is known to have sailed quite fast for her length, her 

 lines had to equal those of the Ohio; however, her 

 smaller size and other factors indicated a somewhat 

 different hull-form, with harder turn of the bilge and 

 a little less deadrise. Due to the position of the ma- 

 chinery, the effect of its weight and that of the neces- 

 sary fuel had to be considered. The midsection, or 

 cross section of greatest area, would have to have been 

 only a little abaft the paddle wheel axle to allow 

 proper trim with a minimum of ballast. It was found 

 by this criterion that the midsection of the recon- 

 structed hull was located in proportion to length in a 

 comparable manner to that of the Ohio. The run 

 could have been made about as long and easy, in 

 proportion, as that of the Ohio; likewise, the entrance 

 could have been equally well designed for sailing. 

 Probably a little ballast — stone, gravel, sand or pig 

 iron — was required under the temporary flooring of 

 the cargo holds, most of it abaft the mainmast. Some 

 ballast would normally have been placed under the 

 cabin stores, in the run. The boilers, engine, and 

 fuel weights were relatively important. To trim the 

 ship, with minimum ballast, the location of the ma- 

 chinery weights would have to have been about as 

 shown in the reconstruction drawings. It may be 

 observed that the engine and fuel weights are rela- 

 tively great for the recorded hull dimensions and 

 resultant displacement limitation, indicating only a 

 small quantity of ballast would have been employed 

 under any circumstance. 



Using the Ohio as a guide, the midsection was 

 formed to comply with the dimensions of the boilers 

 and with due regard to the small dimensions of the 

 Savannah. The result was a section having very mod- 

 erate rise of straight floor, carried farther out in pro- 

 portion to beam than in the Ohio, but with rather 

 easy turn of the bilge and moderate tumble-home in 

 the upper topsides. This section has a form found in 

 plans of some American freighting ships of 1815-1830, 

 but with slightly slacker bilge. 



The stern used in the reconstruction was the 

 "square stern and round tuck" seen in the Ohio and 

 referred to in the Savannah's register. Collins' "round 

 stern," shown in Hudson's drawing, did not come 

 into use in America until about 1824, and then in 

 naval ships only, so far as existing plans of American 

 vessels show. 



The reconstructed hull-form (figure 6) shows the 

 man's bust figurehead mentioned in the register, and 

 the supporting head and trail mouldings employed 

 in the packets and other American ships of the period. 



The figurehead may have had some relation to the 

 original or intended name of the ship prior to her 

 purchase for conversion. No detailed description has 

 been found. A ship built to the drawing would at 

 least sail well and would carry her machinery, fuel, 

 etc., as indicated in the descriptions that exist. 

 Whether or not the hull is precisely like that of the 

 original ship can never be determined until the orig- 

 inal plan, or model, is found. The proposed deck 

 arrangement is shown in dotted lines, in plan view. 



The rig shown in figure 7 is based upon Marestier's 

 sketch and his incomplete description. Since the 

 ship had long royal poles on her topgallant masts it 

 is highly probable she crossed royal yards, like the 

 later packet ships. The proportions for the length of 

 spars are based upon the masting rules given by 

 M'Kay^^ in 1839. The fore spencer gaff, used as a 

 crane for handling coal and cargo if the fore or main 

 yards were not available, may have been long enough 

 to be used also as a crane to handle the side wheels. 

 The stack and mainstays may have made the fore 

 spencer sail a nuisance, so it may not have been set 

 while the vessel had her engine. In general, aside 

 from the use of the spencers on fore and main, the 

 sail plan shown is of standard proportions and ar- 

 rangement of 1815-1825. For rigging, Darcy Lever's 

 book^^ was consulted. The drawing of the recon- 

 structed Savannah^ sail plan agrees with contemporary 

 sail plans of ships in the author's collection. The log 

 shows she set studding sails and had all the light 

 canvas of a ship of her type. 



There remain a number of matters that do not 

 directly concern the reconstruction project but which 

 are of sufficient technical importance to warrant com- 

 ment. Apparently the engine was mounted on a 

 wooden frame consisting of two large oak timbers on 

 each side, say about 10"XfO", one above the 

 other, that probably supported iron saddles in which 

 the two cylinders rested. Between each pair would 

 have been the iron track, or channel, in which the 

 ends of the crosshead travelled, along the axis of 

 the engine in elevation. These frames measured about 

 9 feet 2 inches, outside to outside, and reached from 

 the beams of the upper deck on either side of the 

 crank hatchway to abaft the mainmast on the lower 

 deck. It is probable that the fore and after ends of 

 the frame were supported by stanchions stepped on 



23 M'Kay, op. cit. (footnote 5). 



2' Darcy Lever, Sheet Anchor, 'London, 1808-1811. (Reprint, 

 Providence, Rhode Island, 1930.) 



76 



BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



