druxey

Allan: the position would need to be clear of the shrouds, i.e. near the green arrow. The captain would be most displeased with self-destruction. So, either a timberhead was removed or re-spaced.
 
Another clue as to position would be where the deck beams beneath are placed.

This order makes perfect sense as the false keel is sacrificial. Thank you for this, Bruce.

Too true. I'm actually writing a novel on time travel using a steam powered machine. Definitely dangerous! 
 
On a more serious note, the 'blank' panel of the lower gallery is logical, as it balances another blank one on the foremost panel. 

Ok, I've averaged 4 photos:




They come out as:
2.1:1
2.0:1
2.0:1
2.1:1
 
So I'm guessing 2:1.
 
These photos are not to scale so don't read anything else in the numbers.
 
Greg, note the clearance between the prop and the hull in the last shot when considering the diameter.
 
 

Very good day today! Finished all of the planking and I'm quite happy with how it turned out.
I'm still not a fan of this planking technique and I'm ready to learn POF/POB. I'm glad I am painting this since the ends of the planks didn't turn out very good. Especially on the planks I tried to make the gain like they explained in the book. 
Somehow the planks on the stern side ended up much higher ok the stern transom than they did on the bow. I'm not sure if this is a big deal and just plan to translate the curve to where it needs to be to match the planks. 
Just realized I put the keel plank on upside down hahaha so I just drew some center lines for the skeg.
 

I found similar results when I made measurements on a number of photos. 
 
Tom - I think the shaft is proportionally longer on the 2-bladed propeller that is mounted to the No15 airplane, than on the 3-bladed used on No18 (and17). I agree that it looks much like 1:1
 
Craig - Generally, I'm getting close to a 2:1 ratio for the 3-bladed prop. Although it looked similar to a 3:2 ratio in at least one picture. I have a reference that claimed the prop diameter was 2.1 meters (~7 feet) and the first mock-up matched that figure, but it looks a bit too small to me. 
 
This is another try, with a larger diameter- closer to 2.5 meters (~8 feet) - and with a prop to shaft ratio approximately a 2:1. This one looks a bit to big to me! 

 
I've wondered about the prop diameter dimension; it was accompanied with length and width measurements of 10 meters and 6 meters, respectively. These three numbers were published in a document prepared for a Santos-Dumont exhibition - I don't have a primary reference for the propeller diameter. The same length and width were reported in an article published in Scientific American. (On the other hand, in one Scientific American article the nacelle length was reported as 1 meter which is clearly not true.) Also, the length (10m) and width (6m) are the nice round numbers one expects from Santos-Dumont. But 2.1 meters seems not to match! I can't seem to rectify the choice. I considered the possibility that the blade and shaft were each 1 meter and the .1 meter reflected a measurement associated with the spinner. But 10 cm (~4") is too big for the radius of the cone - diameter perhaps.
 
So the decision will be between the semi-documented 13cm diameter (2.1 meter) or a larger 14cm diameter (2.25m), but certainly not 15.6cm diameter (2.5m). Going to need to sleep on this one - 
 
It would have been much easier to figure out measurements and shapes if the people taking the pictures in 1907 had squared up with the hydroplane - what were these photographers thinking?!
 

Yeah, Kevin, I feel your pain. Getting the cat tails scored under the beams is very tricky.

fore cant frames done, onto the square frames...

Well done, Kevin! That's some tricky fitting.

Remember the course??? I will be working my way down over the next few weekd

Greg, I think you're pretty close. My estimation is that the shaft should come out to about the cylinder heads and that the blades are two and a bit (two and a half?) longer. 
The diameter is most probably a nice round metric number. Actually most of the measurements would be.

 
 

First propeller mock-up. This has some resemblance to the real one, but I think I'll probably need one or two more tries to really hit the shape. I think the blades need to be lengthened just a little bit ...

This was the first version of the '20' with the V8 between his legs (well almost) I think I'm doing the last version of the '20' with the water cooled twin (which I'm just starting drawing, luckily there's a patent with drawings).
He re-used everything. It makes it really hard to work out if a photo is earlier or later.

That's a real nice look at the radiators!
 
He first used these radiators on the No 15 airplane:

I don't know what was used on the dirigible No 16 for cooling, nor on the No 17 airplane (which had the V16 and the three bladed propeller that made it to the No 18 Hydroplane).
 
I don't think I noticed the radiators on the No 19 before, the belt drive always catches my attention! 
 
Greg

Log #18: Securing the Model
I am waiting on getting some new magnification this week to help with the cutting of the knee of the head. So in the meantime I am continuing work on the structure of the model.
 
The last piece of work that needs to be done before the structure is ready to assemble is the hardware for securing the model to its base. I came up with a relatively simple solution for this. Frist I marked the location for holes to be drilled in the bottom of the bulkhead and where the slots for the nuts would need to be cut out. These needed to be sufficiently high so the nuts do not stick out wider than the bulkheads at that point, but also not so high that the screw has sufficient clearance to allow for the supports and the thickness of the base.
 
You may also notice that I thinned the stern of the center bulkhead as this is easier to do now than later. It may need a little more adjustment later, but the bulk of the material has been removed.

I then carefully cut the slots with chisels a little wider than necessary to allow for some movement of the bolts to make sure the threads align. I drilled the holes with a pin vice starting with a very small drill bit and slowly increasing the size. As it is hard to drill perfectly straight, the last little bit had to be widened with a round file to make sure that the holes were centered and straight. I also found that clamps on either side of the bulkhead helped while drilling to prevent the drill bit accidentally tearing out the sides of the hole.

I then used some epoxy to secure the bolts in place making sure the screw could freely turn in them. Once the epoxy was dry I covered the whole area with a thick sawdust and wood glue mix to make sure all the gaps were filled. I may strengthen this area further once all the bulkheads are in place.

With the bolts in place I used a marker to darken the sides of all the bulkheads. This will allow me to better judge how much I have fared them when it comes time to do that. So here is the current state of affairs. Next step is to finish the keel / knee of the head and secure them to the center bulkhead.

Ciao ☺️
 
nothing is glued:

And unlike L'Unite, La Tourterelle (620 tons) fought like hell before she struck to a larger opponent. She even used a special oven to heat "hot-shot" in her defense, but it didn't help her. Lively was a rare, 18-pounder 32-gun frigate. Tourterelle's "as taken" profile with carvings is just too beautiful!

Just amazing work on those skylights.
 
Rob

Unbelievable meticulous gorgeous work, Ilhan. 

Just gets better and better, Ilhan.
 
John
 

Sheaves installed 

Catheads installed. That was brutal. I will have a lot of repairs to do to the moulding and the paint job. Easy fix its just a pain in the ace.
 

Wow! Beautifully done.

Henry: cumulative error means that the first thing one does is a tiny bit off. The next, measured from the first, is a little more off... and before you know it, everything has become way off. It's the rolling snowball effect. The only way to avoid this problem is by repeatedly re-measuring and checking things, be it a distance or an angle. With a scratch build like yours or Kevin's, it's imperative. One can't be even a bit careless and get away with it. Ask me how I know!

Henry: cumulative error means that the first thing one does is a tiny bit off. The next, measured from the first, is a little more off... and before you know it, everything has become way off. It's the rolling snowball effect. The only way to avoid this problem is by repeatedly re-measuring and checking things, be it a distance or an angle. With a scratch build like yours or Kevin's, it's imperative. One can't be even a bit careless and get away with it. Ask me how I know!