The first step in the reconstruction of the _Savannah's_ plans was to
block out the register dimensions on a scale of one-quarter inch to
the foot in a drawing and then to work out the profile, using the
_Ohio_ plan as a general guide. This produced a hull about 100 feet 9
inches in length at main rail to inside of plank, or "moulded"; 25
feet 6 inches moulded beam, allowing 3 inches for plank (as usual in a
ship of this size and date); and about 15 feet 4 inches moulded depth
at side, keel rabbet to underside of upper deck. The bulwarks were
drawn at 28 inches height. Next, the mast positions were decided by
prorating from the plan of the _Ohio_ the position of each mast from
the fore perpendicular and then modifying these positions slightly by
use of masting rules contained in M'Kay's book[20] of 1839.
Since it appears that the _Savannah_ may not have been purchased for
conversion to a steamer until near the date of her launch and because
of the lack of identification of the lithograph referred to by
Collins, the statement that the mainmast was placed farther aft than
normal was rejected. At launch her mast partners would have been in
place and the deck laid. Any alterations in the position of the
mainmast then would have made it impractical for the owners to demand
them of the builders without heavy additional expense. In addition,
the plan, as it was developed, indicated no need for such alteration.
The plan of the engine, drawn to the same scale as the profile plan,
was shifted about on the lower deck in the hull profile to determine
where the engine and side paddle wheel shaft might be located. A
little experimentation and study made it certain that the proper
location could be estimated within a foot or so, to scale, as to fore
and aft positions. The after end of the cylinder, and its piping, had
to clear the mainmast by at least 9 to 10 inches to allow removal of
the cylinder head for inspection and repair. The position of the
wheels, stack, and masts in Marestier's sketch of the ship make it
certain that the engine was on the lower deck, abaft the paddle wheel
shaft. Due to differences between the dimensions stated by Marestier
and in the Vail account books and what the graphic scale in
Marestier's engine drawings produce, the exact dimensions of the
engine are uncertain. Nevertheless, they can be approximated with
enough accuracy for our purpose. As a result of this treatment, it
seems fully apparent that the engine was abaft the paddle wheel shaft,
with frame extending abaft the mainmast on the lower deck; there does
not appear to be a practical alternative in the light of the available
evidence. This matter will be referred to again.
The size of the cylinder and its valve chest and the inclined position
of the cylinder indicate conclusively that the valve chest was in the
mainhatch, which would normally be just forward of the mainmast. Even
then, the after flange of the cylinder would just clear the lower
deck, allowing 6 feet between decks, as in the _Ohio_. The cylinder
would have been about 6 feet long; the graphic scale indicated 6 feet
3 inches. The diameter of the cylinder plus height of valve chest
seems to have been 5 feet 9 inches to 6 feet. Because of the use of
the crosshead and a connecting rod, pivoted at crosshead, the
oscillating rod (or pitman) and piston together equalled twice the
stroke plus allowance for stuffing box, crosshead, and pitman
bearings. Therefore, the engine's over-all length, from head of
cylinder to the centerline of the side paddle wheel shaft, could not
have been much less than 15 feet 9 inches, and probably as much as 16
feet 2 inches, thus making the length at extreme clearance of crank
throw as much as 19 feet. These dimensions indicate that the
centerline of the side paddle wheel shaft must have been from 38 to 39
feet from the forward perpendicular. It is not clear how the wheel
shaft was mounted in the vessel. Taking into consideration her depth
and her reported draught, light and loaded, the Marestier sketch, and
the hull structure then used, it seems reasonable to place the
centerline of the shaft (which seems to have been about 7 to 8 inches
square) about 12 inches above the upper (or spar) deck to allow proper
dip of the blades. This position would have given proper blade
immersion at the mean draught of 13 feet.
In order to get the engine below deck, and to get the boiler or
boilers placed, it was necessary to cut a large opening in the two
decks. It may be assumed 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 6-1/2
feet high at firebox. The form might be the same as that of _Fulton
the First_, illustrated in the translation of Marestier's report.[21]
However, since the Russian descriptions[22] indicate there were two
boilers, each measuring 6 feet in diameter and 27 feet in length, the
two boilers would have reached past the mainmast 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
description is accepted, there would have been a need for longer fuel
(coal) spaces in the wings.
The boilers, then, were the largest piece of equipment to be passed
through the decks; for this an opening (estimated to have been about
10-1/2 feet wide and 8-1/2 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 10-1/2 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 dimensions 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
condenser 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 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 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 _Savannah_. 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 steamboats of 1818-1828, and this form of boiler is shown
in a number of Marestier's drawings. In general descriptions, "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 specifically 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
indicated 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 dimensions
established for the reconstruction, as the drawings 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 approximated 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 reconstruction. 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, Marestier 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 11 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 outboard; 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 2-1/2 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 in Marestier's
sketch of the wheel construction. The axle, probably square in cross
section, turned only at the bearings and wrist pin. It may have been
cast in two parts, each with a crank arm, and then joined by the wrist
pin, after the latter had been turned.
