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

[Hubac's Historian]

It is interesting that raising the load waterline above the lowest sweep of the lower main wale dramatically improves the appearance of the lower hull.

 

And don’t worry - there will be no knee kicking.  To me, whatever it is that others attempt to do with the kit is fascinating.  A few others have mentioned that they might attempt the Royal Louis or the Monarque of 1668, using the Heller shells.

 

If I can find them again - I think the model resides on a German forum - I’ll post links to a truly spectacular Flying Dutchman that one extremely talented modeler made from the Heller kit.  All the figure reliefs have been skeletonized, in ingenious fashion and design.  The mold and moss truly look like they’re growing from rotten timber.  Maybe, sometimes, plastic modeling isn’t afforded the same credibility as wood, on ship modeling sites, but this model is truly a work of art.

 

I will look for it.

[Hubac's Historian]

Voila:

https://www.wettringer-modellbauforum.de/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=28516&pageNo=26

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

On 3/7/2019 at 1:46 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

Voila:

https://www.wettringer-modellbauforum.de/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=28516&pageNo=26

That's really a funny project...

Thanks for sharing.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

On 3/7/2019 at 1:19 PM, Hubac's Historian said:

It is interesting that raising the load waterline above the lowest sweep of the lower main wale dramatically improves the appearance of the lower hull.

 

And don’t worry - there will be no knee kicking.  To me, whatever it is that others attempt to do with the kit is fascinating.  A few others have mentioned that they might attempt the Royal Louis or the Monarque of 1668, using the Heller shells.

 

If I can find them again - I think the model resides on a German forum - I’ll post links to a truly spectacular Flying Dutchman that one extremely talented modeler made from the Heller kit.  All the figure reliefs have been skeletonized, in ingenious fashion and design.  The mold and moss truly look like they’re growing from rotten timber.  Maybe, sometimes, plastic modeling isn’t afforded the same credibility as wood, on ship modeling sites, but this model is truly a work of art.

 

I will look for it.

@Hubac's Historian

 

Hy Marc, shame over me... I'm also joining this queue towards the ROYAL LOUIS 1667 in here:

 

- and will try yhe DAUPHIN ROYAL 1668 later on. So the SAINT PHILIPPE will get some side projects. Okay three Heller shelles are a big amount of money. But isn't she worth it?

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Well, my email will never be boring with this many great projects going on!  I’m headed over to your RL page, now.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Back from the copyshop I managed to get some firstlook copies for a hand full of dollars to play a bit with the hull and getting some further feeling for the kit. Mainproblem will be the decks placing. As far as I know from other builds the placement of this is only possible in two halfs and with the guns installed later on.

Here I'll try to use a simplified rigging system (as on the deadeye/rope/deadeye-parts of many shipmodels) to get beside the darkred guncasing, the dark barrel some light- and eyecatcher in the inner hull.

Also the grating and stairways, spills and other details have to bevadded - no pomp and circumstance butba good set of details that may come in the line of sught if somebody leses beside the barrel. So I don't disappoint him but also didn't overdose the amount of work invested/wasted into the hull

.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Now we do come very fast to the plenty of limitations of the hull, grumpy old guys! 😵 

 

The hull is long enough but the SR was built higher aft.

 

The galion looks fine and does fit. I decided to trust in Mr. Lemineurs drawung and will place everything as it is in the drawing.

So if I bring the Tramsom to kits breadth...

 

it is under scale 😬😱😢

Edited March 20, 2019 by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Look onto the smaller lamps on the back view... :-(

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

The real size differs more than I thought it could be...

Itook the CWL as point of measurement...

...and also tryed out if the drawing of the transom might be a projection... but it doesn't look like this!

[Hubac's Historian]

I think the transom/stern drawing is an elevation (that do agree with each other), but you have oriented the transom centerline to be parallel with the rake of the stern profile; re-orient the stern drawing so that it’s centerline is perpendicular to the lowest point of the keel (plan view) aft, and the details should line up.  Parallax is the problem, I think.

Edited March 21, 2019 by Hubac's Historian

[Hubac's Historian]

Upon closer examination of the picture above, though, maybe not.    ‘Don’t know what to make of that.  Will have to take a look at the plans later.

