and depth of the hull. To place the shaft below or 

 through the lowest clamp member would require the 

 shaft centerline to be at least 3 feet below the upper 

 deck, and this would contradict Marestier. These 

 questions indicate the importance of a scaled drawing 

 when deciding arrangement in the reconstruction of 

 a ship under the circumstances existing in the Savan- 

 nah. Some models have been built with the shaft 

 below deck by disregarding the structural and 

 dimensional objections just outlined. 



The question of the number of boilers originally was 

 raised by Braynard. A single boiler with double 

 flues was a common boiler design in American steam- 

 boats of 1818-1828, and this form of boiler is shown in 

 a number of Marestier's drawings. In general de- 

 scriptions, "boiler" and "boilers" are often used 

 interchangeably, and this probably came about 

 through confusion over the number of flues. A 

 "single boiler, double flues," would thus become 

 "boilers," apparently. The Russian description spe- 

 cifically states there were two boilers, and gives specific 

 dimensions; though these probably are not exact. 

 Either a single boiler with double flues, or double 

 boilers, each with a single flue, could have been fitted 

 in the reconstruction. However, fuel space is affected 

 and, with double boilers, the cross-sections of the 

 bunkers are reduced to about 20 square feet each; 

 therefore, the bunkers would have to become much 

 longer. It may be said that the boiler capacities in 

 relation to dimensions of the steam cylinder as indi- 

 cated in the Russian description far exceed those 

 given by Marestier. As a practical matter of ship 

 design, it seems that the single boiler would have been 

 a more logical fitting than double boilers. The boilers 

 were apparently of copper, and expensive. However, 

 this matter does not affect the hull-form and dimen- 

 sions established for the reconstruction, as the draw- 

 ings proved. The Russian description does show that 

 the cargo space was extremely small and practically 

 nonexistent, indicating the effect of the large boiler 

 capacity. 



All requirements that have been given can be ap- 

 proximated for space necessary in the hull. It is 

 established that the ship carried about 75 tons of coal 

 and 25 cords of wood. The coal would take up from 

 about 1,700 to 1,850 cubic feet of space, and because 

 of its weight it would have to be bunkered alongside 

 the boilers in the lower hold, where there would be 

 ample room, in the reconstruction, for two bunkers, 

 each in excess of 30 square feet in cross section and 

 about 28 feet in length for a single boiler; one third 



more bunker space, in length, would be required for 

 double boilers. Such bunkers would together hold 

 about the required tonnage or cubic footage. The 

 cord wood would have required, say, two bunkers 

 each of about 60 square feet in cross section and 20 to 

 24 feet in length. Because of the light weight, the cord 

 wood could have been stowed in the wings on the 

 lower deck. There is room for the required stowage 

 on the lower deck in the reconstructed hull, leaving 

 ample passages under either side of the engine frame. 



Marestier shows the location of the stack as being 

 abreast the buckets on the forward side of the paddle 

 wheels, and it has been so placed in the reconstruc- 

 tion. The deckhouse shown in Marestier's sketch 

 extends from a little forward of the mainmast to a 

 little forward of the paddle wheel axle. Probably 

 this house actually covered the main hatch and the 

 crank-connecting-rod hatchway; therefore, Mares- 

 tier shows it too short. In the reconstruction, the 

 deckhouse works out as between 17 and 18 feet long. 

 Its width can only be guessed at, but it probably 

 would have been as wide as the opening cut in the 

 upper deck for machinery — say 1 1 feet. Perhaps this 

 house contained the engineer's stateroom and that of 

 his assistant, as well as a ladderway to the engine room. 

 Doors on the sides of the house gave access to these 

 spaces and to the inboard shaft bearings. Bunker 

 hatches were probably forward of the house and out- 

 board; these are taken as being about 2 feet 6 inches 

 wide and 3 feet 6 inches long — large enough to allow 

 coal baskets to be lowered through them, as well as to 

 allow cord wood to be passed below. 



A fidley hatch, in which the stack passed through 

 the upper deck, would have been a square hatch 

 forward of the deckhouse. This hatch, about 2% to 

 3 feet square, would have been fitted with an iron or 

 iron-bound fidley grating, with solid cover over. The 

 stack could have been swivelled, to bring the elbow 

 to leeward. The upper portion of the stack probably 

 overlapped the lower portion at least 3 to 4 feet above 

 the fidley coaming, and the upper stack rested on a 

 collar bearing at the bottom of the overlap. Perhaps 

 straps were bolted to the side of the upper stack to 

 take heaving bars athwartships, by which two men 

 could rotate the upper stack to turn the elbow to 

 leeward. 



The bearings of the paddle wheel axle were perhaps 

 four in number. Two, one either side of the crank, 

 may have been secured to the engine frame just inside 

 the deckhouse walls. Two were certainly outboard, 

 one on each side, fastened to the topsides, as shown 



74 



BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