The wheels, shown in much detail in Marestier's sketches of the
engine, had flanged hubs to which the pivoted arms or spokes were
bolted. The fixed arms were integral parts of the outer hubs. The
inner flanges were cast with the hubs. To fold the blades, the fixed
arms were brought parallel to the rail, then the chain span between
each pair of the pivoted blades on top of the wheel was disconnected
and a pair of the blades, each way, were dropped on top of the fixed
arms, or blades, and lashed there. The wheel was then given a
half-revolution and the process repeated. The wheel could then have
been unshipped from the hub by sliding it off the square shaft end
after removing, let us suppose, a bolt or pin in the hub. Some
writers, like Collins, refer to a "jointed" or "hinged" axle, but
Marestier makes no mention of such an arrangement; indeed, his sketch
makes a "broken" axle impractical. The wheels could have been removed
from the axle and lifted aboard by use of tackles from the main yard
ends, or from a fore spencer gaff if it were made long enough.
However, as stated in the Russian description, the pivoted blades were
removed and stowed aboard, leaving only the two fixed arms in a
horizontal position outboard. This is a far more convenient treatment
than unshipping the whole wheel, as might be supposed from logbook
mention of "shipping" or "unshipping" the wheels.
There remain some other matters to be explored. The ship was fitted
with 32 passenger berths in staterooms. The passenger accommodations
for first class passengers in the early (1820-1830) packets were aft,
on the lower deck. The berths would have been about 6 feet 2 inches
long, and 2-1/2 feet wide. With berths placed athwartships and
allowing for cabin bulkheads, there would have remained a space at
least 10 to 12 feet wide down the centerline of the ship. This space
would have provided space for a mess table and a lounge area. Each
stateroom would then have been about 7 feet long fore and aft and
could have contained four athwartship berths. The space available
abaft the middle of the after cargo hatch would have allowed four
staterooms on each side and room at the extreme stern for a small
master's cabin, with toilets on each side. The cabin of the mates and
stewards, containing two berths each, would then have been about
abreast of the fore end of the after cargo hatch.
The galley would have been on the lower deck, just abaft the foremast
and forward of the fore cargo hatch. Food would have been carried aft
along the lower deck to the cabin, by way of passages on either side
of the engine frame. Cabin stores would have been in the hold below
the passenger accommodation, and here food, water, and other stores
would have been kept. A small cargo space, say of about 1,500 to 2,500
cubic feet, depending on bunkers, would have been possible in the
after hold. A fore cargo hold of about 1,000 to 1,500 cubic feet of
contents could be expected; forward of this would have been sail
locker, spare rigging gear, and a cable tier. On the lower deck, above
these spaces, a forecastle might have had berths for 12 to 14 men. The
cables and chain would be passed through the forecastle to the cable
tier below by chutes leading from cable scuttles in the upper deck
abaft the windlass on each side of the centerline of the ship.
The upper deck, abaft the mainmast, was reserved for use of the
passengers and officers of a packet. The low, 28-inch bulwarks were
insufficient to give proper protection there, so they were increased
by employing a 16-inch rail made of a cap supported by iron stanchions
above the main rail. This rail was closed in by a tarred netting
extending from the main rail upward to the quarter-deck rail cap and
running from the mainmast aft to the stern. This is plainly shown in
Marestier's sketch of the _Savannah_ as well as in some portraits of
early packet ships.
Though the passenger accommodations described were far from palatial
by modern standards, they were considered adequate in the 1820's and
for almost 15 years afterwards. The staterooms had no individual
toilets. Usually there were two small toilets, one on each side of the
stern cabin, at the extreme stern on the lower deck, in the quarters.
Usually the master's stateroom and toilet were to starboard, with a
public space and toilet to port. Sometimes toilets for the crew were
placed forward, on either bow abaft the catheads on the upper deck.
These were small cabinets accommodating one person each, and with the
door closed for privacy there was not room to stand. To enter the user
backed in, crouching. Such cabinets are not shown by Marestier, so
probably the crew used the headrails, as then was usual in merchant
vessels.
The hull-form to be chosen had to enclose all spaces that have been
described or listed. Since the _Savannah_ 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 machinery, the effect of its
weight and that of the necessary 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 reconstructed 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 machinery weights would have to have been
about as shown in the reconstruction drawings. It may be observed that
the engine and fuel weights are relatively 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
moderate rise of straight floor, carried farther out in proportion 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.
[Illustration: Figure 6.--Reconstruction of the hull lines and general
arrangement of the _Savannah_.]
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 original
plan, or model, is found. The proposed deck arrangement is shown in
dotted lines, in plan view.
[Illustration: Figure 7.--Reconstructed drawing of spar and outboard
profile of the _Savannah_. Dotted lines indicate working sails.
Standing rigging only is shown. Royal yards were set flying and were
crossed only when the ship was under full sail, never at anchor.
Notes.
All Masts, dia. = 1" for each 3'-0" of length.
3/4 dia. at trestletrees, 1/2 dia. at cap. Bowsprit same as mainmast,
Jibboom dia. = 1" for each 3'-0" of length, Flying Jibboom dia. = 1"
for each 5'-0" of length.
Pole 1/2 dia.
Yards, dia. = 1" for each 4'-0" of length, 1/2 or 3/7 dia. at end of
arms. Royal Yards, dia. = 1" for each 5'-0" of length.
Tops, fore & main, = 4/9 beam of ship, mizzen, 3/4 main top width.
Topmast crosstrees 3/5 of respective tops.
Trestletrees, depth = 11/12 of heel of topmast, thickness = 1/2 depth,
length = 1/2 width of top.