initial Soleil royal using the heller 1/100 scale kit (post prepared in advance)

There you go:
3323_2-auto_downl.jpg
 
aurélien wolff said:
A thing I wonder about the SR representation, why do so many of them paint the 3rd battery blue? Is it based on one of the louis XV model?
LouisXV_Musee.jpg
Click to expand...
Hi; it was the common pattern during the 1680's and up right to around 1760........It's why you see it so often on French ships of the period; However the blue was banned by 1686 and red was what was used until about 1715 when the ''prussian blue'' was discovered, cheap to make and began to be used........But none of the blues were dark like what you see on the Louis XV ship at the museum....
 
So a red post refit SR would make more sence. I checked it again and noticed I'll ahve to clean up the part from flashes and injection pins. I intend to use the head of the figurehead for my mermaid and I wonder if behind the headrail, ornaments were present too or not (I'll have to ad putty in anyway). Loads of injection pins on this kit too.
dsc_7424.jpg

dsc_7425.jpg

The dremel:
DSC_7414.jpg
 
Hi; no, there were exceptions to the ''no blue rule''; Under Signelay, the decisions were still similar to his father and he would not hesitate to spend more on the royal ships. So, exclusively the blue, although the lightest tone one would be used on the refit; what isn't known is how much of it was applied. Vary's aquarelle may, or may not have been used, partly, or completely; but there must also must been significant red color in the whole scheme; I think that more blue was used on the now closed bottles and a mix and match of blue and red was used on the stern façade...
 
I checked Lemineur "Les vaisseaux du roi soleil" and find his interpreation of the soleil royal odd, he kept the royal louis quarter galleries, choosed a verry different gun portholes arrangement for the stern guns and added another gun to the forecastle. He kept the berain/vary figurehead, even tho it should be different on the 1st soleil royal and the headrail is verry different from what bother tanneron and berain/Vary did. His interpretation is on page 171, I wonder what you guys think of it and if one should add a gun on the forecastle.
 
His depiction is the one which was supposed to be built, as a 110 gun, with sixteen ports at the lower battery and is what was registered initially in the official acrchives of 1667; it is before the Royal Duc was finished, before Hubac had discussions with Duquesne and Colbert, and reflects the initial decorations before Puget modified the stern, and the figurehead is there because no drawings of the first one survived the Toulon arsenal fire in 1675 apprx. His point of the article is to demonstrate what was to be the two ''above class'' ship that Colbert and the king wanted; so it also gives the idea for the Royal Louis, the other ship which was to have sixteen ports at the lower battery; neither got there initially, and only the Royal Louis got his sixteen ports at the time of his 1676 refit.
The quarterdeck should have 6 cannons on each sides, for the initial total of 110.
As I wrote in the document, the original configuration was to be 16 ports with 15 cannons on the lower deck, 15 cannons on the middle deck, 13 cannons on the main deck, 3, or 4 cannons on the forecatle, 6 or 7 on the quarterdeck and two on the poop deck, on each side for a total of 110. the other cannons which would have brought the ship's armament up to 120 were an extra 10 4 lbs ( as on the poop deck) spread on the forecastle, qarterdeck and poop deck; they were removed, making the shipp too top heavy and crowded.....
 
ok, so Lemineur depiction is more of a project for the 1st soleil royal. I'm at the page 35 of your article, I don't remember reading about 3 or 4 canons on the forecastle or 6/7 on the quarterdeck, I'll have to check it again. On your soleil royal did you had to clean the parts and deal with injection marks too? The forward part for the third battery and forecastle while recquire cleaning due to flash.
 
It's because at that time, nothing was set; you will see references further down;
My kit is a frankenstein kit....It is not one kit but many from different generations of that kit's production; I have encountered some flashing but really not a lot....
 
Hubac’s Historian said:
Flash and injection pin marks are numerous on this kit and it is well worth your time to clean and fill them.
Click to expand...
I actually didn't get much flash, but I did get injection pin marks.....But then my kit is a 40 year old one, at least most of it....
 
For flash, I include the thin line remnant that marks the mould halves. It isn't egregious, out of the box, but it telegraphs right through the paint and screams: I'M MADE OF PLASTIC.
 
Guys.... You're tripping over the flowers...It's part of any plastic kit and it's up to you do do what's necessary.....Wood kits also have their quirks
 
I’m not complaining about flash. I just think a builder does himself a disservice, if he does not bother to clean up these artifacts of the moulding process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top