Soleil Royal by EricWiberg - Heller - 1/100 - PLASTIC - started 45 years ago

[EricWiberg]

Ian, thank you for the comments, and, when I display SR 1671 down the road, I am definitely thinking of a waterline display.  When I changed the sweep of the wales I started with the lower most wale and lowered it several millimeters, so that the middle (and lowest) part of the wale would dipping into the water. Even with that, I think I still would set the hull into a base to make a "waterline display"... I have no idea yet if I would make a realistic wave panorama like Marc LaGuardia plans to do. I thought initially about sawing off the lower section like Marc did, but... twobyears ago that was way behind my skill set! Theoretically I could do it now, but... talk about opening a can of worms!

[EricWiberg]

Ian... just thinking - and talk about opening a can of worms! - theoretically at this stage, I could build out the lower hull. Meaning that I planned the upper half... I theoretically could bulk up the lower hull and plank it. That may sound crazy, but when compared to what I have done so far, it is not a stretch. The "but" is... where the heck would I get an idea of what a proper lower hull shape is for SR1671?! So it is much easier than to bury the hull and make a waterline display

[Hubac's Historian]

Personally, Eric, I would not even consider building out, or expanding the lower hull.  It could be done, but you would need to figure out the rising line of the floors and make pattern guides that faired into the maximum breadth line.  The number of difficulties in doing this without CAD are numerous, and getting one small thing wrong, or working from an erroneous assumption could compromise the whole project.  Not worth it, IMO.  Conversely, it is not too difficult to place the un-cut hull into a waterline sea.

 

As for the QG entry doors, there would definitely have been an actual door there, opening inboard.  Seaways can get awful rough, and a ship’s capacity to pump out water would be quickly overwhelmed, if she were taking water in through these large openings.

[EricWiberg]

Marc.. thanks for bringing me back to reality,  and there will be a swinging door in the QG!

[Hubac's Historian]

The other issue with a lower hull build-out is that the entire midship to bow, along the maximum breadth is just all wrong.

[Hubac's Historian]

Heller’s SR looks amazing in sheer, but you just can’t focus too much on her underwater shapes.  When you minimize the visibility of the lower hull, you vastly improve the credibility of the kit as a scale model.

[Ian_Grant]

Recall that @yancovitch built a superb SR using bits of Heller's plastic hull to "plank" a wood bulkhead hull, which looked the cat's pajamas in terms of proportions. He is a master builder. 

 

I agree with Marc about a build out at this stage being impractical but his demonstrated how SR could look.

 

 

[EricWiberg]

The wales on the port hull are almost sanded flush.... WAIT! didn't I already post this in May, 2024??

 

 

But this happened on Tuesday. I heard a "pop", and then the bulwark felt wobbly (starboard hull, where the front bulwark joins the hull in a several inch long area at the waist). I peeled off the planks and found this crack. The bulwark was always going to be the Achilles heel for this model. Many modelers report some difficulty in aligning the bulwarks - especially the front pieces - on the little bitty rabbet on the hull. And due to me sanding off the wales, I had a very thin area on the bottom of the bulwarks to glue to the hull. I used liberal amounts of Apoxie Sculpt, and glue tabs in areas where they couldn't be seen. THe joint seemed robust enough... until Tuesday. I tried several times to glue and Apoxie Sculpt the bulwark back in place, but the joint was clearly too tenous to risk... I could only imagine doing the rigging down the road when this would break again. 

 

Fortunately, I picked up a spare hull on Ebay last year, for all of $29.... I thought about it overnight, and then started sanding the wales yesterday morning.

 

 

The good news is that I have all of my measurements, all of my jigs.. the work I did on the head and the new beakhead bulkhead will just slip into placde on this new hull. Honestly, I won't be doing any "experimenting" on this new hull.. I just have to follow the plan and measurements that got me to this point. 

 

Speaking of measurements... I would appreciate any advice/opinions on the following matter.. guns and gun carriages!

 

You might recall I purchased a full set of cannons, and many gun carriages, from Kris/Skutznik in Poland. I first saw what Kris could do when he supplied the cannons/carriages for Nigel (NMBROOK) on his SR build at 1/48. Kris scaled the parts down for me to 1/96.

