Le Soleil Royal by Bill97 - FINISHED - Heller - 1/100

[Hubac's Historian]

Thanks, Bill - I took a leap, this morning, and ordered my even-size deadeyes (3,4,5 MM) from Drydock, along with cleats and hooks for the futtock shrouds, and 2.5 MM single and double blocks for gun rigging.  I’m still working on sourcing my 2.5 and 3.5 MM deadeyes.

[Bill97]

Finished the ratlines on the fore topmast. Added the backstays to the foremast and the fore topmast stay. A may redo the crows feet, maybe not. I got just a bit of slack in it when I added the stay. But even with the bobstay I added any more pull on the crows feet bows the stay at the bottom. Will probably just live with it. I am satisfied with my chains at the channel. Still have the topgallant stay to add later. 

[Bill97]

“The mast sections which are really overlong are the t’gallants.  Those I will make from scratch and shorten.”

 

Marc you made this comment when we were discussing the mast section lengths. I am soon going to make my own topgallant masts. Before I start I am curious how much you will shorten the ones you make?  I assume the section you shorten will be the bottom section below the tops?

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Hi Bill - last week, I was referencing the St. Philippe monograph plan in 1:96, to begin figuring out what line diameters I needed, and the deadeye dimensions, and so forth.

 

Then, I realized that because I want my masting to proportionally resemble that of the SP monograph.  I could simply figure out what the relative proportion of the main topmast (from topmast heel to just beneath topmast cap) was to the lower main mast (from main deck level to just beneath mast cap), and then apply those proportions to my topmast.  For the t’gallant, I could apply the same process, relative to the topmast length.

 

Now, I don’t have this in front of me, right now, but my recollection is that my main mast rose 10” above the main deck to just below the mast cap.  For a sense of proportion, that is about 5/8” more than what is shown on the 1:96 SP plans.  That is okay, as far as I’m concerned.  I raised my main mast height early in the process, back when I thought I would copy the kit topmast lengths.

 

This idea for a proportional rig only just occurred to me.  Again, it isn’t in front of me, but the SP topmasts work out to something like .825 of the main mast height above deck level.   Applying that proportion to what will be my scratch made topmasts, I come up with something like an 8 1/4” topmast.

 

Applying the same logic, the t’gallant height is something more than half the height of the topmast below.  I don’t remember the exact figure.

 

Overall, my rig will probably seem a little taller than it should, but I have also extended the overall length of the hull by 1/2”, so maybe it won’t be too noticeable.  It is more important, given this compromise, that the mast sections at least be proportional to each other because that is what makes them functionally able to be lowered and removed.

[Bill97]

So Marc the mast sections are all proportional to the section below?

[Hubac's Historian]

Don’t quote me on this, but in actual practice everything is derived, proportionally, from the lower main mast.

 

I’m taking the easy way out and just figuring out relative proportions for each mast, based on each’s lower mast section, according to what I see on the SP plans.

 

And, I’m doing that, also in-part, because I chose to use the lower mast sections of the kit, despite what are sure to be various proportional inaccuracies, i.e. the length of the cheeks, as well as certain detail discrepancies like the longitudinal stiffeners that run along the sides of the mast.  I’m not sure what those are called, but they wouldn’t be present at this time.

 

If I were making everything from scratch, I’d follow all of the rules, but since I’m making what is in many ways and impressionistic model, based on my observations of contemporary artwork, I am more concerned with the overall impression of scale.

[Ian_Grant]

Hi Bill; in short, yes.  Anderson has some ratios for English and foreign ships at the start of Chapter III.  Bear in mind that when he says a topmast is x/y as long as its lower mast, he means the entire lower mast to the step in the keel. It would be interesting to compare his values to the stock Heller parts.

 

At any rate, he says fore and main t'gallant masts varied from 0.4 of the topmast, to 0.5, then back to 0.4 from 1620 to 1670 or so; any value in that range should be satisfactory.

[Ian_Grant]

2 minutes ago, Hubac's Historian said:

Don’t quote me on this, but in actual practice everything is derived, proportionally, from the lower main mast.

 ...... which is itself derived from the ship's beam (Anderson, Chapter 1 part III, pg 15).

