In the model it was necessary to reconstruct the deck arrangements
without enough contemporary description. The outboard appearance and
hull form, rig, and arrangement of armament require no reconstruction,
for all that is of importance is shown in the lines and rig drawings, or
in the inboard profile. The masts are shown to have been stepped over
the race on the gun deck. The iron stanchions are shown in the lines
drawing and in the construction section. However, their position at the
ends of the _Battery_ are apparently incorrectly shown in the original
lines plan. The construction section shows these stanchions to have been
stepped on the inside face of the inner ceiling and, as the ceiling
structure was carried completely around the ship, the stanchions in the
ends must have been placed inboard, as along the sides. The bowsprit was
above deck and would probably be secured in the knighthead timbers at
the ends of the hull, as well as by the heel bitts shown in the Danish
lines drawing. With the riding bitts shown inboard of the heel bitts at
each end of the vessel, it is obvious that she would work her ground
tackle at both ends and would therefore require two capstans; the
wheelbox would prevent effective use of a single one. The capstans might
be doubleheaded, as in some large frigates and ships-of-the-line.
[Illustration: Figure 18.--SAIL PLAN OF FULTON'S _Steam Battery_ as
reconstructed for model in the Museum of History and Technology.]
As to the remaining deck fixtures, hatches and fittings, these must be
entirely a matter of speculation. Ladderways, passing scuttles, hatches,
trunks, galley, heads and cabins were obviously required in a fighting
ship and can only be located on the theory that, when completed, the
_Battery_ was a practical vessel.
It has been stated that the officers' cabins were over the race; the
logical place for the heads, galley, wardroom and mess also would be
over the race, giving the remaining part of the gun deck for the
necessary hatches, ladderways, trunks, etc., in the two hulls, space
required for armament, and to sling the hammocks of a watch below. As
the vessel was never fully manned, apparently, the space for hammocks is
not a serious problem in a reconstruction. If the vessel had been manned
as proposed by 500 men, hammocks for over 200 would have been required,
which would give very crowded quarters in view of the limited space
available.
Though no specific requirements were stated in the reports of the
trials, it seems reasonable to suppose that additional hatches were cut
in the decks to improve the fireroom ventilation. In the reconstruction
drawings, these hatchways as well as the other deck openings and deck
fittings--such as bilge pumps, companionways, skylights, binnacles,
wheels and wheel-rope trunks, cable trunks, steampipe casings, and stack
fiddleys--have been located in an effort to meet the imagined
requirements of the working of a ship of this unusual form.
[Illustration: Figure 19.--MODEL OF _Steam Battery_ in the Museum of
History and Technology. (Smithsonian photo 63990-E.)]
[Illustration: Figure 20.--LINES OF STEAMER _Congo_, built in 1815-1816
for the British Admiralty and converted to a sailing survey vessel. From
Admiralty Collection of Draughts, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.]
There are some unanswered questions that arose in the preparation of
the reconstruction drawings. As has been shown, the original inboard
arrangement plan found in Copenhagen shows four smokestacks, while
Marestier's sketch of the vessel's boilers shows trunked flues
indicating that two stacks were used. It is possible that the boilers
were first fitted so that four stacks were required; alterations made as
a result of steaming trials may well have included the introduction of
trunked flues and the final use of two stacks in line fore-and-aft. This
would have required a rearrangement of the fiddley hatches amidships.
Another troublesome question was the doubtful arrangement of the four
companionways on the spar deck. Perhaps only two were fitted, one on
each side of the officers' staterooms while the ladderways at the crew's
end of the ship were simple ladder hatches.
The decision to use four bilge pumps is based upon the lack of drag in
the keel of the hulls, which would prevent accumulation of bilge water
at one end of the hull. The use of four single-barrel pumps instead of
four double-barrel pumps may be questioned, for chain pumps requiring
two barrels would have been practical.
Allowance for stores was made by use of platforms in the hold. It is
known from statements made to the Court of Inquiry, that the magazines
were amidships and that a part of these was close to the boilers. Fuel
and water would be in the lower hold under the platforms; hatches and
ladderways are arranged to permit fueling the ship.
A few prints or drawings of the ship, aside from the patent drawing,
have been found. There are two prints that show the launch of the
vessel. One, a print of 1815, is in possession of the Mariners' Museum,
Newport News, Va., and is reproduced in Alexander Crosby Brown's _Twin
Ships, Notes on the Chronological History of the Use of Multiple Hulled
Vessels_.[20] A poor copy of this print appears on page 13 of Bennett's
_Steam Navy of the United States_, and another and inaccurate sketch is
shown on page 8. These pictures were of no use in the reconstruction as
they show no details that are not in the Copenhagen plans. The patent
drawing does not show deck details and in fact does not represent the
vessel as built in any respect other than in being a catamaran with
paddle wheel amidships between the hulls.
