A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Forensically speaking, there is no evidence that any blade was lost because of contact with an object. Of the blades that can be seen on the wreck, they appear to be untouched. Given the revolutions carried, more than one blade would have come in contact with the berg if the stern came close enough to have one ripped off or severely bent.


There is a blade clearly missing from the starboard propeller, including the bolts that held it in place. This has to be considered proof at the very least that the blade is not attached to the propeller.




propstarboard.PNG


prop01a.PNG


.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I've stayed away from this thread for a while, but I do feel the need to ask the following regarding the statements above.
1. Assuming a southward current of about 1 knot, why would that act only on the starboard bow of the vessel as claimed above? The entire ship was sailing on a body of water that was moving. As such, the movement of the ship has two components, the movement of the water plus the ship's movement relative to that body of water. As long as the current was uniform over a relatively large area compared to the dimensions of the vessel (i.e., the movement of water was the same everywhere), the movement of the ship relative to the body of water would be the same as if there were no current at all.
2. The order to shift the rudder came after the berg had passed aft of the bridge as it was going astern. There is no evidence that it came as late as 30 seconds after impact. The rationale for an order to shift the helm hard-aport (right full rudder) after the ship struck is to mitigate further damage happening along the starboard side by trying to swing the stern away from the berg.
3. The is no supporting evidence that full astern on the engines was actually ordered. That story came only from Boxhall who gave a very compressed time frame for him to have witnessed all the things he said he heard. If full astern was ordered, the why would an engineer send a Stop signal to the stokeholds to dampen the fires when a full head of steam was still needed?
4. From several eyewitness accounts, there were minutes, not just a few seconds, between the time of impact with the berg and when the engines came to a stopped. The shortest quantified time estimate that I could find was from Dillon who said they stopped in about a minute and a half after the impact. So even with engine orders sent down prior to the impact the ship was running ahead on her engines for quite some time afterward.
5. If the ship was not turning to starboard by the time Capt. Smith showed up on the bridge, then why would Murdoch, Smith and Boxhall go out on the starboard bridge wing to look for the berg? The berg would have been off the port quarter by then.

It was not a statement, Sam but an hypothetical question with deep meaning.

To answer your questions:

1. When a ship is stationary in a body of water and a current is acting uniformly along one side of it, it will align at approximately right angles to the current. The ship will drift down current at the rate of the current.
When that same ship starts to move, an additional current called a wake current is set up. This effects steering and is noticeable by the helmsman. If a helm order is given to turn the ship into the current, then the bow will attempt to push against the current, again, the helmsman will require to carry extra helm in the opposite direction to the current. The steering of Titanic does not indicate she was steaming across a current. here';s the proof:
"942. Was she a good steering ship? A: - Fairly well, yes.
943. 943. Up to the time of the collision did she vary from her course at all? A: - Not that I am aware of, not more than a degree on either side.".

If there had been a south setting 1.2 current, her head would be swinging and she would have been carrying port helm (in 1912 parlance).

2. We do not know when the second helm order was give...only one person admitted to hearing it and he said that he heard it "when he was on the bridge" and "when the ice berg was way down stern", not as you say "as it was going astern". That same man was a bridge messenger and therefore off and on the bridge several times in the first 20 minutes before being sent away to help with the boats. He could have heard that order at any one of the brief times he was on the bridge. When not off the bridge, his post was to be beside the helmsman and, among other things,to standby for orders. However, since it seems like the last ahead engine order was given at about 11-46 pm, he most likely heard it at that time. He may, as Hichens remembered, have even been standing beside Hichens, heard the second helm order and noted the engine movement time in the log.

There was no doubt about helm orders as far as the man on the wheel was concerned.
"1314. You were given the order to hard-a-starboard? A: - Yes.
1315. Was that the only order you had as to the helm? A: - Yes.
316. (Mr. Holmes.) It is Question 354. (To the Witness.) She never was under a port helm?
- She did not come on the port helm, Sir - on the starboard helm."

That's plain enough, don't you think?