 

Sorry to "quote" you, Marc. 😉

[Hubac's Historian]

1 hour ago, Ian_Grant said:

Hi Bill; in short, yes.  Anderson has some ratios for English and foreign ships at the start of Chapter III.  Bear in mind that when he says a topmast is x/y as long as its lower mast, he means the entire lower mast to the step in the keel.

No problem, Ian, now it’s my turn.  Yeah, thanks for clarifying this.  Since I have no lower hull, and the Heller depth of hull would be wrong, anyway, I am only concerning myself with what can be seen above the main deck.  ‘Definitely cheating, here!

[Bill97]

Thanks Marc and Ian. Tell me if I am right here. The main topmast is 9 inches tall. Ian based on your advice if I go with 0.5 of the topmast the topgallant mast would be 4.5 inches. I am guessing that is only to the topgallant mast top not the flag pole section?  The area I have indicated in the first picture. The second picture is what the new length would look like. 

[Hubac's Historian]

If you went with the slightly smaller ratio of .4:1, then the t’gallant would be 3 5/8”, up to beneath the mast cap.

[Bill97]

Oh OK Marc. You think a topgallant that tall would look the best?  Basically cutting two inches off the height?  Go from 51/2” to

3 5/8”?  I will be making my own sails down the road a ways so this change will not cause a problem compared to if I had planned to use the kit supplied plastic sails. 

[Bill97]

Marc and Ian just to confirm this as well. The 3 5/8” is measured from the cross tree on the topmast not from cap that is about an inch higher?

[Bill97]

OK I know I am spending way to much time on MSW tonight discussing my ship with you guys! 😊

Ian I picked up my Anderson book to read through Chap 3 again after you referenced it above. I stumbled on something that concerns me. I hope you or Marc can shed some light on. On page 50 of Anderson’s book he explains the position of the topmast cross tree and trestle tree. He shows the third cross tree placed forward of the mast top. The Heller instructions, and the way I have already done it, is to have the third cross tree aft of the mast top. 😳

[Hubac's Historian]

My advice, as far as scale of the mast sections would be to mock it up with dowels and see what it actually looks like with different height t’gallants.  It would also be a good idea to mock up your sail plan, relative to these heights.  The t’gallant yards, BTW, are also too long.

 

Yes, you are measuring from the foot of the t’gallant to the underside of the flagstaff cap.

 

Now, while you have followed the kit instructions for the topmast tops to the letter, Heller’s tops are more mid-18th Century, in style, and grossly out of scale - far too wide.  If you are shortening the t’gallants, then the spread of the t’gallant shrouds will look really wrong, as compared with the spread of the topmast shrouds below.  On the stock kit, without any modifications, the spread already looks wrong.

 

My solution, here, would be to shorten the ends of the crosstrees, on each side, to reduce the spread.  My plan is to remake these trestletrees from scratch.

 

However, if that idea does not appeal to you, at this stage, I would simply keep the t’gallants the height that they are, and correct the t’gallant yard length, so that at least the sail-plan looks more right than wrong.

 

Compare Heller’s masting to this scratch-built 1:96 of L’Ambiteaux:

 

There are significant differences in scale, there.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Hubac's Historian

[Bill97]

Marc as usual you have given me a lot to think about. I had not thought about keeping the shroud spread appearance the same all the way up the mast. Will have to mock it up as you said to get a good feel. Thanks to you and Ian for your help today. 

[Hubac's Historian]

With the shroud spread, it should taper to less and less as you go up the mast.  This is the main reason that I widened my main tops.

[Ian_Grant]

Regarding the cross trees, when I first looked through my SR instructions I wondered if it was yet another "Hellerism".

 

The reason they were constructed as shown by Anderson was so the t'gallant mast could be "struck" ie lowered vertically through the square hole between the first and second crosstrees, just as topmasts are dropped through the lower mast tops. Heller's construction leaves no such cavity.

