| Author |
Message |
    
Bill Balla
Member
Username: seabet
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 3, 2009 - 8:57 pm: | 
|
I have tried to find out approximately how long it would have taken Titanic's steering gear to move the rudder from the centered position to fully hard over.
Recently, I found a description of a steam powered steering gear on a great lakes ship which indicated that it took 14 seconds to move the rudder from the center to full over.
Assuming this is similar to the performance of Titanic's steering gear, I think I can make an estimate of how long it actually took from the time the iceberg was sighted to the time the rudder was actually moved to it full extent.
I am estimating that from the time that the iceberg was sighted to the time the command was actually given to the helmsman to turn the wheel at approximately 10 seconds.
Once the helmsman heard the order to turn the ship and was actually able to put the helm hard over at approximately 5 seconds.
And as I mentioned, the time to actually move the rudder was about 14 seconds.
Adding it all up, the time I estimate it took to actually begin turning he ship away from the burg would have been about 29 seconds !
Is this possible ? Could it have taken that long for Titanic to begin turning once the ice was sighted ? |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 31434
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 - 3:10 am: |
|
I don't know how this might play into your calculations but it's a matter of record that turning trials were carried out with the RMS Olympic after the disaster. One of the facts that they found was that it took 37 seconds for the head of the ship to swing two and a half points to port from the time the rudder was actually put over.
People have been reading way too much into that ever since but that's the bare bones fact.
I wouldn't read too much into what a Great Lakes ship would have done. The ships contemporary to the time were similar, but not the exact same in how they behaved.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2707
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi Bill,
To answer your question:
>>Could it have taken that long [29 seconds] for Titanic to begin turning once the ice was sighted?<<
I would have to says, but not for the reasons you gave.
Michael is right about comparing ships unless they were very similar and carried the same steering gear. Olympic was Titanic's sister, and test conducted and documented on Olympic were as close as you can get to how Titanic would have done. But I would like to add some comments on the numbers that you put down.
The first has to do with 10 seconds between when the berg was spotted and the order given to the helmsman. The helmsman at the time was QM Hichens. Hichens testified that the time from when the lookout warning bells were struck to when 1/O Murduch gave the helm order was about 1/2 a minute. During that time there was a phone call that took place with information repeated to the first officer before any helm order was given. Lookout Frederick Fleet also testified that he spent about 1/2 minute between striking the lookout bell to getting off the phone.
The second number, your 5 seconds to turn the wheel hard over, may not be too far off. I personally think it would take a little more than that. Maybe Jim Currie can comment on this, or maybe Michael Standart might have something to say since he was at the helm of a number of ships I believe while in the navy. But in those days, it took about 4 complete turns to get the wheel hard over, and the steering engine would try to keep up as quickly as it could while the wheel is being turned. Of course, the steering engine would lag a bit behind the wheel. In any event, the ship's head will start to turn, although slowly at first, even before the rudder goes all the way over. And once the order was received by the helmsman, it would take about 37 seconds for the ship's head to fall off 23 degrees.
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 625
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 4, 2009 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Hi Sam!
Yes, I would agree with you. If I remember rightly it was about 4 and a half turns to full over. However, we must all keep in mind that the time to get the wheel hard over depends on where it was when the hard-a-starboard order was given. If, in the normal run of things, Hichin had been correcting for the ship's head moving to starboard he would already have some starboarded helm 'on' as they say. Thus he would get to 'hard-a-starboard' in as little as 3 seconds. On the other hand, he might have had the helm 'on' the opposite way thus it would have taken longer to get it to 'hard-a-starboard - even about 8 seconds. However, I don't think there would be much of a lag though. since it was an hydraulic telemotor. |
Bill Balla
Member
Username: seabet
Post Number: 10
Registered: 4-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 12:24 am: |
|
"Michael is right about comparing ships unless they were very similar and carried the same steering gear."
I think you misunderstood my point, I was pointing out that Titanic's steering gear probably had similar characteristics as the steering gear of a similar vintage great lakes ship but, I was not trying to compare the actual turning response of the Titanic versus a great lakes freighter.
