Hello Everyone,
First, John it's a beautiful job. You've captured the grace of a Dowerman built hull (stright stem, gentle sheer) very well. To provide more room for the third gun I would consider moving the casemate forward a bit. I apologize for not providing further details earlier. Right now I am in the midst of travels and don't have access to my notes. I've got to be back at work by Monday.
Anyway, agreed the hull dimensions as built seem to differ. The only antebellum consistencies are the Bureau of Navigation's Ship Register & Enrollments which give 228' x 32' x 6'6" (as built and after 1860 refit). Certainly, I respect Way, Holcombe and others but I have to go with the official measurements of the era. I honestly think the oft-quoted post-conversion length of 280' is a misprint from someone who mistook 260' for 280'. The reason? A hull of 280' was significantly longer than the 'as built' at 228'. Added at the bow this would have placed the wheels disproportionally aft. While not unheard of it seems unlikely. Especially if you carefully examine the photograph above. Look at the man with the eyeglass on the wheelhouse. I gave him a height of 6' and then measured the hull length. Although not exact it comes much closer to 260' than 280'.
Now this brings us to the beam. When the Eastport was finally recommissioned months later an extensive writeup appeared in the Cincinnati and Chicago papers. It was that correspondent who described her originally as being fitted with double bulwarks about 4' inboard along a plan much like the General Price and other Confederate gunboats. Then he states 'this plan was abandoned and a wholly new plan was put in place by Phelps. This would suggest that her protective scheme would have been similar to the RDF gunboats of double bulwarks, compressed cotton between and iron sheathing on the exterior.
As we know the Eastport was built in 1852 and usually after 5 years of service most boat owners began to look for a replacement hull or steamboat. But the Eastport has been described as being in excellent condition when captured. How can a well-used, decade old steamboat remain in such shape? Aside from being well-used she was also well-managed and maintained. In the 'Vessel Papers' the Eastport file is rather extensive. Postwar, there was a claim from one of her prewar, Northern owners for compensation. There were numerous depositions given (again with variable dimensions) that describe the career of this boat. She was built as a cotton packet boat with the hurricane deck located higher than normal. In the late summer, early fall of 1860 she was taken to Paducah and extensively refitted and rebuilt at considerable expense. This included placing new buckets, wheel shaft supports and other structural elements as well as lengthening the hurricane deck, and expanding the deckhouse. She was described as being 'like new' months before the war broke out.
When captured her appearance was described as follows: guards removed, all upper works and decks removed, wheel houses removed, shafts in place, but wheels disassembled, opening cut into deck to lower boilers into hold, chimnies on the bank, casemate framework up with a portion angled, additional wooden sheathing placed on outer hull (not removed by Phelps), much lumber and iron plating (from Nashville) on shore. Phelps first reported it would take him 2 months to finish his conversion. This dragged on through April, May and June. The reason is he added some 30'+ to the bow and had to widen the hull and redesign the casemate to fit. If I recall correctly one witness mentioned that a second outer hull (sponsons) was fitted to compensate for the expected weight gain. When she did emerge in September there was tendency for the heavy bow (ram fitted) to droop causing the forward floor to nearly buckle. This resulted in more yard time and a further refit. As converted Phelps had his powerful ironclad, but she was structurally suspect. I hope this helps clarify her background.
All the best,
Bil
Bringing the