Heller Soleil Royal (WIP)

Ditto on the knee.

As for the ends of the boards, agree ackward but maybe an end trim piece.

I'm not sure I quite get the Jacquard reference (maybe the dreaded "computerized spelling corrector" has struck again), but I think the areas in question are the port and starboard edges of the beakhead bulkhead. (Yes,  oh omniscient I-phone, "beakhead" is one word.) I agree: unless they eventually get covered up by other parts, making grooves to represent the edges of the planks at their very ends would be a small but simple improvement.

My personal tool of choice would be a triangular or knife-edged needle file.

The knee of the head looks fine. I agree: the original probably had some carved scrollwork on it, but the omission isn't noticeable.

Thanks, guys!

I didn't even consider the edges of the bulkhead...might go ahead and add some detail there.

Though I wonder if Rob was talking about the inner/upper part of the beakhead (?)...above the knee (?)...I just notice now that the  surfaces of that part are smooth all around, while the lower part (the stem, etc.) has grain and planking detail.

Also, I may be wrong, but I get the feeling Rob's "Jacquard" may have been a play on "awkward"...clever!  Or, maybe it was a rogue auto-correct!  

I have a question:  Does anyone know how the Rack Blocks are supposed to attach to the gammoning?  On the instructions it looks like they are just glued to the outside of the upper gammoning...but it seems like they would appear to just *hover* there if I just glue them on like a badge...are they supposed to be incorporated into the ropes of the gammoning somehow??  Probably not a big deal, but I just wondered...

Tonight I'll be working on those (rack blocks), and getting things ready to test/dry-fit the upper bulwarks...

Again, thanks everybody for your compliments and suggestions.  :)

Dave

It looks to me like the ends of several of those planks on the beakhead bulkhead are going to be covered up by the cathead. You'd only have to file the edges on the lowest four or five.

Don't create unnecessary work for yourself, though. Those extravagant bow decorations (what you've built so far is the tip of the iceberg) are going to conceal a lot of structural stuff.

There also seem to be "edgeless" planks on the small portion of deck that sticks out under the beakhead bulkhead. They might not be worth fussing over; that part may well be hidden by the remaining bow structure.

That chunk of the knee right under the bowsprit probably would be one big piece of timber. Heller left off the "grain," but I question whether that would be worth fixing. It'll be barely visible on the finished model.

I'm afraid I don't remember about the rack on the gammoning. I couldn't find a reference to it in a quick look at Dr. Anderson's book; maybe it's there, but I didn't find it. As I remember (beware my memory), it handles a bunch of lines coming inboard from the spritsail topsail. Maybe a photo of the kit parts would jog my memory. (This, incidentally, is precisely the sort of detail that the Heller designers might reproduce without understanding it.)

Hi,

I am no expert and I don't want to add to any confusion, but I think Anderson's book used the model "Louis XV" from the Musee de la Marine in Paris as a basis (or maybe the drawings of this model in "Souvenirs de la Marine").  You can see a couple of images of this model in the "pdf documentation" of the second Ancre volume about the museum's models

ancre.fr/.../39-modeles-historiques-au-musee-de-la-marine-tome-2.html

I don't know how reliable this model is.

You are making a fine job of this model! :)

According to the instructions, the rack of blocks are glued to the forward upper gammoning. That of course makes absolutely no sense.

mediaharmonists.de/soleilvictory.html

Too bad the museum modelers never got that far.

There seems to be something missing that most somewhat more contemporary (to the late 17th/ early18th Century) ships had- a grating or plank from the fore deck out to the bowsprit over which the sailors could run to serve the sails. Getting fifty guys out over the rigging that Heller suggests; would be quite a hair raising affair.

Such a feature would render this all moot.

After spending a good part of the afternoon (happily) looking on line at umm, models of ships from the same period or close, very common practice seems to be to take the lines, sheets, etc. directly back from the spritsail clews etc. and tie off at the rail. That's what I would do, Dave.

I think those racks of blocks (or, more correctly, sheaves) are right. I've seen them on quite a number of other seventeenth-century models, and I think I remember putting them on my SR those many years ago. Here's a fine example albeit an English one -  from the Naval Academy Museum:But Heller's method of attaching them is obviously silly.

