Unglaublich!!! 
Soleil Royal by Heller - an Extensive Modification and Partial Scratch-Build by Hubac’s Historian
- Thread starter Hubac’s Historian
- Start date
- Watchers 74
-
- Tags
- 1689 heller hubac refit soleil royal
I hear you on that. Although, if I remember, the SP monograph does not show overly elaborate spindles. I think the main thing might be to find a design easy enough to replicate at scale.Thanks Marc but I have got a long way to go, FYI there are many more spirals to come now I have my deck layout drafted in my headStill haven't decided on my baluster design though
Thank you, Kurt? I think.Unglaublich!!!
Hey, by the way, I noticed you in the YouTube comments the other day for a guy who built his first Lancaster County flintlock using only hand tools. A very nice hob he made of it. Small world, and all!
Yeah, being a firearms collector, I'm all over the machinegun, rifle and muzzle loader forums. Model ships are one of MANY hobbies, and I love them all.Thank you, Kurt? I think.
What a great world we live in!
Last edited:
You just hate me because I had season tickets during the Jordan three-peat...
Well, it isn’t a credit to you, Paul - that’s true! The Knicks were a cyclone in ‘97, and the only person who could stop them, that year, turned out to be Rod Thorn. I really despise that guy!
Oh, well, we’ll always have Trent Tucker’s game-changing 4-point bomb with .01 left on the clock, to send the Bulls home on a sour note. It wasn’t a title, but it was at least something sweet against that cursed franchise.
Oh, well, we’ll always have Trent Tucker’s game-changing 4-point bomb with .01 left on the clock, to send the Bulls home on a sour note. It wasn’t a title, but it was at least something sweet against that cursed franchise.
Still looking for the next Patrick Ewing...
Walt Frazer? Hello? Anyone here play like Walt? How about like Willis Reed? Maybe Earn Monroe? Nobody?!?! Yawn...
Quentin Grimes..
THE FUTURE
you heard it here first!
and, might I remind you, Chicago isn't selling many tickets these days without any substantial PG to run the team.
THE FUTURE
you heard it here first!
and, might I remind you, Chicago isn't selling many tickets these days without any substantial PG to run the team.
On a shipmodeling note, I ordered a ton of stuff today: deadeyes from Drydock and Falkonet, tiny single and double blocks, rigging line in assorted sizes, some PE, cleats and pins.
It dawned on me that I could scale the rig based on the 1:96 scale plan from the St.Phillipe monograph. That simplified things tremendously. My masting and spar plan will be proportional to that.
It dawned on me that I could scale the rig based on the 1:96 scale plan from the St.Phillipe monograph. That simplified things tremendously. My masting and spar plan will be proportional to that.
Mark, how did you order from Falconet? They are based in Russia and don't deliver to USA, currently.
Well, I didn’t order from Falconet directly. I found their 2.5MM deadeyes on Ebay, but I could only order limited quantities. So, then I also found inventory on The Crafty Sailor, where I also ordered 3.5 MM deadeyes. I just didn’t like the Amatti version of 1/2-size deadeyes. Falconet’s, once they’re stained, won’t stand out from the Drydock deadeyes.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2022
- Messages
- 282
- Points
- 128
Hello, a while I've checked that thread and it's still beautiful.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2022
- Messages
- 282
- Points
- 128
Hello, I'd like to experiment a bit on plastic card with the guns and their supports. Do the modifications you did apply to the 1669 SR too? I wonder if the difference in breadth betwee the corrected and original model are visible when compared too.
Thanks for your answers, today I might work on my quarter galleries interiors (inspired by guy M build).
Thanks for your answers, today I might work on my quarter galleries interiors (inspired by guy M build).
Hi Aurelian,
I’m unsure of which modifications you are referring to - there are a lot of them - but, I will assume you are mainly referring to the increase in width of the ship’s beam. I increased the hull width by 5/8”, at the stem. This decision was based solely on the width of one stern window + one pilaster at the counter level, thus enabling me to add the missing sixth window to each tier. This has resulted in a hull that is quite noticeably wider than the stock kit. And, while this increase in breadth is very evident at the counter level of the stern, the width at the tafferal is only about 1/8” greater than the same for the stock kit.
