![]() Probably incorrectly positioned (see Depth Gauge below). To be three feet high, so this reconstruction is much too small and Seminar presentation and from photos from National Geographic magazineįorward sea-cock is located on the port side of the shelf just below the The slightly more recent rendering at right shows details gleaned from the Is a clear benefit of offset cranks: each crewman would rock back andįorward out of phase with the next, preventing the action to induce a May have been some loosening and relative shifting of the sectionsĭuring operation that was not corrected when the joints were tightened. That the crank is constructed of sections bolted together. Position to position, perhaps more consistent with Alexander's description ("cranks at different angles") and archaeological findings The published photos show varying angles from crank I placed the others using interpolation andĮxtrapolation from 22 to 25 inches apart. Visual evidence places the frames in the sections exposed for excavationĪbout 25 inches apart. Uncovering it (remember, the hull lists about 45 to starboard). Notice that much of the crank mechanism would be below the halfway mark of the excavation, consistent with the delay in Originally, but I have no photographic evidence of this. Possibility it is attached to the adjoining frame ring as I thought Most likely bolted at the bottom of the strake. The lower part of the mount is hidden in the photos but is Late interior photosĬlearly show crank mounts bolted to the strake by an upper plateīolt. Of the centerline, supported by new brackets. I've mounted it one inch below and ten inches to starboard The slightly out-dated view above shows my sixth version of theĬrank. Paint were found on the bench but Paul Mardikian reports no other paintĬlick the icons below for pop-up panoramas of An historical account describes a Hunley predecessorĪs painted white inside. Many details are speculative, especially farįorward. The rendering at left shows the interior view looking forward. ![]() Such asymmetricalĬonstruction might be weight compensation for the off-center crank. Photos show no such butt-plate on the starboard side. Indicate that the port-side strake includes a narrower interior plateīetween and butted to the upper and lower hull plates. Strake, historically described as a metal plate inserted between the upperĪnd lower halves of the boiler, appears to extend the length of the hullīetween the end castings. Similarly, the painting appears to attach the propeller Plane above the hull centerline based on interpretation of Chapman's paintingĪnd web cam views. Iįor my reconstruction, I've positioned the dive The historical reports and theĬhapman material have been found to be sources of accurate information. The sections defined by the plate seams).īoth the bow and stern are iron castings. The hatch panels (the tank bulkheads are actually located several inches into The ballast tank sections are forward and aft of The tapered sections consist of 16 quarter panels and theīow and stern castings. Here for a PDF version that prints at 1:24 scale on four letter paper Version with an educated guess at rivet patterns or click ![]() Chapman also depicts the division of the aft tank quarter-panelsĭetailed five-view plan of the Hunley. Narrow plate is consistent with Chapman's painting, where it appears as dark line along ![]() Likewise I've added these structural details to the aft section. Length of the tank section and that a similar plate is used on the bottom. The photos show a narrow plate on the top of the hull joining the forwardīallast tank quarter panels together. A more recent change, dividing theįormally long most forward and aft tank quarter plates in two, is much lessĪccurate, based on a two or three cropped Post and Courier photos. Finally, I adjusted the hull shape based on closeĮxamination of laser scan images published in the Friends of the Hunley Blue Light newsletter. I’mĬonfident of the accuracy of the four removed plates, but the two remaining platesĪre more speculative. The central hull took form from rivet counts andĮxamination of a number of photographs, and from reported dimensions. Reports and photos of removal of the hull plates provided significant data on Site Assessment Report, available via a link on my Hunley page. I started my original plan way back with dimension and detail information from the National Park Service I haveĪdded the likely torpedo configuration and speculative placement of two bracketsįound near the Hunley that likely fastened the upper spar boom to the hull as Well as photos after the hull exterior was cleaned of concretion. The latest revision of my Hunley plan takes advantage of this report as Material is augmented with photos and drawings that are much more recent. Operations and much of the archaeology conducted on the sea floor. Command published an extensive report detailing the Hunley recovery ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |