier, but the view through the ports does not particularly bother me.

 

I’ve found it useful to make some hard decisions about what to modify; the butcherblock table of a cutwater, with its wholly unrealistic engraving of timbers was worth spending the extra time.  

 

Respectfully, I have to say that the upper bulwarks thickness is not for me. I will add spirketting at the deck level, and a vestigial waterway.

Edited February 27, 2021 by Hubac's Historian

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Oh Marc I think about the view through the ports isn't my theme it is the view into the deck from the opposite side in the middle of the UD but I thought and should have talked/written more about the inner side of the bulwalk at the forecastledeck the quaterdeck and those that pile on it. So you would have a single thickness to deal with above the bulwalk form the side the forcaste deck and the quater as measuring the decks breadth 

and... 

 

you are right - compared to SAINT PHILIPPE at SOLEIL ROYAL there is very much less of the UP's inner planking viewable to public. 😬 So sorry for my charge you are perfectly right! 

 

And... As the racks with boats does fit into this area, also, much less will be seen and if not with much light  - a number lines with a darker red fineliner may do the job for you...

 So the only real inner bulwalk to deal with is the aft end of the QD and the inner side the transom where several planks are to be represented... 

 

...an area I deal a lot with vdVdY's drawings and their pure evidence to decoration even there at the inner side of the transom. And where JCL only placed some single signal flag box...

 

...or two at the very next cut... 

 

 

...but the difference in planing's thickness is obviously there and a point the cladding couls deal with by a layer's doubling, couldn't it? 

 

"Never let perfect push away good - if good is good enough. ", as Charlie Bishop mentioned in his last video of Chadwick. 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Tonight I am working on the outside shapes of the hull's lines... 

 

 

if I am on the right track I do drawca thin pencil line as CWL /L. F. right

 

 

through the single point at what 

 

 

the joining of the bulkhead's outside/planks inside and the CWL/L. F. hapoens. By this I should get a L. F. wandering up the hull from page to page whennlefing through 

 

as the falling keel is rectangular to our point of view. Uppps this copy isn't as good as I though it would be - the laser printer heated and cooled the paper so it shrinks and is not 101% as I hoped. But as I only do need one side I will take the better portside.)  😬

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

As manyof us do have got their problems with the french manual of the kit here the English translation for you:

https://www.hismodel.com/_filemanager/download.php?Id=86

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

My problem is what matetial to lay onto my compound hull to get the hull's shape towards the deadwood?

 

Balsa wood? Poplar plywood? 

 

 

Here we do see the very differend starting points of the deadwoods on thr Heller's hull and in the Ancre's planset in direct comparison. 

 

Any suggestions? 

[Hubac's Historian]

My suggestion would be not to worry about changing the hull shape.  If anything, you need more of a concavity in this area, so it would be more a problem of subtraction than addition.

 

Sometimes - most times, in fact - I think, the pre-determined kit architecture can’t reasonably be defied.  More importantly, though, the Heller shape is close enough to be reasonably representative, here.

 

If you have it in mind to attempt these sorts of plastic surgeries - and there will be a whole host of incongruities, in the bow area, between the Heller Hull and the SP monograph - then, I think you would be far better served carving a solid hull from the SP plan-set, and then detailing that with either wood or styrene.

 

I have always thought that the primary motivator of modifying this kit was that one could use the basic hull shells as a their basis; not having to construct a hull, from scratch, is a huge time-saver.  You will want that time later, as the project progresses, because adding all of the missing detail and the particulars of the SP ornamental plan will be extremely time consuming.

 

... my two cents.

 

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

THE TRIANGELED QUESTION

 

There is a part that suddenly appears to the set of plans... perchance it is of intrest to all the SR builders so I

 

featured it: Here on Plan 34 there is nothing beside the stem. above the CWL. 

 

But in plan 36 it here appears a triangeled part

 

of unknown name suddenly and in the bow view, too. 

 

It does look like a construction for protection to the hull towards the gallion from splashwater. I called it "splash water protection tetrahedron" 😉 what is due to my typical German precision fad. 

 

So is it a 2ND SUNKING'S NAVY feature - nothing to do with the detailling of a 1669 SOLEIL ROYAL ? 

 

Or do we need to add it to all the SRs we do build? 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Hubac's Historian]

It is a feature rarely seen on models, but I think it’s origin predates, even the ships of the first marine.  I’d have to check, but I’m pretty sure this breakwater exists in the original timber of the Vasa.  It’s purpose is to relieve turbulent stress on the knees of the head.

[Hubac's Historian]

Confirmed, albeit, a little hard to see in this photo from Fred Hocker’s book:

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Great thank you, Marc , so it has to be added to all ths ships of this kind of bow after 26. VII. 1628.

 

Important and great information! 

[Hubac's Historian]

I wouldn’t say it’s a necessity, but it’s a nice detail if you choose to take it to that level.  I chose not to because I was having a difficult enough time re-joining the knee extensions, where I had cut them.  After all of that, I wanted to paint and move on.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Sometimes you get fed up from detailling...

 

I know exactly what you are talking about! 

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

But I Think I take a kind of clay model and air dry it - than

a) filing the frontside flat

b) scribing grooves

c) cratching grain

d) drilling nail's imitation.

 

Hopefully this does work as a simplifying work around. 😊

Edited March 4, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[G. Delacroix]

Hello,

 

This piece is called in French "mouchoir" (handkerchief), it is used to prevent the shock of the waves from disturbing the front pieces. You can also find it in many ANCRE monographs (including mine: Fleuron, Amarante, Egyptienne, etc.).

 

GD

[72Nova]

Hi Chris,

This is good information as I have never noticed this small detail and Marc's picture is especially beneficial since the Vasa is up next for me. How about using styrene strips or wood, bevel the edges with an exacto knife or file and glue them together creating the grooves, sand with 100 grit paper for the wood grain, add simulated nails cut and test fit then paint?, just a thought. Your conversion intrigues me and looking forward on your progress.

 

Michael D.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

1 hour ago, G. Delacroix said:

Hello,

 

This piece is called in French "mouchoir" (handkerchief), it is used to prevent the shock of the waves from disturbing the front pieces. You can also find it in many ANCRE monographs (including mine: Fleuron, Amarante, Egyptienne, etc.).

 

GD

Hello Mr. Delocroix,

 

thank you very much and is there any date is was introduced into the French navy?! 

[Hubac's Historian]

Michael, which version of the Vasa will you build?

[72Nova]

Hi Marc,

Well as much as I would love to build the Corel kit, I settled on the Airfix kit primarily to see how much detail I can induce at a smaller scale and to represent her as displayed in the museum ie: no painted figures/details , but fully masted and rigged using bobbin thread down to 100wt for most of the running rigging.

 

Michael D.

[Hubac's Historian]

I love that Airfix kit.  The detailing is better than on the more recent Revell version.  Years ago, I scrapped my first attempt at it, which was somewhat regrettable because the paint was really good.  I have a second one, though, and someday I’ll get to doing something good with it.  Anyway, I’ll sure enjoy watching you build it!

[G. Delacroix]

2 hours ago, Heinrich der Seefahrer said:

Bonjour M. Delocroix,

 

merci beaucoup et y a-t-il une date à laquelle a été introduite dans la marine française?! 

It is difficult to answer, but I think this provision dates back to the mid-seventeenth century,