Soleil Royal

Thanks, Cody!  I sent my address by PM.

Bill

I have them.  I don't have a scanner so I'll have to send them via snail mail.  PM me your mailing address and I'll get them to you by the first of next week.

Cody

I hate to ask, but my original copy of the English instructions has been destroyed by a mouse!  Does anyone have a copy ? I will gladly pay.

Thanks!

Bill

I do. Send me a mailing address and I'll send them.

Hello there, not sure if you still have copies of the English translation. Please let me know if you do? Thank you

   Bill I have just sent a e-mail with my mailing address to you,thanks again. I just want to thank you and Jeff for the help in getting me started back into ship modeling once again. It is great to see that people are out there that will help steer you in the right direction. This forum is a great place to meet and talk to people with the same interest.I only hope that I to can return the same help to some one else. I may not have the knowledge on ship building, but I now have the time to learn hopefully. So thank you again and am looking forward to reading more posting about the Soleil Royal         Fran

I have both the English and the French instructions, and I am willing to send you a copy.

Bill

 I saw your post and I would realy love to get a copy of the english instruction of the Soleil Royal.I started this ship ship model after being out of modeling for some 40 or more years.I am now retired and have some time to enjoy building this sailing ship. My mailing address is             As you can see I am still Trying to master this computer with the one finger hunt & peck . Thank you again for this help, and if you inclose your address I well send you some picture of yhe build as it go along. If you need to EMAIL them my EMAIL is fmaloney118@comcast.net

Cerberusjf,

Thanks for the picture of the Le Protecteur!  It helps!  And, I will look at those deck plans of the Louis XV.  Right now I am in the discussion phase of some loose ideas to improve the deck furniture of the model.  I appreciate any ideas anyone can give!

Bill

I completely agree, the lack of deck furniture is not terrible.  It's probably unknown exactly what deck furniture she had, so I think Heller did okay to leave it off.  It's much easier to add it than remove and correct wrong detail.  And I think blocks and tackle are better replaced on plastic kits and would have done this anyway. The only thing I would say I'm unhappy about is the hull, but I can live with it- it's still  a lovely kit.  Maybe people were disappointed that a kit with so many parts was missing detail.

But I am a little confused.  Bill, you say that the jeer capstan would be under the foc'sl, but I think it would be very visible on the foc'sl deck like in this photo of "Protecteur"

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Protecteur_mg_7255.jpg

I agree that according to the plans at least, the main capstan was out of sight under the upper gun deck.

I am not sure if the 4 pumps around the main mast were visible on the upper gun deck)or out of sight on the middle gun deck.  A deck plan show the former, a longditudinal section the latter.  I would have thought bilge water would have been better pumped out onto the upper gun deck rather than inside the ship, but maybe not?

Looking at it a bit more, I think the gratings were flush with the deck, but I think the companionways had a small coaming round them/.  When I build mine, I think I'm going to base the decks on the plans of the "Louis XV"  in Souvenirs de Marine.

To be sure, there are problems, just as there are with every kit.  The quarter galleries need to be opened, the blocks and tackle should be replaced, and the hole in the knee of the head should be filled.  But other criticisms are far overstated. It is a terrific kit of a lovely ship.

Before they had their financial difficulties, Heller was planning a 1/100 scale kit of the Royal Sovereign (ne: Sovereign of the Seas). I sincerely hope that they do so.

Bill

warshipguy

You could be right.  There is conflicting information.  Looking at the layout of the model, even the capstans would have to be placed under the fo'c'sle and quarter deck.  They would not be visible on the finished model.  This brings us back to the frequent complaint about this model . . . too little deck furniture.  Perhaps I should limit my efforts to the galley stack and the chicken coop.

Which leads me to a question; if this kit is maligned over the furniture issue, why are no other kits of ships from the same period (Royal Sovereign, Prince, etc.) not equally maligned for having precisely the same furniture limitations as Le Soleil Royal?

I sincerely believe that this kit has been unfairly criticised.  Granted, Heller provided no way to attach the yards to the masts.  But, their HMS Victory also has no way to do so, yet, these same critics proclaim it to be the finest ship kit produced!  The critics proclaim the lower hull to be mis-proportioned, yet drawings in Les Vaisseaux . . . show the same underwater hull forms and proportions on French first and second rates of the period.  Much of the criticism seems unfair and inaccurate.

