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

[EricWiberg]

I found this example of a tapered cutwater on another blog of Model Ship World... granted, it is a clipper ship some 150 years AFTER Soleil Royal, but it really shows the taper of the cuwater as it descends downward...

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Post #167 of Yankee D’s Provincien blog:

[EricWiberg]

Marc, that second photo is very helpful and really shows the taper

[EricWiberg]

I carved out some early morning time today, and the goal was to start tapering the cutwater appearance for the knee of the head. First, I wanted to subtly change the shape of the knee of the head so that it is not one long curve from base to the figurehead, so where my finger is pointed, there is a now a slight indent.

 

 

Next, I established the waterline, as my operating assumption is that from the waterline up to to base of the figurehead, there is little to no taper.

 

 

Nexy, I sketched in some very rough guidelines to indicate how all of the pieces of the knee of the head were attached. Not the final lines, of course, but I will scribe in the final lines after the tapering process. I did this because my assumption is that only pieces "A" and "B" were tapered ("A" and  "B" is penciled in on the piece) in other words, just the very leading edge of cutwater.

 

 

Finally, this is a head on view. Believe it or not, the width at the top (i.e. above the waterline) is 6.25mm, and it gradually tapers down to 4.25mm at the base. Too me, there seems to be very little visible taper at this point, even though it is there. Again, my assumption that only "A" and "B" pieces will be tapered might be wrong, but I can't believe that all of the individual pieces that make up the knee of the head would all be tapered in unison, starting at the stem and marching forward to the cutwater, at least below the waterline. It is not razor blade sharp as in the clipper photo that I posted just abve this, but it does seem to be more in line with the Zeven Provincean photo that Marc also posted just above.

 

Edited April 20 by EricWiberg

[MBerg]

Just stumbled upon this and read your first post. Great story! I'll follow you along on this, and try to catch up on the previous 10 pages.

[Hubac's Historian]

Generally, shipwrights avoid cutting timbers into long tapering points because those sharp timber ends become much more prone to rotting quickly.  This is why deck planking is “joggled” into the margin plank, for example:

As it relates to the stem, it is also quite beneficial for the structure of the thing to be inter-locking with the use of hooks and scarfs.  I’ve taken the liberty to draw an approximate sketch of your cutwater:

Ideally, you don’t want the gammoning holes to cross between timber joins.

 

As for the tapering of the cutwater, Lemineur shows it as a long gradual taper across the full depth of the cutwater:

However, he also shows the foot of the cutwater as being full width, while the head of the cutwater (behind the head of the Figurehead) is tapered to half-width:

The way to understand this, I think, is that the foot of the cutwater is very shallow in depth, as opposed to the head of the cutwater, which extends some 30’ further, ahead of the stem.

 

From a practical standpoint, you want that taper to be most pronounced at the foot of the cutwater, as it improves water-flow.  This is what you have done.  I do think, though, that the full depth of the cutwater should have a gradual tapering, back to full width where it meets the stem.  What this means is that your cutwater foot will have a much more pronounced looking taper, because you are reducing by anywhere from a 1/3 to a 1/2 width, over a relatively short span:

I hope that makes sense.

[EricWiberg]

Marc's taper explanation above really helped... in simple terms for my mind, it means that even though the curve of the cutwater viewed from the side may be a curve 6" long, the ocean sees the frontal view, and the curve now appears to be a simple straight piece only 4" top to bottom, but the taper must appear even as Marc drew. I also tried to evenly plane down the thickness from leading edge back to the stem... 

 

Next, I monkeyed around for an hour penciling and erasing and finally  came up on a joinery/scarf joint pattern that looks plausible- to me!

 

 

Now... the fun part comes... the actual scribing. The only way - with my resources- that I can do this is to clamp the French Curves that made the lines directly to the knee of the head piece so I have an edge to scribe against. No way I could ever scribe freehand without an edge! As soon as I finish a particular scribe on one side, I will immediately flip the piece over and reclamp and scribe the companion line...