3. As with the claims of QM Olliver regarding that second helm order, we have nothing to support Boxhall's claim about the astern engine order because he was the only one who actually witnesses it on a telegraph. Why accept the evidence of one witness and reject another?
However we do know that an astern movement was the second engine movement. Dillon saw it and described it as Slow Astern but he did not see the telegraph. It could easily have been Full Astern but was modified to Stop because of the resulting behaviour of the ship i.e she slowed faster than expected. That is very normal in practice.

4. The people in the boiler room would have no idea what was going on. They simply received a STOP order and that meant stop firing and and take the draught off the fires. They would do that and await the next order which would require them to draw the damper out and feed the fires according to order and the required firing rate.

4. Dillon states that it was about 90 seconds after impact before the engines stopped. Since it took about 30 seconds to stop the engines, this means that it took a full minuted from when the engine order was given before the engineers responded. Do you really believe that on a 2 man /Engine Room Watch ship? In my opinion, it would have taken no longer than 30 seconds to activate the controls.
Leading Fireman Barratt, stated that he got the order from the engine room to stop firing and he did not have time to close the dampers before water entered boiler room 6. Additionally, and cruicially, he just had time to jump through the WT doors into BR5 before they were closed. Since the WT door closing lever and the first engine order were activated at the time of impact and and it took 25 to 30 seconds to close them and the order from the main engine room to close dampers came before they closed, then the STOP order to the boiler rooms must have come with seconds of the main engine room receiving the STOP order from the bridge. That being the case, the shutting down process began almost immediately after impact. As soon as they shut down, pressure would start dropping and power to the engines would start falling. The ship would slow down quickly...from loss of power and due to the hard left turning moment. Additionally, the optimum rudder angle for a hard over turn is 35 degrees. Anything more than that will cause the ship to slow down quickly. According to Hichens, the rudder angle was 40 degrees...almost acting as a drag. Additionally, as the engines slowed down, the turbulence around the propellers due to central prop drag and wake current would eventually render the rudder useless.

According to QM Olliver, the ship was almost stopped when the half a head order was given. It only lasted 2 minutes
Such an order for such a short time would have been given for 3 reasons:
a: She was still moving ahead and he wanted to bring her to a halt.
b: She was starting to move astern and he wanted to bring her to a halt
C:The Captain wished to use his rudder and needed propeller wash and a little headway to do so but did not wish to get underway.

The main thing about this second last engine movement was that it was given when the ship was almost stopped.

5. Captain Smith and Mr Murdoch would not go to the bridge wing and check on te iceberg until the ship was finally stopped. Shortly after that, Boxhall went below on his first inspection.
However, about 2 or 3 minutes after impact, the ships engines were stopped but she was still moving. It is hardly likely that she was under any helm since at that time, the first officer was on the port wing of the bridge and the captain was on the starboard wing.
If Captain Smith had given his ship a 1.5 minute burst ahead, he did so, about 5 minutes after impact and would have done so for the reason of option C above. That being so, when he finally stopped his ship, he would have been heading west and the iceberg would have been on his starboard quarter. That would then have been the time when he could relax and go and have a look at what did the damage to his ship. Before that, he would be looking over the side and checking the effect of the various engine movements he had been using.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
Private to Sam...what you said above, "3. The is no supporting evidence that full astern on the engines was actually ordered. That story came only from Boxhall who gave a very compressed time frame for him to have witnessed all the things he said he heard. If full astern was ordered, the why would an engineer send a Stop signal to the stokeholds to dampen the fires when a full head of steam was still needed?" is brilliant. Of course!

Public to all....Sam's comment about no evidence that the apparently missing blade was lost by striking something while it was rotating must be true for the reasons he stated. The blade does seem to be gone. But the pristine state of the other two blades is proof enough that whatever happened did not take place while the prop was rotating in any direction--forward or back. Whatever happened took place with the prop stopped. Perhaps some large chunk o' metal came crashing by and struck just the missing blade. Who knows? Indeed, how will we ever know? But, damage to only one blade of three on a single shaft just doesn't happen if that shaft is rotating.

-- David G. Brown
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
My understanding is that one blade made contact with the submerged ice and cracked the ice, so that it would break away with the blade and the two remaining blades would rotate without suffering the same damage. The Olympic lost a blade when she collided with a wreck, and the photo of her being repaired doesn't show damage to the remaining blades. I believe the missing blade from the Titanic if located could tell us where she struck the iceberg, or at the very least how far she travelled after the impact before she stopped to begin the evacuation.




propeller1aa.PNG


propeller1a.PNG



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
It was not a statement, Sam but an hypothetical question with deep meaning.