 

In the next photo in the center, you can see a 12# cannon from Kris on the left facing off against a kit 12# cannon... to the left is a 6# cannon, and then a 4# cannon on the far left. In general, the cannons from Kris are a little beefier and more robust. I have a full set of cannon, but not of the carriages; I planned on using the kit carriages for the 36# and 24# cannon on the lower and middle gun decks (where the carriages won't be seen).

 

Note how the carriages from Kris are lower in profile than the kit carriage (this lower profile seems visually correct to me); this places the center of the bore several millimeters lower on the Kris cannon compared to the kit cannon, which changes the height of all of the fo'c's'le, quarter deck, and poop deck gun ports. Not a big deal, I already have the measurements that I need for the gun ports, but.. does this seem accurate to everyone else, i.e. the carriages from Kris compared to the kit carriages (remember, these are the same parts that Nigel ordered several years ago for his build)

 

 

Finally, I have a question on gun port spacing. Following the Rule Of The Cannon Ball Diameter, not a screenshot from my Excel spreadsheet that contains all of my measurements. Note the blue column is the predicted gun port measurements and spacing, while the green column is the kit spacing.

 

The lower and middle gun deck spacimgs are close enough - calculated vs kit. But they start to diverge as we move up the deck to smaller cannon. For example, the 6# cannon on the fo'c's'le and quarter decks should be 22.2mm apart... whereas the kit spacing is 35mm. Now, SR 1671 - per Guy and his treatise - had 5 cannon on the quarterdeck... spacing them 22.2mm apart (instead of 35mm) would leave a lot of room, BUT... per Guy, SR 1671 was SUPPOSED to have 7 cannon on the quarterdeck, but two cannon were removed in the construction process to add one more 12# cannon on the upper gun deck. So on the quarterdeck, spacing seven cannon 35mm apart.. there wouldn't be enough room! There would be plenty of room at 22,2mm spacing.

 

Also, the tiny "toy" 4# cannon on the poop deck would be spaced 19mm apart... I currently have them (correction - HAD) spaced 24mm, and that means I have to move the royal poop deck bulkhead, as Marc LaGuardia detailed in his blog. BUT... if the spacing is actually accurate at 19mm, all of a sudden there is a lot more room for two cannon on the poop deck and maybe the royal poop deck bulkhead has to be moved less than 10mm, and maybe not at all?

 

Does this make sense to the far more experienced builders out there?

 

 

 

Edited January 2 by EricWiberg

[EricWiberg]

Now that I have a clear vision of what I want out of this THIRD iteration of my SR build; it's full speed ahead. Many thanks are due to Marc LaGuardia, as his knowledge and experience regarding all things Soleil Royal is only exceeded by his willingness to share that knowledge.

 

I have decided to add a sixteenth gun port on the lower deck. The Heller kit has fourteen lower gun ports; on my first go-round with SR 1671, I added a chase port (unarmed), i.e a fifteenth port. Obviously, this also means that I will have to rearrange the gun ports on the decks above the lower deck, so I am starting down the path that CedricL pioneered for his La Reine build log 

 

 

I had already ground off the wales on the lower hull, so the next step was to plug the gun port holes in the lower and middle decks. I opted to use the kit gun port lids as Cedric did. Two years ago I tried adding gun port linings to the lids, and they were much too thick, as I learned to my chagrin. I pushed them aside two years ago... but found the bag this morning and was rather happy for the too thick Evergreen stock. Each gun port is now plugged to match the entire hull thickness, as opposed to just the thin gun port lid.

 

 

It took very little time to plug all of the starboard gun ports.

 

 

Prior to using Tamiya putty as a leveler, I added small squares of very thin Evergreen stock - 0.13mm in thickness. This just raised the profile of each gun port very slightly above the rest of the hull, as I wanted a very slight convex bump, as opposed to the possibility of a concave depression.

 

 

I put on a surgical glove and smeared Tamiya putty on every gun port... I will let this dry overnight before further sanding.