[Hubac's Historian]

On third look, I think there are issues of image alignment, vertically, and horizontally.  Correctly oriented, and in the same scale, the drawings should correspond.

[EJ_L]

It is in the alignment. If the two drawings are the same scale, keep your keels on the same plane. With the way the stern leans outward, it cannot line up with the center line as you have it. However, if you keep your keel always on the same plane, when you look at the different view points, those images should line up.

 

Think of it as a box. Hold your profile sheet up as though it were the front of a box. The stern image would then be a side. The bottom edges are all in the same location. Done this way, they should line up. 

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

11 hours ago, EJ_L said:

It is in the alignment. If the two drawings are the same scale, keep your keels on the same plane. With the way the stern leans outward, it cannot line up with the center line as you have it. However, if you keep your keel always on the same plane, when you look at the different view points, those images should line up.

 

Think of it as a box. Hold your profile sheet up as though it were the front of a box. The stern image would then be a side. The bottom edges are all in the same location. Done this way, they should line up. 

Sorry

@EJ_L 

but I was stupid and did the wrong preassumption - so I copied the transom separately, and the breadth confirmed to the underpart of kit-transom... and followed the enlargement of 141,3% by uusing the drawings in the book. So I could work cheaply on a usual copymashine for DIN A3 and A4 paper.

The older copies of the hull sides were made from the 1/96 sail and rigging plan up to 1/92. But the transoms and sidrgallery drawings are scaled to 1/48 on DIN A2 paper. And so the hull side copys do fit with the heller hull length. So I got two lines of copies the sides of hull and the transom and sidegallerys decoration. I trespassed to copy the hole decks furiture and general plans also to the 141,3% tothe hulls breadth of 164mm as I thought it will bring me to the 1/92 result. But the hull is not the same breadth im plan as at the kit so the misfortune took its run...

 

The problem is I now have to take big plan sheets and reduce them.on the expensive copymachines down to 1/92.

_ _ IT happens!

 

So I have to redo it... therefore I started with some very wrong estimations. By this the progress is slowed down dramaticaly.

So sometimes I have bad luck with my own thoughts...

[EJ_L]

Trying to scale different drawings to be the same accurately can be a challenge. For myself, I have found it easier just to do the math and convert everything myself if I have a good starting point. For instance, I am working on designing a cross section of my La Couronne model. That ship was in 1:100 scale. I want to build the cross section in 1:87 so that it is a little bigger for details and easier to find proper scale figures for. To do that, I have begun to take the model dimension at 1:100 scale, convert those into 1:1 and then scale back down to 1:87. It takes time to do this but I don't have to worry about the the drawings not scaling properly. Also, there are truly only a few dimensions that I really need from the drawings, the rest is mostly reference with sizing and locations being figured from books on standard building practices. 

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Thanks @EJ_L - I figrued out over the weekend that the hull is long enough but too narrow - how much it is too narrow is unknow till now. I now understand fully why you all build the kit as a WLvariant. But as I want to build a hull model I'm unable to do so. A hull model shows a complete hull. 

 

Si my idea is to sand down the keel and add on its inside the right keel - depends on how much too slim the hull is moulded by Heller.

 

 

So let's figure this out - this evening!

[Hubac's Historian]

I think that, in order to achieve this, you will have to perform a complicated surgery along the rise of the stern deadwood, so that your sternpost remains a normal width.

 

I think it may be possible, but very tricky.  You could, for example, sand away the keel and stem, and then connect the hull halves to each other, at the appropriate new distance, by means of plastic futtock floor “timbers,” which would give you a surface to plank to with styrene strip.  Blending new material into the bow and stern deadwoods would be a master class in plastic modeling, though.  Personally, I don’t have that kind of intestinal fortitude.

 

Perhaps, though, your foam plug could be of some help in arriving at the shape of those floor timbers.  Or, maybe, you could cut that plug in half, along the center-line, and vaccu-form styrene sheet around it to form a shell;  maybe, then, you could excise extension filler(s) that can be pieced-in to fill the gaps, somehow.  Of course, the entire hull is one big compound curve, and such a course may accomodate hull expansion in one direction, some of the time, but not others, the rest of the time.

