Another Model, Yazoo Monster

Mark F. Jenkins

Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Location
Central Ohio
The Yazoo River is just too small for large vessels.

That certainly could have made the "New Orleans" double-ender design useful... if you don't need to come about, that's an advantage in narrow places.

One thing to recall when discussing size is draft-- when you want to float a large amount of tonnage, you can either build down (increased draft) or out-- so long as you're displacing the same weight of water, it will float. For a shallow, narrow river, a large (but shallow) double-ender would seem to be well-suited for the conditions. (Though I would wonder if the resources wouldn't have been better-spent building two smaller vessels. Perhaps part of the calculation was the option to sink it in the river as an obstacle as a last resort.)
 

kevin klein

Private
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Not all, you know I like and appreciate your work. For those who haven't seen it, here is my interpretation of the plan John L Porter may have provided, given the available info we have.
View attachment 412922View attachment 412922

Not all, you know I like and appreciate your work. For those who haven't seen it, here is my interpretation of the plan John L Porter may have provided, given the available info we have.
View attachment 412922View attachment 412922
Thanks Reb, I am now wondering about the funnels, some depictions show two or three. My thought is that the placement of the far aft funnel indicates more weight from boilers near the aft would throw the ship out of trim. Perhaps two funnels are more realistic.
 
Last edited:

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Location
Kent ,England.
Thanks Reb, I am now wondering about the funnels, some depictions show two or three. My thought is that the placement of the far aft funnel indicates more weight from boilers near the aft would throw the ship out of trim. Perhaps two funnels are more realistic.
I thought long and hard about that, trying to decide how the two screw engines would be powered. In the end I settled for steam lines from the aft boiler group, rather than the third funnel.
 

kevin klein

Private
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
I thought long and hard about that, trying to decide how the two screw engines would be powered. In the end I settled for steam lines from the aft boiler group, rather than the third funnel.
I have been thinking about that too, one boiler group for the paddle wheels, one for the screws. It looks better with two funnels, two it shall be. Thanks for your input.
 

kevin klein

Private
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Extract from my book "The Southern Iron Navy"

The Yazoo Monster – CSS New Orleans

"The un- named monster" was at the time, the biggest warship ever built inland.
Type: Ironclad side wheel Frigate.
Paddles: two 40ft side-wheels powered by 2 “standard” western river type engines.
Screws: two 8ft, Speed: 9.5 knots calculated, 13 – 16 knots intended.
Dimensions: 310ft OA, x 70ft EX, x 12ft D, 3,720 tons.
Guns: intended 12 -7” Brooke MLR
Armour: 4.5” iron, from Shelby Iron Co. over 24” timber. Casemate slope 35 degrees.
Design: J. L. Porter. Builder: T. Weldon / J. McFarland, Yazoo City Navy Yard, Mississippi.
Laid Down: October 1862 Destroyed to prevent capture 21 May 1863
History:
The hull was “Skiff built”, double ended, causing much confusion over the years, being taken to mean that the vessel had one screw at each end. Balance of weight plus the inherent drawbacks of having one screw and rudder at each end strongly indicate that the screw machinery layout was traditional. The two 8ft screws are a strong indication that the boilers and machinery constructed for CSS Arkansas’ sister ship Tennessee were to be utilised in this vessel. No doubt as constructed it would have been very different as the constructors, guided by Isaac Newton Brown, would have made use of available resource and his experience with CSS Arkansas. Her ordnance may well have been composed of whatever was available. No name was ever assigned but CSS New Orleans has been suggested as being appropriate for morale
Now that I see it had or was to have 40ft side-wheels, I will need to rebuild the wheel boxes, the ones on it now are for about 25-30ft.
 

georgew

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Location
southern california
Extract from my book "The Southern Iron Navy"

The Yazoo Monster – CSS New Orleans

"The un- named monster" was at the time, the biggest warship ever built inland.
Type: Ironclad side wheel Frigate.
Paddles: two 40ft side-wheels powered by 2 “standard” western river type engines.
Screws: two 8ft, Speed: 9.5 knots calculated, 13 – 16 knots intended.
Dimensions: 310ft OA, x 70ft EX, x 12ft D, 3,720 tons.
Guns: intended 12 -7” Brooke MLR
Armour: 4.5” iron, from Shelby Iron Co. over 24” timber. Casemate slope 35 degrees.
Design: J. L. Porter. Builder: T. Weldon / J. McFarland, Yazoo City Navy Yard, Mississippi.
Laid Down: October 1862 Destroyed to prevent capture 21 May 1863
History:
The hull was “Skiff built”, double ended, causing much confusion over the years, being taken to mean that the vessel had one screw at each end. Balance of weight plus the inherent drawbacks of having one screw and rudder at each end strongly indicate that the screw machinery layout was traditional. The two 8ft screws are a strong indication that the boilers and machinery constructed for CSS Arkansas’ sister ship Tennessee were to be utilised in this vessel. No doubt as constructed it would have been very different as the constructors, guided by Isaac Newton Brown, would have made use of available resource and his experience with CSS Arkansas. Her ordnance may well have been composed of whatever was available. No name was ever assigned but CSS New Orleans has been suggested as being appropriate for morale
Hi John. In looking at your drawings, I get the impression that you assume the casemate could have four standard carriage mounted broadside guns on each side with a pivoting gun at each end of the line giving six guns in broadside action while retaining twin chasers at each end? To build the two wheel version you only need a single donor vessel. For Dean's solution you would need two donors. Do we know if the use of donor vessels was intended or were the wheels to be new construction? Do I understand you correctly that you believe that Brown would have dispensed with the two propeller installations based on the Tennessee I's engines? Also I believe that the diameter of the New Orleans supplied propellers for Tennessee I and Arkansas had a 7 foot diameter. The original specification speed estimates appear wildly optimistic and I speculate that using very large high pressure steamboat engines her top speed would be about 50% of the four engine/propeller layout.
 

