Problems with the Heller 1/100 Le Soleil Royal

[Bill Morrison]

Ever since I discovered this kit (early 1970s) I have heard many people complain that it was inaccurate, with little to no deck furniture, the masts and yards were not proportioned correctly, and the hull was not shaped right, especially below the waterline. I have addressed the masts and spars by using the tables found in Mondfeld's Period Ship Models.  I raised the waterline to the lowest wale, correcting that issue. I believe that the width of the hull is okay given the waterline adjustment.  But, no one has ever provided any information about the deck furniture.

 

Indeed, when they knowingly make the statement that the furniture is wrong, I ask about the accuracy issues. I have been met with a stony and unknowledgeable glassy-eyed look. The question remains; What exactly are the problems with the deck layout of this model?

Bill Morrison

[Keith Black]

 Bill, I don't know if this helps?

 

https://www.modelships.de/Soleil_Royal/Detailansichten_Soleil_Royal_I.htm

[Bill Morrison]

Keith,

 

Thank you for the reference. I appreciate it very much! As I suspected, I don't see much difference in the deck layout with that of the Heller kit.

 

Bill

[Ian_Grant]

I haven't started mine yet, not will I for years, but one thing that bothers me about the deck area is the smooth featureless inside face of the bulwarks. I plan to add some evergreen strips to jazz it up a bit by adding some depth and shadows.

 

I see the model referred to above also has no ladder to access the upper poop deck, which has been discussed in the forum too. How did they get up there? There seems to be a ladder just lying on this model's poop, or is that a skylight?

 

Another thing that surprises me is Heller's arrangement of SR's crosstrees vis-a-vis the top- and topgallant masts. It just looks odd to me.

[Bill Morrison]

Ian,

 

I agree with everything you've said. But, I corrected the masts and spars issues by using Mondfeld as a guide.  I corrected the smooth inboard side of the bulwarks by using plastic strips.  I also planked over the entire decks with wood. I put in a ladder to the poop deck. To me, these corrections were easy. My problem is that so many fellow modelers kept referring to missing deck furniture. It's interesting that the furniture found on other models of ships-of-the-line show the exact deck furniture of Heller's SR. What is missing, if anything?

 

Bill

[amateur]

I guess you already know this one?

If it has not already been discussed, it will be - sooner or later....

And perhaps Marc @Hubac's Historian can answer your question right away..

 

 

Jan

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by amateur

[Bill Morrison]

Yes, I know Marc, and I have built this model several times, making the already mentioned alterations. He and I have disagreed occasionally on some finer points. Disagreement, however, does not imply disrespect. His work is a thing of beauty. But, the deck furniture has always looked appropriate to me, although I have added a galley stove pipe per Mondfeld. The crux of my question is simply "In what specific way is the Heller SR deck furniture 'wrong' ?"

 

Bill Morrison

[popeye2sea]

Although I have no direct evidence for SR, I believe that the one of the mistakes is that the fore halyard knighthead should not be placed directly abaft the fore mast. The halyard will foul on the main stay.  I think it should be offset to starboard a bit. I did this on my build.

 

Another issue I have is the included casks/tubs for the cannons. I think these are supposed to be match tubs, but they look all wrong to me.  The halyard tubs that are supplied are kind of strange, too.  I am not planning on using any of those items.

 

The hatch gratings are poorly modeled. And I am not sure about the arrangement or placement of the various knights on deck. Also, where, if any were present on the upper decks, would the pumps go. I assume somewhere near the main mast.  There are no wedges or mast boots for any of the masts.  

 

I'm sure I am missing some items.

 

Regards,

 

[Bill Morrison]

Henry,

 

Thanks for your input. I really appreciate it!

 

Bill