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

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

22 minutes ago, G. Delacroix said:

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

Thanks a lot. 

Merci beaucoup pour le soutien merveilleux et rapide.🙏

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Principal idea to measure the bulkheads places on the SAINT PHILIPPE 1693 hulls keel. 

 

So I do have got to build a stand for the rectangular fixated hull.

 

Due to work with my marking hights instrument - what it is called in English? Hights scribing measurer? 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Hubac's Historian]

On 2/25/2021 at 8:56 AM, Hubac's Historian said:

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.

 

Per, this earlier comment on Heller deck heights, I was at my father’s, this past weekend, so I took a measurement of the Heller Victory:

From the top of one deck ledge to the top of the next (or, in terms of the real ship - underside to underside of deck planking) measures 7/8”, or 7’ at scale.  Subtract 8-10” (approx.) for the sided beams, and 3-4” for the decking thickness, and one arrives at a clear headroom of just under 6’, which corresponds with my recollection of visiting Victory in 1994.  At the time, I was just a hair less than 6’ tall.  I am shorter, now.

 

That same exercise applied to SR results in 17/16”, or 8’6” from deck plank underside to plank underside.  Ultimately, that allows for a comfortably clear headroom of 7’+.  The 17th C. seaman’s diet was not robust enough to produce giants like that.

 

As I say, though, the interspace between gun ports is sufficiently long to mitigate the impression of incorrect deck heights.

 

[72Nova]

Obviously one modification  to leave well enough alone, but interesting intel Marc.

 

Michael D.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Thanks Marc for the support - this is very helphul I thought about higher frames to cut the hull along the wales inserting bent bars due to lifting the decks. 😬 So all this mindwork can be put aside. The benefit of the olaning is the recognition that I can work on the wales with a N° 11 scalpel to cut in the fine grooves of the joining bars easily. 

 

And my complete ship yard is removeled and sattled in the cellar to be reopened. 😁

 

So when the flat is in a status nearly that it is really there, too, the work on SAINT PHILIPPE 1693 can start again... 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Heinrich der Seefahrer