The _Steam Battery_ did not have any particular influence on the design
of men-of-war that followed her. In the first place, steampower was not
viewed with favor by naval officers generally. This was without doubt
due to prejudice, but engines in 1820-30 were still unreliable when
required to run for long periods, as experienced by the early
ocean-going steamers. The great weight of the early steam engines and
their size in relation to power were important, and also important were
practical objections that prevented the design of efficient naval ocean
steamers until about 1840; even then, the paddle wheels made them very
vulnerable in action. Until the introduction of the screw propellor it
was not possible to design a really effective ocean-going naval steamer;
hence until about 1840-45, sail remained predominant in naval vessels
for ocean service, and steamers were accepted only in coast defense and
towing services, or as dispatch vessels.
No immediate use of the double hull in naval vessels of the maritime
powers resulted from the construction of the _Steam Battery_. The
flat-bottom chine-built design employed by Fulton in _North River_,
_Raritan_, and other early steamboats was utilized in the design for a
projected steamer by the British Admiralty in 1815-16. This vessel was
about 76 feet overall, 16-foot beam, and 8-foot 10 inches depth in hold.
Her design was for a flat-bottom, chine-built hull with no fore-and-aft
camber in the bottom, a sharp entrance, and a square-tuck stern with
slight overhang above the cross-seam. Her side frames were straight and
vertical amidships, but curved as the bow and stern were approached. She
was to be a side-paddle-wheel steamer, and her hull was diagonally
braced; the wheel and engine were to be about amidships where she was
dead flat for about 14 feet. However, the engine and boilers were not
installed; the engine was utilized ashore for pumping, and the vessel
was completed in the Deptford Yard as a sailing ship. Under the name
_Congo_ she was employed in the African coast survey. Her plan is in the
Admiralty Collection of Draughts, at the National Maritime Museum,
Greenwich, England.
The double hull continued to be employed in both steam and team
ferryboats in the United States and in England and France. A few river
and lake steamers were also built with this design of hull. Continued
efforts to obtain fast sailing by use of the double hull produced a
number of sailing catamarans; of these the Herreshoff catamarans of the
1870's showed high speed when reaching in a fresh breeze.
Designs for double-hulled steamers appeared during the last half of the
19th century; in 1874 the _Castalia_, a large, double-hull, iron,
cross-channel steamer, was built by the Thames Iron-works Company at
Blackwall, England. She was 290 feet long, and each hull had a beam of
17 feet. The paddle wheel was placed between the hulls and, ready for
sea, she drew 6-1/2 feet. She ran the 22 miles between Dover and Calais
in 1 hour and 50 minutes, a speed much slower than that of the
paddle-wheel, cross-channel steamers having one hull. Another
double-hull steamer was built for this service by Hawthorn, Leslie and
Company, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Scotland, in 1877. First named _Express_,
she was renamed _Calais-Douvres_ when she went into service in May 1878.
Her length was 302 feet, her extreme beam 62 feet, and each hull had a
beam of 18 feet, 3 inches. She drew 6-foot 7-1/2 inches ready for sea
and the paddle wheel was between the hulls. On her trials she made 14
knots and burned coal excessively. Sold to France in 1880, she was taken
out of service in 1889. Though popular, she was not faster than the
single-hull steamers in this service and had been a comparatively
expensive vessel to build and operate.
The many attempts to produce a very fast double-hull steamer and large
sailing vessels have led to disappointment for their designers and
sponsors. In the history of naval architecture, since Petty's time,
there have been a number of periods when the new-old idea of the double
hull has become popular. Craft of this type have been commonly well
publicized but, on the whole, their basic designs have followed the same
principles over and over again and have not produced the sought-for
increase in speed and handiness.
In very recent years there has been a revival in interest in sailing
double-hull boats that is enthusiastic as to very small craft and
somewhat restrained as to large boats. A few projects are under
development for double-hull craft, power and sail, of over 90-foot
length, including an oceanographic research vessel. In general, however,
the performance of double-hull boats has shown that Chapman's estimate
of the type was reasonably correct and that there are limitations,
particularly in maneuverability in the double-hull craft that could have
been found by reference to the history of past experiments with the
type.