Hello Bil,
Thank you for the advice on the Monster, I will add that suggestion to my drawing. If you move the sideweheels in , that means they are inset into the knuckle. I've often wondered if Nashville was actually constructed that way ,as there is a Waud drawing which apparently shows this. Nevertheless I've always used Bob Holcombe's plan as the basis for my work. Bob told me many years ago that Porter's original plans for the type had survived, but been stolen and their whereabouts unknown.
In light of the Eastport information, should I replace my wheelhouse configuration with the original Porter one and also substitute Porter type gunports and CS style pilot houses ?, remembering that I had assumed Brown had been responsible for those changes on the Eastport.
That is really interesting about Eastport, That means that all the plans and models ,mine included actually depict the Union ship ! From your description it sounds as if Brown was creating a paddle Arkansas ! Out with the drawing board again !
I wonder how many plans and drawings from the CSN offices were not actually destroyed but taken away and are now in private collections ,attics etc . I wouldn't mind betting there are answers to many mysteries out there somewhere.
Hello John,
I don't know if Bob ever saw those plans or if it was reported to him that they were once available but now are missing. There is no telling what remains to be 'discovered', but one of my pleasant daydreams is to be in Richmond in March 1865 packing up all the drawings, proposals and half-hull models I can find
The knuckles were usually built onto the hull as external extensions after the sides were planked. To extend the shafts outside the knuckles and then have the heavy wheels hanging on them would have severely stressed them. Other evidence from the FSU survey of the
Phoenix suggests that the knuckles were to be modified into guards when that vessel was being converted into a blockade runner. There is a portion of the wreck that seems to indicate the shaft location and the hull is free of guards/knuckle at that position. I think it would be easier on the machinery and more efficient to have the wheels in close. Other details (pilot house, gunports, etc.) would be Porter in style.
There are two drawings in the NA labeled 'Confederate Ironclad for River Service' that do not appear like any known CS designs. They are all iron and feature iron beam frameworks to support the casemate. Certainly beyond the capacity of Southern industrial output at that time. Fortunately, several years ago a copy of one was found in the ordnance records and was clearly signed by Phelps. Early in the war he proposed several shallow water designs to the Navy but could not elicit any interest. Once the
Eastport was captured he looked upon her as his pet project to transform into his idea of what an ironclad should be. She was so heavily armored and armed that she nearly broke her keel in the first few months of operation.
In Mallory's order to Brown he expected that these gunboats would serve on the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers under confined conditions. He suggested that they be armed only fore and aft as that would be the primary areas exposed to the enemy. This is what probably inspired Brown's conversion plans. Aside from a poor supply of guns, ship for ship most CS vessels were lightly armed as compared to their USN opponents. The
Arkansas was an exception and when handled well she proved her worth. Yes, I do believe Brown's
Eastport would have shared some details with the
Arkansas. The biggest difference other than the paddlewheels is that her casemate sides would have been inboard of the outer hull (4') rather than flush with it. Her paddleboxes probably would have appeared like those of RDF conversions (see Simplot sketches) and she probably would have had a strengthened bow. I wish I had the carpenter's notes.
All the best,
Bil