The Confederacy Almost Developed a Helicopter in 1862

War is Boring ^ | April 21, 2014. | Michael Peck

[Swordmaker]

But the technology wasn’t quite ready for Robert E. Lee’s air cavalry

It’s the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863 and Union forces on Cemetery Ridge await the final Confederate assault. But instead of witnessing serried ranks of rebels marching across a mile of open ground into the maws of Yankee cannons, the bluecoat regiments are shocked to hear the thud of rotor blades.

It is the the sound of Confederate general George Pickett’s 13,000-strong division landing behind Union lines.

Is this a neo-Confederate dream? The Red Badge of Courage meets Apocalypse Now?

No, it turns out that a Confederate engineer actually did design a helicopter back in 1862.

William C. Powers was an architectural engineer in Mobile, Alabama. Frustrated by the Union blockade of Mobile and other Southern ports, which prevented the Confederacy from exporting cotton and importing weapons, Powers resolved to devise a way to destroy Union ships.

[Swordmaker]

It wouldn't have stayed in the air, due to the empennage.

That is, all of the undersides coated with bronze arrowheads. ;)

How about the sniper’s single Minié ball through the light weight steam boiler?

[wardaddy]

I don’t think this is a contest about technological or industrial acumenBetween warring sides

I think anyone would agree the north won that hands down for a myriad of reasons and that until California came of age the north continued to lead the nation in technological advancement well into the 20th century

It’s just a discussion of something the south tried since they had limited resources and expertise

Larry you are a historian of note , you should be able to put your bias aside on occasion

Such as when discussing the whimsical notion that the south might have tried a helicopter of all things , I myself had never heard of this. I thought recon balloons or tall trees were about it for vertical deployment

Bull snipe a fellow traveler of yours seems to try on this thread to be amiable

This thread should be fairly harmless

[rockrr]

Actually a contest of competing technological innovations hits it fairly square on the head.

Wars inspire and encourage innovation. During the Civil War the south was out-manned and out-gunned (pardon the pun) so they were doubly encouraged to find equalizers for the fight.

My earliest fascination with war machines was “Old Ironsides” during the Revolutionary War. There were thousands of ships afloat but someone (Joshua Humphreys) had the idea to sheathe his fleet of frigates with Southern Live Oak, which was exceptionally resilient to cannonball.

Naturally, my interest in naval history brought me to the Merrimack (and the Monitor). Why didn’t someone think of steel cladding earlier?! And then the Hunley. I still have a copy of the movie The Hunley. As movies go it wasn’t much but I was struck by the concept - a man-powered submarine in combat. I am in awe of the men who, having seen their brothers literally go down with the ship, boarded her for a suicide mission. They had to know but volunteered anyway.

Powers’s helicopter wasn’t ready for primetime but I give him thumbs-up for innovation.

[Reily]

“Old Ironsides” was not in Revolutionary War, it was in the Naval Quasi-War with France & the War of 1812. Funded by Naval Act of 1794 and the third constructed of the six ships funded. the She was launched in 1797. The Revolutionary War ended essential with the Treaty of Paris (1783).

[rockrr]

Thanks - I stand corrected.

[LS]

The Brits used iron clan assault barges in 1857 in the Crimean War.

[Pelham]

IIRC Ironsides had another innovation in addition to the use of Southern Live Oak, some sort of internal bracing that hadn’t been used before.

‘Merrimack’ was actually the name of the scuttled USN steam frigate that the CSN recovered and converted into the ironclad CSS Virginia. I guess the alliteration of ‘Monitor & Merrimack’ is too easy for historians to resist when the battle really was USS Monitor vs CSS Virginia.

The Monitor had two decided advantages. It was designed from the keel up to be an ironclad and it was new. The Virginia was a conversion and the Merrimack’s inherited steam plant had been old and due for a rebuild; that’s actually why Merrimack had been Norfolk, it was awaiting a rebuild. The CSS Virginia was also built with a ram in addition to its guns, a ram being an anachronism in warships of that era.

Iron cladding probably wasn’t practical until ships could be propelled by steam powered screws. In the US Navy that was the mid 1850s. They had sidewheel steam frigates beginning around 1840.

[wardaddy]

I have visited the Cairo at Vicksburg many times with my boys and oldest daughter
Fascinating

I recall when they found the it in the early 60s

Sank remotely with a mine by hand.....I suppose with detonating wire?