I did find on this website that Titanic's steering gear needed between 10 and 15 seconds to turn the rudder hard over from the centered point therefore my 14 second figure was quite close.
I assume that the ship's speed would also effect the speed at which the rudder could be moved therefore this would account time needed to move the rudder not being fixed.
I find the thirty second time frame suggested by Hitchens to be somewhat amazing, combining this delay with the time needed to physically turn the wheel and then the delay time needed by the steering gear, it is amazing that she turned at all prior to the collision. |
Charles B. Weeks Jr.
Member
Username: charles_weeks
Post Number: 265
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 12:28 am: |
|
Jim:
Having sailed with a few hydraulic telemotors myself, I would expect the lag to be in the steering engine rather than the telemotor.
Regards, Charlie Weeks |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 31459
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 3:21 am: |
|
>>Michael Standart might have something to say since he was at the helm of a number of ships I believe while in the navy.<<
In my case, this might not be all that useful. The wheel on the USS Comstock was actually fairly small and the system was very responsive.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2709
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 4:04 pm: |
|
I see what you mean Michael. The blurb on ship said something like: USS Comstock was the first USN combatant ship to have a fully integrated crew of male and female sailors on board, and the only naval ship that would allow Michael Standard to man the helm. 
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Jim Currie
Member
Username: sailorjim
Post Number: 628
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, November 5, 2009 - 5:15 pm: |
|
I agree Charlie.
It's an awful long time ago but if my memory serves me right - I recall steering with just such gear when an Apprentice. The biggest problem we had was in heavy weather with a following sea The usual problems with that but even then, she would come back very quickly and as you know, in such sea, your resolve is seriously tested as is the steering gear. At the end of a two hour stint, you had muscles like Popeye!
Regards,
Jim |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 31482
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 - 4:40 am: |
|
Nice photo Sam. It looks like a ship I know something about. 
If the dating is accurate, that would have been the ship on her acceptance trials. I wasn't on board for that trip (A lot of the Navy crew wasn't) but I was aboard for the builders trials a couple of months earlier.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Samuel Halpern
Member
Username: cmdrsam
Post Number: 2711
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 - 3:04 pm: |
|
"There's a following sea out there lads, so be sure and eat all your spinach before taking your trick at the wheel."
HERE
AND
HERE
What's the time frame that you sailed on her Michael?
Sam Halpern
TITANICOLOGY
|
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 31503
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 - 5:02 pm: |
|
>>What's the time frame that you sailed on her Michael?<<
I reported to the PreComDet in the fall of 1989 and left the ship in the fall of 1993.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Jeff Brebner
Member
Username: wheeds
Post Number: 75
Registered: 4-2008
| | Posted on Friday, November 6, 2009 - 6:00 pm: |
|
How cool is it to steer something like that? ;-) |
Charles B. Weeks Jr.
Member
Username: charles_weeks
Post Number: 267
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 12:55 am: |
|
I can report that Michael is an excellent helmsman. Further more he has as much experience as anyone alive at missing that particular ice berg. He did it numerous times during the symposium we held at Maine Maritime Academy.
Regards, Charlie Weeks |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 31511
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, November 7, 2009 - 6:12 am: |
|
>>How cool is it to steer something like that? ;-)<<
I don't know if I'd call it cool. They let me steer the ship once and I did a competant job of it. (Kind of made me wonder if I should have rated as a Boatswain's Mate instead of a Ships Serviceman.) The thing is that it demanded all of my attention as there are all kinds of little things which can push a ship off course. The trick is to keep that steady course which is called for and this requires constant small adjustments in rudder angles to deal with the problem of drift. Especially in heavy seas.
The ship actually can do it automatically but the Navy has an institutional mistrust of "autopilots" which in my opinion, is not entirely unfounded. With a merchant vessel, this isn't always much of an issue since they rarely have to make radical adjustments.
With a warship however, the situation is very different. You have to be able to make quick changes for a lot of reasons ranging from formation/station keeping to the demands of combat which often call for sudden and unpredictable changes.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