Bill

You said it, Bill!  I agree.  There seems to be way too much criticism of this kit.  IMHO, it is a great kit.  Sure looks like the Soleil Royal to me..and that's good enough.

You could be right.  There is conflicting information.  Looking at the layout of the model, even the capstans would have to be placed under the fo'c'sle and quarter deck.  They would not be visible on the finished model.  This brings us back to the frequent complaint about this model . . . too little deck furniture.  Perhaps I should limit my efforts to the galley stack and the chicken coop.

Which leads me to a question; if this kit is maligned over the furniture issue, why are no other kits of ships from the same period (Royal Sovereign, Prince, etc.) not equally maligned for having precisely the same furniture limitations as Le Soleil Royal?

I sincerely believe that this kit has been unfairly criticised.  Granted, Heller provided no way to attach the yards to the masts.  But, their HMS Victory also has no way to do so, yet, these same critics proclaim it to be the finest ship kit produced!  The critics proclaim the lower hull to be mis-proportioned, yet drawings in Les Vaisseaux . . . show the same underwater hull forms and proportions on French first and second rates of the period.  Much of the criticism seems unfair and inaccurate.

Bill

Well, I'd be interested to know where they were,  I've only ever seen windlasses on small ships and ship's boats for this period.  I've seen several arrangements for the galley funnel too, but the galley itself I've only seen amidships on large ships.  On smaller ships I've seen the galley to one side, for example Salamandre which has it to port.

Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models does show drawings of several 17th century windlasses.  Other sources allude to their use in ships of all sizes from that period as well.  It seems logical that Le Soleil Royal would carry one; its location is problematic.

Mondfeld also shows drawings of galley stacks of the same period; several ship models and drawings show the starboard location on the fo'c'sle aft of the foremast.  Certainly, Le Soleil Royal needs one.

I have seen illustrations of gratings that were both raised and flush with the deck.  I could go either way.

Bill

Okay, I understand now, it's just personally I don't think a windlass would be on a ship on the line of that period.  Looking at the section of "Nereide" of 1724 (?) shows funnels for ovens poking through the foc'sl forward of the foremast and the galley funnel by the break of the focs'l.  (from Boudriot's "History of the French frigate") so maybe there were a similar number on a large ship like "Soleil Royal"? 

What surprises me is that the gratings are drawn flush with the deck.  Also, looking at the Pic model (1750's) the gratings are also flush with the deck.   There are other models of ships from showing the same thing.  I was leaning towards raised gratings simply on the basis that it would keep any water on deck from running down into the hull as the ship heeled.  But looking at these models and the drawing, I'm not so sure..

I saw the image in "Les Vaisseaux . . .", and I have seen other drawings of my possible location for the galley stack.  I have never seen any picture of a windlass under the break of the fo'c'sle on a ship-of-the-line, but I have seen them in that location on other ships.  Hence, my coming here with the idea.

One of the major complaints of the Heller kit is the lack of deck furniture.  Yet, I have seen no other models of ships of that era with more furniture that that provided in Le Soleil Royal.  I am simply speculating that, should I add more, these seem the most likely.

Bill

The two (not particularly satisfactory) clear plastic ones supplied with the kit are, according to the French version of the plans, supposed to go, one on the quarter deck (in a location where it would be impossible for the crew to get past) and one on the poop. English plans have them both on the poop, side by side, so the concensus appears to be the poop? Logic doesn't always apply in these cases but the quarter deck would seem to be a strange place for them, considering all the day to day activity there. One assumes they would be cleared away when the ship went into action

The model in the Musee de Marine appears to have flush gratings but one or two pictures I trawled from the internet up of wooden builds of the Soleil use raised gratings (no guarantee they are even as accurate as the Heller kit)

Searching through "Les Vaisseaux du Roi Soleil" I can find only one drawing that shows gratings, on p128, of a ship being careened (hence the advantageous viewing angle) and they are raised

I'm sure the considerably more knowledgeable contributors to the thread may well come up with the definitive answer, but in the meantime sounds like either is an option?