Yazoo River near the Lady in Red oddly

It’s worth seeing

The bluff above it rises a few hundred feet and overlooks old Vicksburg and Grants bayou or cut and the new Mississsippi channel and Steele bayou to the north

We used to skateboard down that hill from the top past the military cemetery and over the old railroad bridge where the cannonball gutted confederate ghost with the lantern is spotted from time to time

[schurmann]

“...Ironsides had...some sort of internal bracing that hadn’t been used before.
... the battle really was USS Monitor vs CSS Virginia.
The Monitor had two decided advantages. It was designed from the keel up to be an ironclad and it was new...Virginia was also built with a ram in addition to its guns, a ram being an anachronism in warships of that era.
Iron cladding probably wasn’t practical until ships could be propelled by steam powered screws. In the US Navy that was the mid 1850s. They had sidewheel steam frigates beginning around 1840.” [Pelham, post 87]

“...CS Virginia, the first ironclad ship...” [Swordmaker, post 43]

CSS Virginia was not the first ironclad warship.

The French Navy launched La Gloire in 1859 - wooden hull, wrought iron plating 4.7 inches thick. Tests showed that its construction would resist the largest naval guns of the time.

Britain’s Royal Navy responded quickly, launching HMS Warrior the following year. It was the first iron-hull warship; composite armor was added (4.5 inches of wrought iron backed by 18 inches of teak) over part of the hull.

Both were oceangoing vessels; CSS Virginia and USS Monitor were not. The latter pair owe their place in history because they were the first ironclads to see action.

Monitor’s biggest innovation was its gun turret - which soon dominated warship design around the world and remains an important feature of naval vessels today.

Pennsylvanian Joshua Humphreys designed and built USS Constitution and the other five frigates launched in the 1790s. He is remembered as one of the most innovative shipbuilders in the world at the time; naval experts from Europe were said to have visited his yards to study his ideas. His warships did so much to advance his reputation that his church elders (Society of Friends, aka Quakers) kicked him out, supposedly.

Constitution and her sister ships were indeed innovative and stoutly built - an imaginative compromise combining the speed and maneuverability of frigates with heavier construction and a larger number of guns than other navies bothered with, for frigates. Some historians have dubbed them “super frigates,” while others deem them “Sixth Rate” ships of the line or some such number.

USS Constitution came by her nickname partly through luck. At the time, Royal Navy doctrine favored close engagement and armed many vessels with large-bore, short-barrel guns called carronades, firing heavy shot: good up close but of short range. The American vessel tangled with a couple RN frigates with lower gun count, mostly carronades. At long range, British carronade balls bounced off, while American gunfire did serious damage. US Naval doctrine emphasized long-range gunnery and armed those frigates with guns of slightly smaller bore but higher velocity. Crews were drilled accordingly. Marksmanship at long range carried the day.

[Swordmaker]

Thanks for the more accurate information, Schurmann. I appreciate it.

One of the Monitor’s other features was its low profile which was also its downfall. It made it hard to hit by cannon fire, but its low sides and large, non-water tight opening for the turret made it much less sea worthy in any storm and high seas. Still, they built several more monitor class ships, including some with two and IIRC at least one with three turrets, with much better water tightness than the first one where they learned a lot from errors in design and lessons from nature and weather, before moving on to higher profile ships with turrets.

[rockrr]

What I chose to take from the original article was that these inventions were emerging and evolving technologies. None were perfect but all represented potential solutions to problems.

The helicopter wasn’t presented as a polished product but as an innovative concept design.

[archy]

I was thinking he could have combined it with a balloon to be able to give the balloon some steering. But with a steam engine - that would be some balloon.

Think rockets. For steering, at least.

[gnarledmaw]

You should look into airships of the 1800s and a group called NYMZA. Not as much of a stretch as many may imagine.

[gnarledmaw]

Then it was discovered, lost, rediscovered, and relost before finally being "found".

Aeolipile

[wally_bert]

I love the bits of history that don’t get mentioned a lot.

[angmo]

Thanks. Will check it out. Although an airship is a far cry from a steam powered, flying Archimedes screw.

[schurmann]

“What I chose to take from the original article was that these inventions were emerging and evolving technologies. None were perfect but all represented potential solutions to problems.
The helicopter wasn’t presented as a polished product but as an innovative concept design.” [rockrr, post 91]

You identified the central point of the original article better than any of the rest of us. And you summarized it more neatly.

The headline writer and the website editors are at fault: in the competition for read attention (and webpage clicks) they go over the top. More and more often.

Science journalism rarely corresponds with actual science. Same goes for engineering, systems development, and many related tech topics. Pop-culture general-interest news-copy scribblers chain their thinking to individualism, romance, drama, etc; progress in small-s scientific research (and development based thereon) depends on factors entirely opposite: teamwork & collaboration, diligence in applying laws of physics & math; vigilance & care in observing & recording details; inspiration in asking the right questions in the first place, and unromantic hard-headedness in searching out the answers.

[SunkenCiv]

This topic was posted 12/17/2019. Thanks Swordmaker.

Sounds like they almost invented patent trolling.

[Red Badger]

I have one of those in my kitchen.

It makes mounds of coleslaw....................

[a fool in paradise]

Ah but it is no flying horseless carriage.