 

Edited April 21 by EricWiberg

[Hubac's Historian]

What I have found is that I can lightly trace over my lines with the tip of a very sharp EXACTO blade.  Three or four passes of incrementally stronger pressure.  The key is to go light on the first couple of passes so that the blade doesn’t wander off the line.  After the fourth pass, you’ll have a deep enough groove to use the heel of the blade to scribe.  Again - light pressure on the first few scribe passes.

[EricWiberg]

Well, the rough scribing of the port side of the knee of the head is done... just some cleaning up amd prettying up is required.

 

I used two techniques to scribe: 1) a Tamiya scriber against French curves, and 2) Marc's technique using a very sharp blade to score the styrene. Both techniques produce excellent results; if I couldn't clamp a French curve to use as an edge, I was very comfortable in using Marc's technique.

 

And I have to say again, this was another example of scratch building on this kit that I was initially a tad bit worried about - "can I actually do this?" - and with patience and the right tools and advice from experienced builders like Marc... it was so much easier than I expected... and fun!

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

I’m so glad that you gave that technique a shot.  The results are excellent!  Sometimes, it’s just more practical to free-hand the engraving.

[EricWiberg]

My goal of building as much of the "from scratch" head structure in advance and to also have a precise fit is not going to work with my current stem padding piece.

 

I wanted to make the stem thicker, a uniform 5mm thick when viewed from the side, and 6mm wide when viewed from the front. I also created slots that match the kit openings in the hull, so the tabs on the head pieces lock into the hull.

 

 

The problem is that I built a straight piece that needs to be flexed to the curve of the stem; it fits perfectly, but pushes like a spring so I simply cannot get the head structure to sit nice and tight (at least without glue, but I can't glue yet).

 

So I need a curved stem padding piece that fits with no bending stress/strain.

 

Back to the drawing board. I scanned the hull to get the precise shape of the stem.

 

 

Then a card template was made and affixed to 2mm thick thick styrene and it was drilled out.

 

 

After wasting away the excess and then some sanding, the new stem padding piece fits precisely with no bending/flexing required. Now I just need to follow the same process and make several other curves so I can laminate them together to make a 6mm wide piece (viewed fore to aft).

 

Now, the head piece tabs will insert through the padding into the hull, where I can use small clamps on the tabs to hold them firmly on the inside. So maybe 2 steps forwards, and now one back.... but I will get much better results as I create the head structure. 

 

 

Edited April 25 by EricWiberg

[EricWiberg]

OK, the fit is so much better with this stem padding. On to the head rails...

 

Note to self. In the future,  make sure polystyrene work doesn't have to be flexed to fit into place... it should fit without stress/strain, if possible. 

 

 

 

 

[EricWiberg]

In order to create card templates for my head rails, I need a precise pattern. I finally got around to drawing on vellum. I scanned in the ship hull and new head parts that I created, and then saved than scan. I then printed it on vellum directly from the printer, and I had a pretty good template.

 

It took me several hours of measuring and drawing with French curves after looking at a number of VDV drawings to try and capture that "older" type of Dutchy head rail. I was satisfied with the somewhat finished drawing on the right. There - I had the basis to start cutting head rail card templates!

 

Except... something wasn't quite right... I laid the hull on the vellum drawing for a final check... and it was off. I discovered that my vellum drawing was 4.9% smaller than the original... that sounds small, but it was plenty big enough to create seemingly huge errors!

 

I rescanned again, and got the same result?? I checked Google, and apparently "minor" scan size errors are not uncommon; it suggested a few minor fixes. The print on the left is now exactly the same size as the original scanned drawing.... so I will print the drawing on the left on vellum, and draw the head railings again.

 

Edited Sunday at 01:29 PM by EricWiberg

[Hubac's Historian]

Good that you checked!

[Hubac's Historian]

I really think you have captured the essence of these early French headrails.

Edited Sunday at 01:35 PM by Hubac's Historian

[popeye2sea]

"Drench",  nice.  I will have to remember that one.

