that this opening was big enough to take the cylinder, 

 without valve chest, and also the boilers, which went 

 into the hold. Taking the proportions of other 

 boilers as shown by Marestier, it has been estimated 

 that the Savannah might have had a boiler about 18 

 to 20 feet in length, 7 to 8 feet wide, and 6 to 6)^ feet 

 high at firebox. The form might be the same as that 

 of Fulton the First, illustrated in the translation of 

 Marestier's report.-' However, since the Russian de- 

 scriptions ^^ indicate there were two boilers, each 

 measuring 6 feet in diameter and 27 feet in length, 

 the two boilers would have reached past the main- 

 mast if they were located in the same manner and in 

 the same place as the boilers shown in the illustration 

 of Fulton the First. Consequently, if the Russian de- 

 scription is accepted, there would have been a need 

 for longer fuel (coal) spaces in the wings. 



The boilers, then, were the largest piece of equip- 

 ment to be passed through the decks; for this an 

 opening (estimated to have been about 10}^ feet wide 

 and 8% feet long) probably was cut through both 

 decks about 3 feet forward of the main hatch, which 

 was commonly a little forward of the mainmast. The 

 boilers could then have been lowered, after end first, 

 into the hold. The opening in the lower deck could 

 then have been closed, except for a small hatchway 

 perhaps, and the steam cylinder let down to the lower 

 deck and moved aft into position. To allow the 

 crosshead to reach its maximum travel, the opening 

 in the upper deck would have been about \Q]i feet 

 wide — the over-all width of the engine frame — and 

 would have been left open, inside the deckhouse. 



The width of the boilers might be particularly 

 important because it would determine the deadrise 

 at floor in the hull. The apparently precise dimen- 

 sions of the boilers given in the Russian description 

 were utilized to arrive at a suitable hull form. Both 

 a single boiler and a double boiler (as described in 

 the Russian accounts) were placed in the hull to 

 assure the correct space estimates. 



Since the engine, as shown by Marestier, had an 

 air-pump cylinder alongside the steam cylinder (with 

 the pistons of both attached to the crosshead), it is 

 evident that a condenser was employed. This con- 

 denser would not have been much larger than the 

 air-pump cylinder. It may have been placed under 

 the side paddle wheel axle on the lower deck, but its 

 mode of operation is unknown. Possibly it was of 



" Withington, op. cit. (footnote 7), pi. 9, figs. 55, 56. 

 22 Report of Malcolm Bell, Jr., and Frank Braynard. 



the jet type, with pumps operating off the paddle 

 wheel axle and with a return of condensate from a 

 hot well into the feed water line. A number of 

 possibilities could be mentioned, all speculative. 

 However, there was no doubt that this equipment 

 could be properly installed in the reconstructed hull, 

 either on the lower deck or in the hold. 



Two questions have been raised as to machinery 

 arrangement — whether the engine, and boilers also, 

 might have been forward of the wheel shaft, and 

 whether the wheel shaft was above or below deck. 

 If the engine were placed forward of the wheel shaft, 

 the wheels might be farther aft than is proposed in 

 the reconstruction. However, the smokestack could 

 not then be forward of the wheel shaft as shown by 

 Marestier because it would have had to pass through 

 the engine frame, thus interfering with the movement 

 of the large crosshead. If the engine were abaft the 

 wheel shaft, the stack could have been only as shown 

 by Marestier. The boilers might then have been 

 forward of the wheel shaft only if the stack were at 

 the end away from the firebox. However, the length 

 of the boilers as indicated by the Russian description 

 would then have required them to pass through the 

 bows! 



Models have been built of the Savannah in which 

 the engine and boilers are forward of the paddle 

 wheel shaft, and the shaft below the main deck. 

 This was accomplished by placing the engine off 

 center so that the stack came through the decks 

 alongside it. This is an impractical arrangement 

 because it would have created an impossible ballasting 

 problem. The weight of the engine, to port in the 

 models, would have to have been counteracted by 

 ballast to starboard. Due to the coal bunkers, and 

 the possibility of two boilers below the engine in the 

 hold, there would not have been room for sufficient 

 ballast. In addition, were such ballasting possible, 

 the combined weights were too far forward to give 

 proper trim, and a great deal more ballast would have 

 been required far aft, a most impractical proceeding. 



The position of the wheel shaft was determined as 

 described earlier. The ship was apparently well- 

 advanced in construction at the time of purchase. 

 Her clamps and shelves supporting her upper deck 

 beams, which then would have been in place, were 

 important strength members. In reconstructing, to 

 place the wheel shaft below these members would 

 not only bring the engine nearly level — it is described 

 and shown inclined by Marestier — but also would 

 immerse the paddle blades too deeply for the draft 



PAPER 21: THE PIONEER STEAMSHIP SAVANNAH: A STUDY FOR A SCALE MODEL 



73 



