I really - really - don't want to get embroiled in another argument about this kit. I've said what I have to say about it (I'm one of its non-admirers), and, since I haven't actually had my hands on an example of it for at least thirty years, I'm not in a position to make any detailed comments on it beyond those I've already made. I do think, though, that it's worth clarifying - to the extent that it's possible - the relationships between (a) the real ship, (b) the unfinished model in the Musee de la Marine, and (c) the Heller kit.
I think it's been firmly established that the Musee de la Marine model was built in the nineteenth century; it isn't contemporary with the real ship. It disagrees in quite a few significant respects with the contemporary (or near-contemporary) drawings and paintings of the ship's bow and stern that we discussed earlier in this thread. (Most conspicuously, the model has fewer transom windows in each row than any of the drawings.) There is, in other words, good reason to wonder just how accurate the Musee de la Marine model is.
Quite some time ago our good Forum friend michelvrtg, from Belgium, established (via an acquaintance of his who was working on a book about the history of Heller) that the Heller designers had in fact worked from something called a "bakelite model" built by a modern modeler, apparently on the basis of the Musee de la Marine model. Just what that "bakelite model" was (or why anybody would make a ship model out of bakelite) I don't know - nor do I know how closely it actually resembled the Musee de la Marine model.
I can't comment intelligently about the proportions of the Heller kit relative to the Musee de la Marine model, because I don't have the Heller kit in front of me. I do remember that when I built mine (that was a long time ago) I came to the conclusion that the underwater hull was seriously distorted; that the model overall looked ludicrously topheavy. I'm not in a position to comment beyond that.
One point about the hull form that I do remember quite clearly: the Heller kit (assuming one accepts the location of the molded waterline) has a considerable amount of drag in its keel. That is, if the molded waterline is horizontal, the keel at the bow is slightly but noticeably higher off the baseboard (on which the model is sitting) than it is at the stern. I found that out the hard way when I carefully turned a pair of identical brass pedestals for my model and discovered that, when the hull was mounted on them, the bow drooped. It's a little hard to tell from the photo Bill posted, but it sure looks to my eye as though the keel of the MM model is parallel to the waterline.
The big, obvious discrepancy between the kit and the MM model is, as Bill noted, in the quarter galleries. (Frankly, that mistake alone would have been enough to keep me from buying the kit, if I'd known about it.) It's interesting to speculate about how that goof happened - and when in the process it happened. Somebody, at some time, apparently designed the quarter galleries on the basis of a photograph of the MM model taken from the side. Was the culprit one of the Heller designers? Or the builder of the "bakelite model"? We'll probably never know. At any rate, there's little room for argument: it's a mistake.
Many of the other problems with the Heller kit probably stem from the fact that the MM model was never finished. That probably explains the ridiculous hole in the knee of the head, behind the figurehead. And the lack of deck furniture. And...oh, well, never mind.
One big question about this subject continues to nag my poor old brain. Every discussion of this kit - and this ship - that I've encountered has been in either an English-language hobby magazine or an English-language web forum. I'm aware that a vast amount of high-quality research and writing on maritime subjects has appeared in the French language in recent years - in books and journals that rarely make it to the United States. I'm sure French scholars and ship modelers have studied the Soleil Royal in great detail, and I suspect those people have unearthed a great deal of information about her that American (and British) modelers haven't seen. I have, for instance, encountered a few slightly cryptic references to contemporary plans of the Soleil Royal. If such documents exist, they may either vindicate Heller or confirm my contention that the kit is...well, never mind. In any case, I have a strong suspicion that our Forum discussion of the kit's accuracy has been operating in the absence of some crucial, basic information - and that some French researchers and modelers may be laughing at us for arguing about issues that they resolved a long time ago.
Too long as usual. But let me repeat two points that I feel obligated to make every time I discuss this subject. One - I sympathize completely with anybody who, in view of the tiny number of large-scale plastic sailing ship kits, decides this one is worth building despite its flaws. (It is, after all, the only good-sized plastic seventeenth-century sailing warship kit on the market.) Two - I don't contend that, because I personally think a particular kit is a piece of...well, never mind, other modelers shouldn't build it. To each his/her own. I just think modelers have a right to go into a major project - and a major purchase - with their eyes open.