[EricWiberg]

We shall see, Marc... but I am certainly glad that I finally took your observations about drawing/creating on vellum to heart. I had made rough sketches of the head structure based on measurements from various VDV drawings. Now, as I draw on the vellum to try and be precise to the millimeter, it turns out that after scanning the hull and head structure onto vellum and cross-checking the proportions... I lucked into the exact head structure proportions that I was trying to achieve. However, that was mostly luck! There is no way that I could attempt to make the head rails and support brackets without having a very good drawing. And... gee, have you heard me say this before? - it turned out to be one heck of a lot easier than I assumed!

 

Here are several of the head structures that I was trying to emulate... especially Royal Duc, the little sister.

 

After looking at some of these Dutch ships, it seemed that there heads were plain and not dressed up. I was wondering if SR 1671 might be "staid and conservative"" in that respect.However, Royal Duc (and Royal Louis) seem to be taking the approach that any area is a good area for Baroque. Since SR 1671 was intended to showcase the magnificence of Louis 14... well, Royal Duc has a lot going on with the head and the beakhead bulkhead, so SR 1671 must be at comparable.. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Vellum is fantastic because you can erase on it over and over and it won’t disintegrate like regular paper.  Once I have a design I like, I clean up as much loose graphite as I can, and I spray the drawing with hairspray as a fixative.  I have a whole cache of these drawings that I have made for the model.

 

Accurate scale drawings are indispensable for this kind of scratch work.  Otherwise, you end up chasing your tail trying to approximate what’s needed in the available space.

[EricWiberg]

So... hopefully my next post will be showing cardboard templates of head rails... but first.....

 

I needed to trim down the top surface of the upper knee. Note the cardboard template is much thinner than the current styrene version as it tapers on its run to the back of the figurehead (I cut the cardboard template off where the base of the figurehead sits on the lower knee for ease of use). The hair bracket is lightly sketched in... it will be 5mm in width at the stem and will taper to 1-2mm in width by the time it reaches the base of the figurehead. However, the top edge of the upper knee needs to: 1) duplicate the curve of the hair bracket and 2) have an even 2mm rise above the hair bracket curve.

 

This 2mm rise above the hair bracket will support the head rail support brackets... BIG thanks to Marc LaGuardia for helping me to understand this relationship!

 

 

So... I am going to start making cardboard templates of the top head rail, and go from there. I do have to consider the perspective of my sketch, though, as the sketch is only 2-dimensional, and the distance from the top of the beakhead bulkhead to the rosette is a straight line 100mm in length. However, in the 3-dimensional world of the model, the straight line length is 120mm or so, as indicated by the needle file. So maybe I just have to make a copy of my sketch, and lengthen it by 20% to lengthen the head rail? Regardless, I expect there will be a lot of trial and error here, but this is a required and critical step. Once the knees and the head rails and the fifurehead all fit perfectly... then the hull can be glued together.

 

That sort of scares me, as that means painting is coming, and that will be a whole new learning experience!

 

 

 

 

 

[Hubac's Historian]

Coming along really nicely, Eric.  As for the painting, my suggestion would be the following:  if you still have scrap hulls, I would use them to sort through your color schemes and practice your technique.  It will give you confidence, and it will help to demystify the process of getting a professional finish, free of brush-strokes.

[EricWiberg]

Well, that went well... the card template fits as well as I can make it fit right now. Guess I can take a deep breath and next step is... glue the hull together. Whew - started down this beakhead bulkhead/head redesign process on Dec 27.... I did miss 5 weeks of ship time in March/April, so it has only been three months, not four....

 

The one observation that I have is that I was hoping to make the head look a little longer and lower than it is. It is clearly longer than the kit, but - and here is just another one of many compromises that must be made - I opted to capture the 40 degree steeve of the bowsprit for a 1660-70 period ship. Or, I could have stayed with a steeve of 31-32 and I would have my lower head, but not an accurate bowsprit angle!

 

[Hubac's Historian]

As I say with all of this modification nitty gritty: Comme-ci, comme-ca.  A little like this, a little like that.  The important thing is to capture the essence of the thing in a fully coherent way, and you have more than achieved that.  And, you have the distinction, now, of being the first to radically transform the kit head!

Edited 23 hours ago by Hubac's Historian