Interesting that this all "comes to light" nearly 100 years later, supposedly something that was really known all along and just kept secret for no apparent reason.

Watch for a new book to come out, surely one of a flurry of new ones for the 100th anniversary!

Speaking of new books, of course John Maxtone-Graham is writing one: Here's a video of Maxtone-Graham talking about his new book and the unique perspective he has.

The Titanic book I published a few years ago is on Amazon.com

[ 09-22-2010: Message edited by: LeBarryboat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
Does it actually take two miles for a modern ship to turn?

---

I am not 100 % sure what it means that it 'takes two miles to turn' but the short answer is: No.

A typical passenger ships reacts sooner = it does not cover the distance of two miles before responding. The diameter of the turning 'circle' (if that's what is meant) depends on the speed but a typical passenger ships can be turned through 360 degrees within a square of two miles side length.

It's not the clearest picture but one still gets an idea of the size of the turning 'circle':

Elation turning at full speed - www.ship-technology.com

[ 09-22-2010: Message edited by: Ernst ]

That Titanic keep on sailing after the collision is natural. Titanic sailed with 21 knots (I believed) no ship stops immediately even when the machines where stopped. Titanic took some time to stop completely.

Greetings Ben.

[ 09-22-2010: Message edited by: Maasdam ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rex:
Oh, for GOD'S SAKE. The ship hit an iceberg and SANK. That is all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rex:
Oh, for GOD'S SAKE. The ship hit an iceberg and SANK. That is all.

---

No she did not hit an iceberg, she hit a UFO but she did not sunk she was abducted and when they returned she was deliberate sunk by the Aliens.
And then they slowed down the Carpethia who in real was a30 knot vessel, so she came to late. And then they fly there UFO around the world and uploaded in every mind of every human that the last music played was Nearer my God to they and she sunk by hitting a iceberg.

A shame she is trading on the good name of her grandfather Lightoller. Lights did his own life story book and there was a semi-autobiography of him in the 1950s which tell his versions of the events.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maasdam:
I just sold the movie rights to 20th century fox. Spielberg will direct the movie and my part as story teller will be played by Glenn Close

Greetings Ben.

---

I get to play the part of the baker. He gets to drink a bottle of Johnny Walker as the ship sinks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WhiteStar:

I get to play the part of the baker. He gets to drink a bottle of Johnny Walker as the ship sinks.

Reed

---

But was it Black Label or Red Label?

In "A Night to Remember" you can see that it iis Johnny Walker but can't tell which type because it was a B&W movie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maasdam:
In the Titanic case the rudder was slightly to small to react. This caused Titanic to react slower on rudder changes. It's a common fact that this was discovered during here very short trail run.

That Titanic keep on sailing after the collision is natural. Titanic sailed with 21 knots (I believed) no ship stops immediately even when the machines where stopped. Titanic took some time to stop completely.

Greetings Ben.

[ 09-22-2010: Message edited by: Maasdam ]

---

Actually, it was a lot to small, a very serious design blunder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jetwet1:

Actually, it was a lot to small, a very serious design blunder.

---

I said slightly you are right. But I always wonder did the Olympic have the same rudder problem. As they where near identical...

quote:

---

My own theory, the Titanic was trying to escape a a "save the Titanic" campaign by you know who !

---

WOW another story to make a movie out of it, do you have soled the rights already as I did
That part could be played by Bette Midler

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeBarryboat:
The issue with the Olympic-class rudder is the center propeller.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

Why is that supposed to be the case? There might be 'some second order effects' but one would expect a rudder in the flow of a propeller to be more efficient than a skeg mounted rudder (of the same size).

---

The reason is that the center prop could only turn one way. The center propeller was a turbine using the last of the steam before being returned to the condensers. There was no provision for a reverse as the gearing was considered excessive and not nessary. Hence when the ship put into reverse the flow of the center propeller was stopped causing less flow past the rudder and a reduction of the efficiency of the rudder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by petede:

The reason is that the center prop could only turn one way. The center propeller was a turbine using the last of the steam before being returned to the condensers. There was no provision for a reverse as the gearing was considered excessive and not nessary. Hence when the ship put into reverse the flow of the center propeller was stopped causing less flow past the rudder and a reduction of the efficiency of the rudder.[...]

---

I actually replied to the statement 'The issue with the Olympic-class rudder is the center propeller'. The lift created by a rudder scales with the square of the velocity of the flow it's exposed to - and since the flow behind a propeller is faster than the flow behind e.g. the skeg a rudder of the same size is actually more efficient behind a propeller than when it's mounted to the skeg.

Of course the efficiency of a rudder behind a propeller deteriorates if the propeller is stopped - and of course it's even worse if that propeller is going astern. However, even a skeg mounted rudder of a ship with two or four propellers (and no propeller right in front of the rudder) is not doing much if the propellers go astern (like in the case of Titanic).

As said above, she hit an iceberg and sank. This was a terrible accident but accidents happen. To 'blame' details like her rudder or propeller configuration is a bit childish IMHO. There was actually a proper investigation whether she could in principle have avoided the iceberg and sinking (e.g. if other commands were given like not going astern etc.). The finding was: No, she could not have avoided that iceberg and it was more or less inevitable that she sank. If I remember right, this investigation has been done at HSVA if you want to look that up.

[ 09-28-2010: Message edited by: Ernst ]