The reason for this is that I took the opportunity to correct the lack of tumblehome in the stock kit. If you look at the kit stern plate, the upper section is basically parallel-sided. This should not be. So, from an aesthetic sense, I corrected that particular flaw of the kit. As for whether any of these dimensional changes correspond with the known dimensions of SR 1669, they do not. If the ship’s beam was 44.5’ French pieds, upon launching, my model has a beam that scales to 48’, and possibly 50’. I can’t quite remember if the widest point was 6”, imperial, or 6 1/4”.
The only thing I can do with the Heller kit is make an impressionistic model, as opposed to one that is rigorously correct in most of its details.
I’m unsure of which modifications you are referring to - there are a lot of them - but, I will assume you are mainly referring to the increase in width of the ship’s beam. I increased the hull width by 5/8”, at the stem. This decision was based solely on the width of one stern window + one pilaster at the counter level, thus enabling me to add the missing sixth window to each tier. This has resulted in a hull that is quite noticeably wider than the stock kit. And, while this increase in breadth is very evident at the counter level of the stern, the width at the tafferal is only about 1/8” greater than the same for the stock kit.
The reason for this is that I took the opportunity to correct the lack of tumblehome in the stock kit. If you look at the kit stern plate, the upper section is basically parallel-sided. This should not be. So, from an aesthetic sense, I corrected that particular flaw of the kit. As for whether any of these dimensional changes correspond with the known dimensions of SR 1669, they do not. If the ship’s beam was 44.5’ French pieds, upon launching, my model has a beam that scales to 48’, and possibly 50’. I can’t quite remember if the widest point was 6”, imperial, or 6 1/4”.
The only thing I can do with the Heller kit is make an impressionistic model, as opposed to one that is rigorously correct in most of its details.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2022
- Messages
- 282
- Points
- 128
I'm talking about the guns diameter and their supports details, the yoghurt I gotworked well for the hull interior (modification inspiration by your build).
The inserts I made to broaden the lower and middle battery guns amount to .030 in additional barrel width. In truth, they are slightly ovoid, but after drilling out the bores, the eye really doesn’t perceive this. This was just a visual determination of what I thought I could get away with, because the stock barrels look too light. I was not carefully calculating the scale that the barrels should be, though, relative to the real guns of 1669. Sometimes, if it looks right, then it’s right enough.
For the visible gun carriages on the main deck and above, I moved the trucks a little closer to the front and back edges of the carriage, and I added representations of the iron work that holds the cheeks and the whole carriage together.
One thing that was pointed out to me, after the super-detailing phase is the fact that the barrel trunnions - the arms that extend from the barrel sides and nest in the top of the carriage - are not adequately bolstered from recoil by the abbreviated little pads they are sitting on. If I had caught this earlier, I would have modified the carriages, accordingly.
What is this modification you made to the inside of your hull?
For the visible gun carriages on the main deck and above, I moved the trucks a little closer to the front and back edges of the carriage, and I added representations of the iron work that holds the cheeks and the whole carriage together.
One thing that was pointed out to me, after the super-detailing phase is the fact that the barrel trunnions - the arms that extend from the barrel sides and nest in the top of the carriage - are not adequately bolstered from recoil by the abbreviated little pads they are sitting on. If I had caught this earlier, I would have modified the carriages, accordingly.
What is this modification you made to the inside of your hull?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2022
- Messages
- 282
- Points
- 128
I started doing that.
I’ve been off the forum, but not completely inactive. My new work table has arrived and I love it! Solid Birch. Gateleg. Six drawers of storage.
I have also taken exclusive proprietorship over my repro Lancaster County Fanback - a chair that I, alone, love.
Arrayed along the back are all of the rigging specific books I have acquired and borrowed. Among the latter are Marquardt’s tome on 18th Century rigging, as well as a reader-friendly binder expansion of Anderson’s Rigging in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, both of which were lent to me by Dan Pariser - thanks, again, Dan!
I like to use Anderson as my baseline, particularly the earlier edition, because he calls out Continental and particularly French differences. Simultaneously, I keep pace through Lees, Marquardt and the binder version of Anderson, which is actually the later edition that focusses specifically on English practice. Simultaneous to all of that, I am referencing my photo library of models to reference fair leads and really see what all of this is supposed to look like.