Rob

I would have thought the galley would be amidships at the break of the focs'l.  Not sure about the placement of the chicken coops, but they were usually on the poop in the 18thC.  I haven't seen them in 17th C. illustrations.  I haven't seen a windlass under the break of the focs'l on a 3-decker either.  Do you have any links to the images you saw by any chance?  

Gentlemen,

I am considering adding a windlass, a capstan, a galley pipe, one or two skylights, and a chicken coop to the Le Soleil Royal.  I found excellent drawings of each for late 17th century French and Dutch ships.  I would like to solicit your ideas for reasonable placements for these items.

Obviously, the galley funnel would be placed on the fo'c'sle (probably to the starboard side aft of the foremast.  I am considering the windlass to be placed under the fo'c'sle amidships just  under the break of the fo'c'sle.  I am looking for your suggestions.

I have one other issue . . . the gratings as designed by Heller sit flush with the decks.  I am considering raising them slightly.  Can I please have your thoughts?

Thanks!

Bill

Youre welcome, jeffpez!! Glad to be of service.

I received your package a few days ago and got a chance to look over the instructions last night. I certainly have to agree that they clear up rigging issues the Heller plans don't address. Thanks for sending them on and if anyone wants a set of the Imai instructions I'll gladly make a copy and send them on.

I made my offer simply as an alternative and I'm glad the smaller size is so legible. The large sheets on my plans make picking up detail easy but are also far too big and can be difficult. I have yet to see anyone on any forum compliment Heller when it comes to rigging.

RobertP

But in addition I just find Heller's method of illustrating rigging really hard work. In comparison the Revell 1:96 Constitution rigging plans, although not perfect, are a delight to use.

 

RobP

 

 

 

 

I sure agree with that!  Heller ship instructions are worthless when it comes to rigging..incomprehensible!

jeffpez, Bigb123

Please don't think I was in any way doubting your generosity which truly is nice to see

Regarding legibility of the plans, I also had my doubts (my eyesight needs a variety of aids to perform even the basic modelling functions). I printed each image on A4 (landscape, scaled to fit) and was surprised how easy to read they were (and a lot easier to handle than the double-sized pages of the originals). The print on the intro page and the data pages at the back are a little small, but still fairly reasonable)

The point you make about the rigging instructions (whichever version) is a good one. They suffer from two problems. Obviously there is the one of technical and historical accuracy. But in addition I just find Heller's method of illustrating rigging really hard work. In comparison the Revell 1:96 Constitution rigging plans, although not perfect, are a delight to use.

I wonder if any other reader of this thread who has already built the Soleil took the trouble of drawing out the rigging in a similar, easy to use style for their own purposes (perhaps even with accuracy amendments a la R C Anderson?) That would be a very desirable document indeed!

RobP

jeffpez,

You can check replies to PMs at the right side of the screen..Conversations will have  a bold black number in parenthesis when someone sends you a new one.  Thanks

I totally agree. I've mailed copies all over the world and don't mind doing it. Someone took the time to get me the instructions years ago and this is my way of repaying his kindness. I have no objection to using the web site mentioned above but should point out that the English instructions are printed on 11 X 17" paper and making them smaller for viewing on a computer will also make them harder to view (at least it does if you have eyes that are far from as young as they used to be). I'll send my address shortly and look forward to the new info. The rigging instructions are the biggest weakness of both the English plans as well as the kit in general.

I don't have access to a scanner.  But, I don't mind the extra cost and trouble, as I've been given the same help by so many others in the past when I needed it.  Just like to return the favor and help others when they are in need like I have been.

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

jeffpez and Bigb123 I get the impression that you are offering to mail out hard copies to forum members by “conventional” mail. Isn’t this going to be very expensive to you, particularly considering many members are in different countries? This was why I suggested the solution via the website – a little complex but zero cost to anywhere in the world

 Of course the best solution of all would be to get (perhaps all) of these different versions into electronic form – say in pdf files – and then uploaded to one of the many free sharing sites and a link could be posted on the forum. The problem I suppose is that not everyone has access to a suitable scanner (the plans are in rather large and unusual paper sizes, so tricky with a conventional A4 scanner)

If people are finding the Czech website I refer to above hard to access (it is a bit clunky) I could upload my jpeg images of the Englsih version plans (could be the Aurora ones) to a sharing site and post the link if it would be helpful?

RobP