 

 

Finally, I used my Dremel to start lightly wasting away the unneeded decorations and mouldings on the kit bulwarks. I am using very little pressure, either from the Dremel or by hand sanding, as I learned that being too aggressive could generate enough heat to cause a slight warpage in the bulwarks. Very slight, but enough to affect the tenuous attachment rabbet where the bulwarks attach to the hull.

 

 

Edited January 5 by EricWiberg

[Hubac's Historian]

It’s super tedious, Eric, but you’ll want to thoroughly level any wales or ornamental footprints, otherwise there is a good chance they will telegraph through your thin styrene planking.

[Chapman]

I once rearranged all the gun ports on a Heller Phenix, and it was anything but pleasant. I managed it, but now I think a completely rebuilt wooden hull would have been more effective.

You seem to enjoy working with plastic, so I wish you continued success.

[EricWiberg]

Chapman, I do enjoy working in this medium of plastic. For a beginning modeler like me, it allows mistakes to be concealed, and also allows you attempt many different things, as I did on my first try at describing an SR 1671.

 

The good news is that this second attempt should be much more straightforward, as the "experimenting " is done.

 

If there is a better way to carve windows/gun ports in the hull than patient use of a #11 blade and needle files... I would love to know!

[Hubac's Historian]

Because this plastic is so thick, my preferred method for cutting openings is to neatly scribe the opening; drill a series of tightly spaced holes within that opening, using a Dremel; cut through the perforations with a stiff box knife; and then square to my lines with files.

 

 

[Chapman]

3 hours ago, EricWiberg said:

there is a better way to carve windows/gun ports in the hull than patient use of a #11 blade and needle files... I would love to know!

I drilled one larger hole in the center and several smaller ones on the four sides of the gunport, then used a No. 11 scalpel to cut from the center outwards to the sides.

That was relatively easy.

However, Heller's Phenix hull is relatively thin compared to the Soleil Royal.

Edited January 6 by Chapman

[EricWiberg]

As I wait for the paint (Tamiya putty) to dry, I have been doing some initial calculations on Lower Gun Deck spacing. My thinking is that I have a very good idea where the chase port (#1) should go, and where #16 (in the quarter gallery should go). I laid this out on the hull that I abandoned last week, and measured 501mm for a rough first measurement from leading edge to leading edge... so in between are fourteen gun ports and fifteen spaces between the gun ports.

 

Winfield & Roberts says that Hubac used 32" wide gun ports on a spacing of 76".... in Heller kit size, that would mean gun ports 8.1mm wide, and spacing of 19.3mm in between ports. The problem is that 16x8.1 + 15*19.3 = 419mm... way short of the 501mm space that I actually have!

 

OK... 32" wide gun ports seems very narrow for the handling of these big 36# guns? Using the formula of gun port width = 6.5* cannon ball diameter, the Lower Gun Deck openings should be 10.5mm on the kit (now, I do NOT know when that "rule of thumb" came into apparent use). BUT... if we make the gun port widths 10.5mm, then the space between gun ports need to be  22.5mm to fill out the entire 501mm from #1 to #16. Side bar note.. the ACTUAL kit spacing between gun ports is a whopping 35mm, and the gun port width is 10.0mm.

 

The problem for me is that if I keep the gun port width at 8.1mm, then the spacing between gun ports must be 25mm to fill out all 501mm of space.... I suppose that while 25mm is a lot more than the 19.3mm it apparently should be, it still will look more accurate than the large, existing spacing of 35mm between gun ports?

 

As a side note, I zoomed in on a VDV drawing of Royal Duc and looked at several lower deck gun ports as straight on as I could. It's not perfect, but the ratio between gun port spacing / gun port width is 2.1... while using Winfield & Roberts, the ratio (76/32) is 2.4.... that is fairly close.

 

Winfield & Roberts state for SR on page 60 after "Dimensions & tons:" 164ft 6in. 142ft 0in..... I am sure they spell it out in the book somewhere, but is 164'6" the length from bow stem to stern post? Would 142'0" be the length of the keel? The Heller kit keel length is 483mm.... IF that 142'0" is actually the keel length, that scales down to 432mm. Is that the real issue, the kit length is artificially long by 50mm or so?