One model that has been particularly helpful as a reference is the following of L’Ambiteaux, in 1:96. The photography expands in high definition and you can really see where it all leads to. The full-site version has many more pictures than the mobile version:
https://www.modelships.de/Ambitieux/Photos_Ambitieux.htm
Because my knowledge of rigging is so limited, this has always felt to me like the most daunting aspect of the build. Gradually, though, as I follow Anderson’s advice and read through the entire book before starting, I am developing a vocabulary and understanding of what all of the lines do. Slowly, I am beginning to see how to map out my belay points.
Of course, I have been the benefactor of A LOT of extra help, here, with John Ott being completely open about his sources and his own belay plan and line-scale corollaries. Michael D (72Nova) has been exceedingly gracious in sharing his rigging techniques in very small scale. And Kirill has also been exceedingly generous in sharing photographic resources and his own knowledge. Thank you to all and many others! I think, as I get into it, I will come to enjoy the rigging process. I am, nonetheless, determined to make a passably good job of it.
In the meantime, before I could strop deadeyes and fabricate chains and preventer plates, I needed to fill-in between the middle deck wales at the fore and main channel locations:
Work continues slowly on the Africa figure. I am in the process of defining shapes and volumes. All of my edge tools were pretty dull, though, so I took a little time to brighten their edges.
Little by little, we are getting there. Thanks for looking in!
Best,
Marc
I have also taken exclusive proprietorship over my repro Lancaster County Fanback - a chair that I, alone, love.
Arrayed along the back are all of the rigging specific books I have acquired and borrowed. Among the latter are Marquardt’s tome on 18th Century rigging, as well as a reader-friendly binder expansion of Anderson’s Rigging in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, both of which were lent to me by Dan Pariser - thanks, again, Dan!
I like to use Anderson as my baseline, particularly the earlier edition, because he calls out Continental and particularly French differences. Simultaneously, I keep pace through Lees, Marquardt and the binder version of Anderson, which is actually the later edition that focusses specifically on English practice. Simultaneous to all of that, I am referencing my photo library of models to reference fair leads and really see what all of this is supposed to look like.
One model that has been particularly helpful as a reference is the following of L’Ambiteaux, in 1:96. The photography expands in high definition and you can really see where it all leads to. The full-site version has many more pictures than the mobile version:
https://www.modelships.de/Ambitieux/Photos_Ambitieux.htm
Because my knowledge of rigging is so limited, this has always felt to me like the most daunting aspect of the build. Gradually, though, as I follow Anderson’s advice and read through the entire book before starting, I am developing a vocabulary and understanding of what all of the lines do. Slowly, I am beginning to see how to map out my belay points.
Of course, I have been the benefactor of A LOT of extra help, here, with John Ott being completely open about his sources and his own belay plan and line-scale corollaries. Michael D (72Nova) has been exceedingly gracious in sharing his rigging techniques in very small scale. And Kirill has also been exceedingly generous in sharing photographic resources and his own knowledge. Thank you to all and many others! I think, as I get into it, I will come to enjoy the rigging process. I am, nonetheless, determined to make a passably good job of it.
In the meantime, before I could strop deadeyes and fabricate chains and preventer plates, I needed to fill-in between the middle deck wales at the fore and main channel locations:
Work continues slowly on the Africa figure. I am in the process of defining shapes and volumes. All of my edge tools were pretty dull, though, so I took a little time to brighten their edges.
Little by little, we are getting there. Thanks for looking in!
Best,
Marc
Last edited:
.
Hi Marc,
I notice that you have already reached the artillery stage and are making gun carriages. And seeing that you have meticulously attended to every detail, would you like me to send you scans of the relevant pages from J. Boudriot's work L'Artillerie de mer. Marine française 1650–1850? Boudriot's works can be treated almost as period sources. Apart from that, perhaps you would like some general tips to make the carriages look realistic and elegant (insofar as a gun carriage can be elegant)?
.
Marc, watch the Deadeye locations on the chainplate, from the photo the furthest one forward looks to be bang in the middle of the front gunport.
Interesting in that my chainplate will be above these ports but I am modelling the later iteration.
Interesting in that my chainplate will be above these ports but I am modelling the later iteration.