 

On the other hand, a tea lite for some judicious heat forming may help ease transitions...

 

And down the rabbit hole, we go!  

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

11 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

I think that, in order to achieve this, you will have to perform a complicated surgery along the rise of the stern deadwood, so that your sternpost remains a normal width.

 

I think it may be possible, but very tricky.  (...)  

And that it is in real, @Hubac's Historian Marc, VERY tricky,complex and a mountainous project. 

 

The kits transom on the formersplan - it is easy to see it doesn't really fits it is toolong to the keel and too narrow in breadth.

 

So you can imagine the yesterdays measurement wasn't that good. We do talk about some 4mm on each side.in total it means  sanding away a 6mm keel plus adding 1mm breadth to each hullside.(This is a first estimate - you see the noshow of commata behind the numbers.)

Here the kits lower transom outline (orange) on the formerplan. But N°13 fits perfectly... the lower transomes wale.

This picture shows the hull side to the transoms lines. Ant that the wales are not as bad in their ends high to the keel as I was afraid they might be. 

 

Yes, Marc, you are right with the challange to form the new keel, nut who says it must be plastic!?😁 Our collegaue with his WANDERER shows an interesting project gluing wood into a plastic hull. This could be intensified... 😉

 

So here the quater of the hull placed onto the  drawing.

(Picture doesn't load - will redo this this evening.)

 

 

Nothing is lost till now. And any progress is growth - so the only thing I'm not allowed to do is to stress myself or fall into a hurry.

 

"The gras doensn't grow faster if you pull on it!"

Hetite sheperds saying.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Hubac's Historian]

It is interesting that the Heller parts co-incide with the draughts for the St. Philippe as closely as they do.  However maligned the Heller kit may be, it is an extremely close copy of the Tanneron model, proportionally speaking.

 

Tanneron likely would have been working from draughts dating toward the last decade of the 1700s, so his lines should at least be close to period practice.  And so, they seem to be.

 

it’s an interesting idea to cut away the keel and stern deadrise, and simply glue them to a plank that is thick enough to allow for both the keel and the necessary increase in width.

 

You could, then, carve and fair your way back to the keel by hand.  It seems doable.  It would probably require scribing in plank lines to continue the run of planking from the plastic hull.

 

Or, if you really want to go nuts, you could smooth over the whole suurface and plank with evergreen strip, thus correcting the layout and run of the kit planking. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Hubac's Historian

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Thanks Marc for the helpfull information. So I have to cut away the deadwood, too. I didn't bothered about this factum - but you are so right!!! Then I'm realy forced to go the hard road by planking and go nuts... 

 

WORK IS ALWAYS TOWING WORK WITHIN.

German Craftmans Saying.

 

So I can now with hate and anger throwing away the foam block as it is complety useless? 

 

Is it a silly idea to build a complete middleboard (as with the Core kits) to glue the sides onto and then gluing the deck beams of the 36er gun deck on top? 

 

What about the idea the rest the 4mm screws in there? Can I copy my success done aboard the

ROSE (here seen in the left of the middle board as simple tablesaw cuts)? Can it be suddenly this easy going?

 

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

The secind point I do see very sceptical onto is the

ortamentel end of the side gallery - the knot ended in the LW/CWL what looks to me me quite unbelievable. 

Alo if the ship was some

Inches higher when unmanned and not outfitted.

 

But if you compare the Ancredrawing

and the 

Contemporary drawing of the decor everything upwards the distances and measurements look quite diffrend - fixpoint is the very aft 36-pdr gunport.

 

So I'll copy and compare during the next days.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Today my fit-your-branch-instead-of-food solution...

Proxxon add on came by pacle... my neighbour told me!!! 

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Here the scetch for todays surgery trial:

 

I'll try out on Marcs present - the testing parts - first. Especially the feadwood will be a source of trouble I do fear as I cannot immagine where to cut.