I think I recall a simple system of lashing them to the gammoning, using one lashing between each pair of sheaves. I'll do a little more digging and see if I can confirm that. It might require sliding the horizontal lashing of the gammoning down a little, but that shouldn't be hard.

That horizontal, flat grating sticking out from the forecastle deck to the bowsprit (it's sometimes called the marines' walk) is, I'm pretty sure, an eighteenth-century innovation. On a seventeenth-century ship-of-the-line I think Heller's arrangement, with the grating  under the bowsprit and reachable via the ladders on the beakhead bulkhead, probably is about right.

That German model is nice (certainly better than the one I built), but the modeler didn't fix either the quarter galleries or that gaping hole in the knee of the head. Or, for that matter, the height of the waterline. I like his in-progress Victory a lot better.

Dave, you really need to make a trip to Annapolis. Tell your wife a creaky old retired university professor said so - in the unlikely event that that will do any good. Annapolis is less than an hour from Washington, where there are endless things for the whole family to do.

John, your excellent photo shows a possible solution to the puzzle.

Of all of the lines tied off in various ways, on your picture the inner group go down to those racks and thence forward. Since they end up parallel to the bowsprit and mast, I'd wonder if they are lifts. The outer groups on each side go straight out to the business end of things, which fits with what I was seeing on the other models as well.

On the Heller model, the inner group go down to a ring over the top of the spar, through holes w/o sheaves apparently, then forward. The outer groups go down to those racks. That puts a lot of tangential force on a fixed fore/aft sheave.

I'll certainly say that your model makes more sense to me.

Need to go to a museum soon.

For heaven's sake don't think of it as my model! It's a priceless, late-seventeenth or very early-eighteenth century contemporary "Board Room" model.

I have a feeling that most of the lines leading through that rack are coming from the spritsail topsail and its yard. All of the running rigging of that spar and sail has to go alongside the bowsprit, and be set up to handle from the forecastle deck.

The big problem with model photographs, of course, is that unless they're taken from a considerable distance you can't see both ends of a line in one picture.

You do have a copy of Anderson's The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, don't you? Take a look at pp. 227-230. (I'm assuming you've got the Norton paperback edition.) There he talks about lines leading inboard via the long gammoning blocks, as he terms them.

For the moment, of course, all this is pretty much moot. If I were you I'd lash the gammoning blocks to the gammoning, and leave the rest until you've got the hull finished and the spars up.

Several illustrated catalogs of the Rogers collection at Annapolis have been published, and several are available at  bargain prices over the web. Unfortunately all the photos in those catalogs are black-and-white. What we really need is a big, oversized coffee table book, with lots of color photos, supplemented by essays from curators and conservators. I've heard faint vibes that such a book is in the works, but I know no more about it than that. In the meantime, any American modeler who's even slightly interested in ship models needs to make the pilgrimage to Annapolis.

That French model that Cerberus kindly linked us to apparently represents the Louis XV, and thus can't be trusted as a source for details of the Soleil Royal.  The SR was launched in 1670. Louis XV reigned from 1715 through 1774. Wrong century. But a magnificent model.

For heaven's sakes don't confuse me with Dave! He's far more knowledgeable than me.  All pretty interesting stuff.

Haha!

This is interesting stuff!

Yes, I do have Anderson's book....in fact, I was just going through it (at the exact pages you mentioned!) and saw his brief mentioning of the gammoning rack.  Cross-referencing with Mondfeld, who mentions this piece as a Rack Block, I found the info I needed...Mondfeld describes it as being lashed to the gammoning, which agrees with your suggestion, John...my plan is to lash it to the gammoning at each point between the sheaves of the block....should be easy-peasy.  And it will look like it's ACTUALLY attached :)

GM's mention of another part (a ring over the top of the bowsprit spar, with holes in it) is also referenced in Mondfeld, who calls it a Fairlead Saddle, and says that it REPLACED the rack block??  But it's only a quick note about it, so I can't tell if he means it is specifically replaced for the rigging ropes from that paragraph...either way, I'll keep both the fairlead saddle and the long gammoning block on the SR, and run whichever lines I can determine are appropriate based primarily from Anderson...