 

Regardless, I think I have to end up choosing a gun port width/spacing that, while maybe not historically precise, it looks the best on the Heller kit?

 

Edited January 6 by EricWiberg

[Hubac's Historian]

SR1’s keel length was 142 French feet, which is longer than the English and Imperial foot by 1.066.  That is one factor.  The other is that the Heller Kit is based on the dimensions of SR 1693, which I don’t remember exactly, but I think measured 172 French feet between perpendiculars - which is the measurement from the forward most face of the stem to the furthest aft rake of the stern post.

[EricWiberg]

Thank you, Marc... that makes perfect sense. So SR 1 length at 164'6"(French units) is shorter than SR 1693 at 172' (French units).... in other words, exactly 8 feet in imperial units, or 24mm at the scale of 1/100. That is a big chunk of the "extra space" at the gun deck that I would have to fill.

 

Also - my thinking on measuring spacing from the #1 chase port to #16 is WRONG, as the #1 chase port is placed ahead of #2 gun port by about 1.5x the spacing between the rest of the gun ports. So I will recalculate from #2 to #16, and then add in that extra long piece to the chase port. The spacing improves slightly. 

[Hubac's Historian]

Alright, so I was wrong about SR 1693; her length between perpendiculars was actually 170’ FF.

 

This amounts to an increase of 5.5’ FF, or 5.863’ Imperial.

[EricWiberg]

An update before my surgery today, as I likely won't be able to - or feel like! - working on the ship for several days!

 

It looks like more round of fine sandpaper, such as 240 grit, wil do the job and make everything flush and smooth (ultimately, I will be planking over the hull above the waterline with 0.50mm X 4.00mm thick planks).

 

 

I have been much more patient this time with the use of the Dremel and sandpaper. No aggressive pushing into the parts, just back and forth letting the sandpaper do its work. When the middle wales are removed, there is a difficult spot to smooth and contour as the lower half of the hull transitions into the upper half. In the background, you can see a pickel jar that I glued some fine grit sandpaper to, as the curve of the jar matched my desired hull contour.

 

 

And I am also being very gentle with the removal of all decor and mouldings on the bulwarks.

 

 

I will have plenty of time in the next few weeks to detail all of the SR 1671 ship specifications that I can think of. For example, I am using the L'Ambitieux monograph, taking careful note of the wale dimensions, and how far they protrude from the hull. My lower and middle wale dimensions will be lightly wider on this ship. 

 

Finally, the key thing for me is to develop a Quarter Gallery plan, as that needs to be finished to guide the positioning of my 16th Lower Deck gun port.

 

 

 

Edited January 8 by EricWiberg

[EricWiberg]

I have been able to sand several hours a day using very light pressure - I can't grasp the pieces with a second hand - but I am taking a break today to examine my sheer lines. I am have been studying these two drawings of La Reine and Royal Louis (I flipped the images horizontally to match the way my hull was facing in the next photo).

 

 

 

I realize the perspective can fool the eye, but it seems to me that the upper bottom wale on the several 16 gun Lower Deck ships starts to rise about gun port #11. I looked at the drawings and wondered if plotting "rise over run" would help me develop the slope of the upper bottom wale, which will be the guide for the sheer of the other wales and caprail. Since I am typing with one finger, I will not be verbose. I took a photo of my hull (thank you duct tape and zip ties), and then measured the distance from the 11th gun port to the wing transom on my photo, and broke that distance into seven equal sections (I figured more sections would mean a smoother curve). And then I just played with the numbers, increasing the rise over run by the same percentage as I went down the hull section by section. For example, in the photo below, I increased the rise over run by 3 percent over each segment as I went to the stern on the top bottom wale. Obviously the sheer starts to sweep up, slowly at first, but increasing noticeably. I was really interested in getting a red line for the caprail sheer; I realized that I needed to continue the top bottom wale run out into space as the bulwark extends well aft of the wing transom, and thus the caprail curve would sweep up a bit more as it approached the transom, where the top bottom wale stopped short.

 

Hopefully this makes sense; it was a very simply exercise and I think that it will help me develop a better sheer line in this go-around as I just eye-balled it before. 