[Jack H]

On 12/27/2018 at 5:25 AM, Heinrich der Seefahrer said:

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... 😝😄

Very spectacular and gorgeous warships!

Edited April 9, 2019 by hjx

[Hubac's Historian]

I think a few things are worth considering for this approach.

 

First, I think it would be most advantageous - for the subsequent thinning and shaping of the keel and stem - if the visible portions of the keel, as well as those portions where the plastic hull joins it, are made from solid wood.

 

You will never be able to convincingly conceal the fact that you have carved through the outer layers of plywood to form your new keel shape; not without a mess of epoxy fillers, anyway.

 

A solid wood keel can be carved back cleanly, and the longest stretch of it, beneath the hull, can even be reduced on a router table, if you were to make a sled for the hull that maintains a parallel relationship between the keel and fence.  However many passes it takes to achieve this safely, and then turn the sled, and repeat on the other side.  The drawback of this approach is that the stem and sternpost will still have to be carved by hand.  This is an advantage, though, if you intend to taper the stem and sternpost as eould have been done in full scale.

 

My suggestion would be to edge glue solid stock to plywood of an appropriate thickness - which would, in effect, serve as a sort of central bulkhead former, up to the main deck level.  This approach would even enable you to mimic the appropriate joinery of where the stem and sternpost meet the keel.

 

Now, speaking to the problem of the rise of the stern deadwood - I think your cut line needs to be as close to the flat as you can make it.

 

If you have access to one, the easiest way to achieve this would probably be to sand it off with a machine table belt sander.  You could also probably rig up another kind of router sled and get even better results.

 

Now, even if you are a little bit off with the deadwood - as long as you have very carefully removed the keel from the rounded portions of the hull, you should end up with a nicely mating joint to your new keel former for approx. 75% of the hull.

 

Any discrepancies along the stern deadwood could, perhaps, be backed by sections of your expansion-foam plug.  A resin-based epoxy filler could then fill-in any discrepancies and be faired back into the hull form.  If there are big gaps, you will have to be careful to select a filler that does not kick off with too much heat, or you must take extra time to fill the gap in stages.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Hubac's Historian

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Dear Marc, thank for this great lesson in rebuilding a Heller hull. You have been able to inspire me and gave me the courage to try myself out at the Proxxon mini table saw.

 

But I was after some  50mm stopped by the osh parts of the saw... so I'll have to remove this before getting further progress. But I won 5mm of width in the hull. How much you did add to your hull at all?

 

As I'llhave to replank the hull at the very end  over all I must not be bothered about the puttying&sanding action at all.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Heinrich der Seefahrer

[Hubac's Historian]

Overall, my width increase amounts to a heavy 1/2”, almost 9/16”.  That is what was required to add in the missing sixth stern light.

 

Was it the saw safety guard that stopped you?

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Exactly the safe guard was

annoyingly colliding with the hull 😲

Edited April 8, 2019 by Heinrich der Seefahrer
Added picture of the troublemaker...

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

11 minutes ago, Hubac's Historian said:

Overall, my width increase amounts to a heavy 1/2”, almost 9/16”.  That is what was required to add in the missing sixth stern light.

 

(...)

🤔...this would be some 12mm - I do add something around 5mm less than 1/4".

 

Lets see towards where the journey leads me...

[mtaylor]

HJX,

I'm not sure about the licensing on the carvings.  If the carvings are done from historical drawing is one thing.  If done from a model kit, there probably would be.   Then again, with all the PE parts for steel navy ship models, is there a license fee paid?   I have no idea.   You might ask this of Chuck as he probably could tell you.

[Heinrich der Seefahrer]

Dear friends of the baroque ship building!

 

The

original drawing of SAINT PHILIPPE and

Mr. Lemineurs model are showing some differences. In particular at yhe balconies. 

In my linchtime I was able to doodle

a rough side cut drawing (LD=LowerDeck/MD=MiddleDeck/UD=UpperDeck) - thevAncre/Lemineur plan on the left to show the differences to you. Mr.Lemineur liftet the balcony from the LD up to the MD - to ace the gun stations in the LD cabin. I am not happy about this. 

 

What Du you think about this?