I've just oiled up the long blocks, so they'll need a couple days to cure before I lash them on.

Meanwhile, I may spend some time in the next day or so test-fitting the upper bulwarks and stern.

BUT, it's much too nice of a day to spend any time at the worktable right now!  Got some work to do in the vegetable garden...

By the way, I keep hearing about Annapolis...I think I really do need to take a trip out East....here's a good quote from today's burst of conversation:

"a creaky old retired university professor said so"....

Funny Stuff!

Dave

A half-day's drive from Annapolis is the Mariners' Museum. You'd get a real charge out of my old nemesis, the  Crabtree Collection. I got thoroughly sick of those models, but there's no denying that they're amazing examples of the model builder's art.

If you do make a trip east, let me know. I may well be able to meet up with you.

Hi,

Although the model is called "Louis XV", it actually predates that king and is from the reign of Louis XIV.  I forget the story behind it now, but certainly this model (any model) should be treated with an element of caution.  Many have been rigged and re-rigged over the years.

I always thought the grating that ran from the focsl to the bowsprit on late 18th C ships like "Victory" was a sentry post rather than for easy access to the bowsprit for the crew.

The naval archives of France have been notoriously messed up for years - at least according to British and American researchers. I have the impression that the administrators have made a lot of progress in the past few years, but a model labeled with an impossible name doesn't surprise me much.

I also think there's a huge mass of information about French nautical technology that only French experts know about. Those people probably think our haggling over the details of the SR are pretty funny.

jtilley

I also think there's a huge mass of information about French nautical technology that only French experts now about. Those people probably think our haggling over the details of the SR are pretty funny.

Many many years ago, probably when I was in my early teens, Mom was impressed enough by my work on the big Revell Connie that she brought home another plastic ship model. It was one of these big Heller French beasts, I don't recall which. I managed to glue it together, but was confounded by the ratline loom operation and gave it up.

Somewhere in the stash is a kit of the Pourquoi Pas?

Why not...

Dave..this is the  example that I am talking about.  Note the stern planking....the area where it buts against the side planking.....needs addressing...and that by way of scribing the end of each planking so that it resolves as a real piece of wood might.

Your weathering is awesome by the way.  I hope you see what I was talking about.

Rob

Ah, I see what you mean...the aft end of the hull, where the planking of the side meets the stern plate...that edge of the material has no planking detail.  Makes sense now.  For some reason I thought you were talking about something in the bow area.  :)

Well, I decided to get the Bulwarks and stern glued on last night.  They were a particular pain in the butt...trying to get it all lined up was tricky.  Many clips and rubber bands!  I used the unfinished upper deck parts in place to help keep everything at the angle it should be.  And there's still a gap in between the front-and-rear bulwark pieces where the connect at the waist.  One of my pet peeves is a model in which the parts don't fit correctly.  I can look past things like ejector pin marks (most of the time), but when the actual parts don't fit with each other....yuck.  Oh, well...I made it work okay. 

Here's a few pics with the upper works on. I have some touch up painting to do (some blue and some gold), and then I'll be installing the main deck guns.

Dave

Quick Question:

I'm about to start installing some of the main deck guns.  Recall that I'm keeping Starboard guns run in with ports closed (on all the lower decks), and all Port guns run out, with ports open.  For the main and upper decks, should I still run them out/in per side, even if there are no gunports to have open/closed per side?  Not sure if my question makes sense?  Just wondered if it made a difference to the crew whether the guns were out or in if there's no gunports on a particular deck section?  Maybe they just left all the guns run out on upper decks, since it would increase available deck space?

Insight?  Advice?

THX

Dave

I'm no expert but I don't think so. Here's why. If the ship is cleared for battle and the guns are run out, they'd have to be loaded. That might be the practice, or partially, but it would be a problem if they weren't used.

Hi Dave.  

