The Spar Apparatus
| he Hunley's torpedo system is one of the submarine's most important features and one of the least understood. Over three years after the sub was recovered details of the rig are still a mystery. |
|
The
original Hunley concept was to tow the torpedo on a long line, dive under the
target ship and draw the charge against the target's hull. This
approach was abandoned when the torpedo drifted "too near the wrong
boat" as Alexander recounted, perhaps euphemistically, in 1902. In the same memoir he describes the new approach this way:
"We then rigged a yellow pine boom, 22 feet long and tapering; this was
attached to the bow, banded and guyed in each side. A socket on the torpedo
secured it to the boom." In 1925, Corporal Daniel McClaurin provided a slightly
different description: "As I recall, the torpedo was fastened to the end of an iron pipe, about two
inches in diameter and twenty to twenty-five feet in length, which could be
extended in front and withdrawn at ease by guides in the center of the boat to
hold it in place." The apparent discrepancy between the two
descriptions is partly alleviated when Alexander's drawing, published with
his memoir, is examined. It notes the "butt end of torpedo
boom" attached to the top of the bow, drawn with a stylized wood grain,
and a smaller, un-referenced object attached to the bottom of the bow and
angled up (see image #53544 on the Submarine H.L. Hunley
images page). The many years passing between the 1864 events and
these reminiscences makes some details suspect, but I believe the basic
descriptions can be trusted. |
|
Historical Images The Conrad Chapman painting and the purported George Cook photograph both show the lower metal spar and the top-mounted boom but support different interpretations. For background to help understanding the images, the 17-foot-long metal spar recovered with the Hunley consists of a three-foot long solid section attached by a bolt to a long hollow section. The short section ends in a fitting that was bolted to a bracket at the bottom of the bow as depicted below. The arrangement allowed the spar to pivot up and down at the bracket. |
|
|
| Chapman's painting shows the metal spar, although only the short segment closest to the hull, sloping down to rest on the quay. The upper boom is much more notable, as you can see in the graphic at right. It appears to be 3 to 4 inches in diameter and perhaps 14 feet long. The rather complex mechanism that appears to attach it to the hull could be part of a rigging system. |
|
|
The poor-quality Cook photo has a similar perspective but differs in detail from the painting. Both the lower spar and upper boom are visible, but the boom appears to be mounted athwart-ships rather than fore and aft as in Chapman. I hope to provide a more detailed analysis of this photo in the near future. |
| Chapman's starboard-side drawing implies he actually visited the Hunley on the quay depicted in his painting, which he completed some years later. The drawing shows the lower spar but not the boom. Obvious differences in the configuration of the boat shown in the drawing and in the painting indicate a passage of time between the two scenes. |
|
|
The 1902 Skerrett drawing, included here for completeness, provides yet a
different cast. The upper boom appears to agree with Chapman, although
the mounting mechanism appears much less complex. The lower spar, if
depicted, appears to be detached, but there is a line running to it from the upper
hull. |
|
The relationship among the several depictions of the
Hunley briefly discussed above is not known. Chapman's painting, the
purported Cook photo, and Skerrett's drawing clearly show the same
scene. Each includes what appears to be the same sailboat in the background. Each has a
figure standing by the rudder. Obvious questions
arise. Did Skerrett copy Chapman, or Cook? Did Chapman use Cook
as a model or guide for his painting? Is Cook an actual photo of the Hunley? Is it a copy of an early or lost version
of the Chapman painting? I hope to present a more complete evaluation
of the Cook photo soon.
|
|
Archaeological
Evidence |
|
| The long rod at the top, 6, raised with the spar, was less concreted and appeared at the time to be more recent. The Friends have said nothing more about it. |
|
Heavy raised concretion in
several places on the bow,
seen in released photos of the Hunley, may
indicate parts of the rigging system. Two longer markings could be the
straps shown in a similar location in the Chapman painting. The Clemson fade-wrap animation gives tantalizing indications of bumps in the concretion approximately consistent with tie-down points for rigging lines to stabilize the spar. I've only done preliminary analysis, but I've assumed such tie-downs for the animated line drawing and for my Hunley poster.
|
|
Conclusions
We need more information about the artifacts found near the Hunley's bow and the fittings on the hull. We need to resolve the enigma of the Cook photo. In the meantime, Hunley Forum postings during December 03 included evaluation of the data and speculation about possible configurations. Barry Rogoff has posted illustrations of Bruce Kinsey's proposed spar concepts and other spar material in his image collection. George Penington has collected and expanded the Forum postings in his December '03 newsletter. |
|
(Please let me know if I've missed any significant historical sources above.) |
|
What do you think? |
Page and contents
© Copyright 2004, 2005 Michael & Karen Crisafulli.
All rights reserved.
14
Feb 05