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Location
Kent ,England.
Hi John. In looking at your drawings, I get the impression that you assume the casemate could have four standard carriage mounted broadside guns on each side with a pivoting gun at each end of the line giving six guns in broadside action while retaining twin chasers at each end? To build the two wheel version you only need a single donor vessel. For Dean's solution you would need two donors. Do we know if the use of donor vessels was intended or were the wheels to be new construction? Do I understand you correctly that you believe that Brown would have dispensed with the two propeller installations based on the Tennessee I's engines? Also I believe that the diameter of the New Orleans supplied propellers for Tennessee I and Arkansas had a 7 foot diameter. The original specification speed estimates appear wildly optimistic and I speculate that using very large high pressure steamboat engines her top speed would be about 50% of the four engine/propeller layout.
Hi Georgew,
 

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Location
Kent ,England.
Hi John. In looking at your drawings, I get the impression that you assume the casemate could have four standard carriage mounted broadside guns on each side with a pivoting gun at each end of the line giving six guns in broadside action while retaining twin chasers at each end? To build the two wheel version you only need a single donor vessel. For Dean's solution you would need two donors. Do we know if the use of donor vessels was intended or were the wheels to be new construction? Do I understand you correctly that you believe that Brown would have dispensed with the two propeller installations based on the Tennessee I's engines? Also I believe that the diameter of the New Orleans supplied propellers for Tennessee I and Arkansas had a 7 foot diameter. The original specification speed estimates appear wildly optimistic and I speculate that using very large high pressure steamboat engines her top speed would be about 50% of the four engine/propeller layout.
Hi Georgew. Lubliner beat me to it with the 40ft wheel source ! I'd assumed a standard "Porter" layout for the gun deck based on his Nashville plan. I have not been able to find out the source of the Monster's machinery, just the description quoted. I do believe Brown would have dispensed with the screw engines as he and the constructors would be aiming for a simplified build in quick time. I took the 8ft screw diameter from Bob Holcombe many years ago. If it's true that the screws were 7ft for the Tennessee (I) pair, then It would seem that the monster's screw engines may have been either new, or from a different source, but the latter does seem a tad unlikely.
There was a rule of thumb calculation for a vessels designed speed in still water based on the square root of waterline length, which accounts for some of the ridiculously high figures quoted. The monster would have done 17 knots !!!. I use one of two calculations, which by much use of a calculator and actual speeds of the era seem to work where the real speed is not known. Either 75% of the above formula or to divide waterline length by beam at the waterline. this would give the monster 10 -11 knots, which seems much more realistic.
 

kevin klein

Private
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Well, here it is.

DSCN2642.JPG


DSCN2640.JPG


DSCN2646.JPG


DSCN2670.JPG
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
I said last time my next project is the Stonewall, but I got inspired by the "Yazoo Monster". Depicted here undergoing construction. There are small figures on the ground, the aft deck and one on the rear of the casemate to represent
scale. Next it will be completed as a finished waterline model. Thanks to Rebelatsea and his diagram. I hope you don't mind.



View attachment 412900

View attachment 412901
That is all sorts of cool
 

georgew

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Location
southern california
Hi Georgew. Lubliner beat me to it with the 40ft wheel source ! I'd assumed a standard "Porter" layout for the gun deck based on his Nashville plan. I have not been able to find out the source of the Monster's machinery, just the description quoted. I do believe Brown would have dispensed with the screw engines as he and the constructors would be aiming for a simplified build in quick time. I took the 8ft screw diameter from Bob Holcombe many years ago. If it's true that the screws were 7ft for the Tennessee (I) pair, then It would seem that the monster's screw engines may have been either new, or from a different source, but the latter does seem a tad unlikely.
There was a rule of thumb calculation for a vessels designed speed in still water based on the square root of waterline length, which accounts for some of the ridiculously high figures quoted. The monster would have done 17 knots !!!. I use one of two calculations, which by much use of a calculator and actual speeds of the era seem to work where the real speed is not known. Either 75% of the above formula or to divide waterline length by beam at the waterline. this would give the monster 10 -11 knots, which seems much more realistic.
If your speculation about Brown not using the Tennessee (I) engines and drive lines is correct, this raises another question. What happened to them? Several prominent steamboat Captains including Montgomery were contracted to recover machinery from vessels scuttled up the Yazoo. I can't believe that they would not have tried to recover the Tennessee powerplants, shafts and props if in the area. Almost all of the recovered machinery ended up in Alabama. I don't recall ever seeing a report that existing screw machinery had been shipped to the Confederate naval engine works in Georgia for refurbishment.
 

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Location
Kent ,England.
If your speculation about Brown not using the Tennessee (I) engines and drive lines is correct, this raises another question. What happened to them? Several prominent steamboat Captains including Montgomery were contracted to recover machinery from vessels scuttled up the Yazoo. I can't believe that they would not have tried to recover the Tennessee powerplants, shafts and props if in the area. Almost all of the recovered machinery ended up in Alabama. I don't recall ever seeing a report that xisting screw machinery had been shipped to the Confederate naval engine works in Georgia for refurbishment.
Georgew, I still think it was Tennessee's machinery that was intended for the monster. I don't know where Bob H got his 8ft screws from as we know the Arkansas had 7ft. I agree, I don't know any of the Yazoo machinery confirmed as going to James H Warner, but that doesn't mean something didn't get to Columbus. There are many, many unanswered questions as to which vessel got which machinery and from where as you know.
 
Top