I think it is entirely your call.  It is what you are trying to portray and the esthetics that you are happy with.  The captain of a ship may prepare for battle and depending on the circumstances, decide on what guns are to run out.  It may only be the heavy guns on the lower decks, maybe only the upper decks, or it may only be certain stations within the gun deck itself. At times it may be all the guns on the starboard or larboard sides only or in the extreme cases as at Trafalgar, the Victory broke the line with all her guns run out. You may want to view the build as two ships when you view her.  I have a couple of models in my collection that are built with one side bristling with all the guns run out ready for battle, and then the flip side, the alternate side with all the guns in and secured, ports closed looking sleek and beautiful.

If the ship has been cleared for action and the guns have been loaded and run out, yes there would be a problem with the loaded canons and the guns crews will have to remove the shot and worm out the powder bags but also, by then all the interior partitions would have been struck and stored, all the mess stations would have been removed. So all those would also have to be restored.

One also has to think about the guns not run out.  There were various ways that the guns were secured. Some were lashed down in situ.  Some had the barrels elevated, with the muzzle touching the sides  above the gun ports and then lashed tight.  In some rare cases to provide as much unobstructed deck as possible, the guns were turned sideways and lashed tight against the sides.  

Again, your esthetics and your decision on what feels right.

Peter

Very good points. It's not Hollywood, where all of the guns come running out at once and boom off they go.

Well, I did some reading, and in Historic Ship Models by Wolfram Zu Mondfeld, he states that main decks at the waist, forecastle and quarterdecks rarely had any gunports (the SR doesn't) and that in most cases the guns would be kept out.  I'll take his word for it, I guess. :)

I'm not performing any lashing down of guns, and the only tackle I'm including is Breeching ropes on any visible carriages.

But I found that I miscalculated when I assembled the guns a couple months ago...I need to make 10 more guns for the aft main deck.

Dave

I think Mondfeld is right. There's really no logic to keeping a gun on a weather deck run in - since there's no portlid to keep out the water. And a run-in gun takes up deck space.

I can't recall, off the top of my head, seeing a contemporary seventeenth- or eighteenth-century model with guns run in (though I've seen plenty of them with closed gunports on the lower decks).

I'm always wary of Mondfeld's book; he tends to generalize more than he should, and he covers so much breadth that there's no room do cover much of anything in any depth. But this time I think he's right.

David,

I simply love your work.  I can't wait to see how you develop the quarter and stern galleries given that you have opened them up.  I think it's time to build another Le Soleil Royal!

Bill Morrison

Thanks a lot, Bill!  I'm glad to know that people find my work interesting...

The rear galleries should be fun...I'm planning to build a false wall out of thin styrene sheet against the hull, but I still have to figure out my plan for decorating the wall.  The Sculpy molds of the *window* decorations didn't work very well, so I'm considering other options...whatever happens, I think it'll be okay.

I wish someone else would build a Soleil Royal...it'd be great to see another one, in-progress.  

John, I agree about Mondfeld...he is a little ambitious in his scope of info, but I do find a lot of good reference material in that book.  When it comes to rigging, though, Anderson is the best source I've found.

By the way, I was just looking up airfare from Seattle to Maryland....it's actually pretty cheap to fly to Baltimore and back.  I'm seriously considering making a couple-day trip out to Annapolis (the holy pilgrimage) to check out some of the ships and models.  Maybe later this year?  I don't know if I could persuade the Lady to join me, but it would probably be a blast to check out some of that stuff...I don't get to see anything like that around here.  If it ends up that I think a trip may actually happen, I'll be sure to let the members here know about it, and anyone who lives near there would be heartily welcome to meet up for a get-together...I think that would be really, really cool.

Dave

Go and see Fort McHenry and the Constellation, the Taney, the Torsk and the lightship.

As is well known, the sailing ship is a mess, but it's always nice to see one.

There used to be a pretty interesting tank museum at Aberdeen, but i don't think it's around anymore.

Dave, please keep me posted as your plans solidify. Depending on the timing, I might be able to make it to Baltimore. We could do some constructive hanging out - and if you haven't been already, you need to be introduced to the wonders of Chesapeake Bay crabcakes.

Tell your wife tthere's plenty of fascinating stuff to be done in that neck of the woods - whether one is interested in maritime history or not.

Orioles game at Camden Yards.

Wonderful work David.  A very nice balance of the contrast between the colors.