 

 

Now. I am pretty certain that I will have enough room on the poop deck to mount both 4# cannon WITHOUT having to move the poop royal deck bulkhead.... there is almost 40mm of space. I am curious... could/should the royal poop deck and poop decks pitch down a bit more sharply as they run forward? I purchased a laminated deck set for this model two years ago... the kit decks are generally 1.5mm thick, while the laminate is 0.3mm thick. I coul easily take 0.5mm or 0.75mm sheet and install the 0.3mm laminate. That would lower the height of the decks, allowing for more pitch forward or even introducing some camber?

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:58 PM by EricWiberg

[Hubac's Historian]

Generally speaking, Eric, your rise over run looks almost about right to me; maybe a little extreme though.

 

I’m afraid this won’t be terribly scientific, on my part, but I would be inclined to nudge the termination points of the pair of lower main wales, down another 1/8”+.  That way, you’ll have a better connection to the upper transom moulding that we discussed, above the stern chase ports.

 

Honestly, I don’t think you were too far off on your previous iteration:

 

As for the poop deck, which is carrying guns, it would not have any kind of pronounced forward pitch.  The poop royal deck, though, may have had some pitch simply to increase headroom in these birthing cabins.

 

Is that what is happening on the poop decks of these Dutch two-deckers:

Hard to say, but it seems so.  Or, what about this Dutch-built Frenchie, Le Neptune:

Here’s a Puget drawing of a third-rate:

I’m on the fence on this one, although Michel Saunier seems to have made a definitive choice on this question:

photos, courtesy of Marc Yeu.

[EricWiberg]

Marc, fantastic observations and advice, as is usual!

[Hubac's Historian]

My only real issue with pronounced pitch on the poop royal deck is that this is one deck that makes sense for the open chicken coops to reside on.  However, you could always stilt the legs of the coops so that they are on the level.

[EricWiberg]

I managed to install the forecastle deck and lay on the 6# cannon, as the cannon and carriages from Kris (Skutznik in Poland) have a lower profile than the kit cannon/carriages.

 

The cannon bore is approximately 3mm lower, as you can see. I now have a very good idea on the ultimate timberhead/caprail height, and can do most of the work on the bulwarks before I affix them to the hulls.. obviously this also applies to the quarterdeck as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EricWiberg]

I scanned in my front port bulwark piece and played around in Word. Of course, this is nowhere near as precise as a CAD system... but it is what I have!

 

I can create timberheads, gun ports, etc. to the precise size that I need and lay them on the scanned image. I now have a very, very close approximation of how things will look. On my SR 1671 #1, I filled in between the kit timberheads and then added new timberheads/railing on top. Tthis raised the entire side of the ship by 5mm and greatly contributed to a castle-like appearance at the foredeck, and the various aft decks... which was NOT optimal.

 

At the foredeck, I will be able to use my framed timberheads and cap rail and still have the very same railing height of the kit! The reason is because the circular gun ports were downsized from 6.7mm to 6.0mm in diameter, and also lowered 3.0mm to center the cannon bore in the gun port. The yellow line is a drift rail... the run is not perfect, but good enough to show that if I increase the timberheads at the waist from my standard 2.5mm height to 5.0mm in height, I can continue a seamless drift rail run aft. I have seen drawings where these waist timberheads are clearly taller, and I assume this was also done merely to support a seamless run of rail. Again, I will be maintaing the exact height profile of the kit.

 

 

I also layed in the circular holes at the waist that were used - I assume - to jab pikes or fire guns through to discourage boarding.

 

Finally, I also laid in the Upper Gun deck gun ports. they are the size that I want and are 2.5mm lower than the kit height. The spacing that I show may not be the spacing that I use. The kit UD gun port spacing is 35mm.... that is a solid 10mm more spacing than suggested for this size of cannon, but I assume that the kit must use that 35mm spacing to maintain the staggered, quincunx pattern of the various gun decks. By adding a 16th gun port at the lower deck, I know that the quincunx pattern will change my middle deck/upper deck gun port spacing compared to the kit, but I don't need to worry about that yet.

 

it took me about one hour to draw this, so on to the rear bulwark...

 

Edited 6 hours ago by EricWiberg