[Bill97]

Gentlemen as I read through our current discussion and look closely at my ship, especially what I have already completed, I can see as you have pointed out errors in Heller’s design. Unfortunately some of these errors are in items it is to late to correct. The error now being the cross trees and trestle trees which are now permanently locked in position under the shrouds. My only hope is to do the best I can to make the model visually interesting and attractive despite the lack of accuracy. Ian you are absolutely correct the topgallant mast can not be struck with the trestle tree designed as it is. Marc I measured the width of the cross trees. They will have the topgallant shroud spread the same width as the topmast shroud spread. You mentioned shortening the cross trees. I don’t understand how this would change the spread. 
 

Henry have you reached this point?  If so what did you do and how does it look?

Edited September 14, 2023 by Bill97

[Hubac's Historian]

If you shorten each side of each cross-piece, by say a generous 1/16”, then that would bring the deadeyes that much closer to the mast centerline, which would make them appear less spread-out over a span that is roughly half that of the topmasts.

[Bill97]

Oh Ok. That makes since. Simple triangle geometry. I am working on the main topmast stay and back stays right now. Looking at the cross tree and the mast top below I can see the cross tree/trestle tree is definitely too big. Would you shorten the aft end of the trestles a bit to make it look smaller?  You definitely made the right decision making your own to proper scale. I am going to finish all the standing rigging for the topmasts and then give a good study to how make the topgallants look right. 
 

By the at I have finished all the ratlines for the topmast shrouds. 

[Ian_Grant]

Bill, in your second photo above it looks like the t'gallant mast maybe could be struck, or nearly so, if the topmast had normal trestle trees instead of that "cone" shape going all the way around the mast.  The cross trees themselves look too far apart to me. Normally the middle one would be pressed against the front of the topmast and the aft one would be pressed against the back of the topmast (as Anderson says too, pg50) which would place them at little more than half the distance apart. And I agree they are too long.

 

You can't do anything about the first issue, but I would cut them shorter as Marc has already discussed.

 

Looking forward to working on my SR ......not really 🫤

 

But I'm taking notes for the future.........🤙

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Ian_Grant

[Hubac's Historian]

Yeah, I would definitely trim the back end, as well.  I had the benefit of building this kit before.  Over time, the issue of these trestle trees began to bother me.  You can monimize this problem, though.  Fortunately the t’gallant trees are in scale.

[Bill97]

I am definitely going to reshape the cross tree as close to the appropriate size as I can manage. Not sure exactly what I will do but that is my plan. 

[popeye2sea]

Sorry I have not had a chance to reply over the last two weeks. I was on vacation in Scotland.

 

I agree with Marc and Ian the topmast trestle and cross trees are too long and should be trimmed back. Also the rear hole should fit closely around the topmast head while the forward hole should admit the square lower section of the topgallant mast.  For those reasons I will probably fabricate my own cross trees.

 

Also I have never been a fan of those round sections of the mast that are supposed to represent the cheeks and hounds.  I think those are another Hellerism.

 

Regards,

 

Henry

[Bill97]

Henry welcome back from your Scotland trip. I really enjoy visiting Scotland. Where did you visit Thanks for your reply. Looks like I am going to be trying my best to make a silk purse out of this pig’s ear already mounted on my mast. Of course I will also need to glance forward to the foremast which has its trestle tree already mounted and locked down as well. 
 

Or maybe my SR was reincarnated in the 1800’s 😊

Edited September 15, 2023 by Bill97

[popeye2sea]

My wife and I spent 3 days in Edinburgh and then rented a car for a grand tour of the highlands. Culross, Stirling, Loch Lomond, Loch Fyne, Inverary, Kilmartin Glen, Fort William, Glen Finnan, Isle of Skye, Inverness, Culloden, Loch Ness, Aberdeen. Then back to Edinburgh on our anniversary. Returned home yesterday.

 

Regards,

[Bill97]

Henry that is our favorite part of Scotland. There is a little town just a bit north of Inverness called Dornock that we have visited. Your trip sounds fantastic. Happy Anniversary. How many years?

[Hubac's Historian]

Ahhh, I was not aware of 4H.  I did an image search and pulled that extract from Souvenirs from the first site I found.  That is the cardinal rule around here, so I will delete the post.  It served its purpose for the discussion, anyway.

[Hubac's Historian]

Also, Henry - what a trip!  Congrats on your anniversary!  How many years?

Edited September 16, 2023 by Hubac's Historian