To answer your questions:

1. When a ship is stationary in a body of water and a current is acting uniformly along one side of it, it will align at approximately right angles to the current. The ship will drift down current at the rate of the current.
When that same ship starts to move, an additional current called a wake current is set up. This effects steering and is noticeable by the helmsman. If a helm order is given to turn the ship into the current, then the bow will attempt to push against the current, again, the helmsman will require to carry extra helm in the opposite direction to the current. The steering of Titanic does not indicate she was steaming across a current. here';s the proof:
"942. Was she a good steering ship? A: - Fairly well, yes.
943. 943. Up to the time of the collision did she vary from her course at all? A: - Not that I am aware of, not more than a degree on either side.".

If there had been a south setting 1.2 current, her head would be swinging and she would have been carrying port helm (in 1912 parlance).

2. We do not know when the second helm order was give...only one person admitted to hearing it and he said that he heard it "when he was on the bridge" and "when the ice berg was way down stern", not as you say "as it was going astern". That same man was a bridge messenger and therefore off and on the bridge several times in the first 20 minutes before being sent away to help with the boats. He could have heard that order at any one of the brief times he was on the bridge. When not off the bridge, his post was to be beside the helmsman and, among other things,to standby for orders. However, since it seems like the last ahead engine order was given at about 11-46 pm, he most likely heard it at that time. He may, as Hichens remembered, have even been standing beside Hichens, heard the second helm order and noted the engine movement time in the log.

There was no doubt about helm orders as far as the man on the wheel was concerned.
"1314. You were given the order to hard-a-starboard? A: - Yes.
1315. Was that the only order you had as to the helm? A: - Yes.
316. (Mr. Holmes.) It is Question 354. (To the Witness.) She never was under a port helm?
- She did not come on the port helm, Sir - on the starboard helm."

That's plain enough, don't you think?

3. As with the claims of QM Olliver regarding that second helm order, we have nothing to support Boxhall's claim about the astern engine order because he was the only one who actually witnesses it on a telegraph. Why accept the evidence of one witness and reject another?
However we do know that an astern movement was the second engine movement. Dillon saw it and described it as Slow Astern but he did not see the telegraph. It could easily have been Full Astern but was modified to Stop because of the resulting behaviour of the ship i.e she slowed faster than expected. That is very normal in practice.

4. The people in the boiler room would have no idea what was going on. They simply received a STOP order and that meant stop firing and and take the draught off the fires. They would do that and await the next order which would require them to draw the damper out and feed the fires according to order and the required firing rate.

4. Dillon states that it was about 90 seconds after impact before the engines stopped. Since it took about 30 seconds to stop the engines, this means that it took a full minuted from when the engine order was given before the engineers responded. Do you really believe that on a 2 man /Engine Room Watch ship? In my opinion, it would have taken no longer than 30 seconds to activate the controls.
Leading Fireman Barratt, stated that he got the order from the engine room to stop firing and he did not have time to close the dampers before water entered boiler room 6. Additionally, and cruicially, he just had time to jump through the WT doors into BR5 before they were closed. Since the WT door closing lever and the first engine order were activated at the time of impact and and it took 25 to 30 seconds to close them and the order from the main engine room to close dampers came before they closed, then the STOP order to the boiler rooms must have come with seconds of the main engine room receiving the STOP order from the bridge. That being the case, the shutting down process began almost immediately after impact. As soon as they shut down, pressure would start dropping and power to the engines would start falling. The ship would slow down quickly...from loss of power and due to the hard left turning moment. Additionally, the optimum rudder angle for a hard over turn is 35 degrees. Anything more than that will cause the ship to slow down quickly. According to Hichens, the rudder angle was 40 degrees...almost acting as a drag. Additionally, as the engines slowed down, the turbulence around the propellers due to central prop drag and wake current would eventually render the rudder useless.

According to QM Olliver, the ship was almost stopped when the half a head order was given. It only lasted 2 minutes
Such an order for such a short time would have been given for 3 reasons:
a: She was still moving ahead and he wanted to bring her to a halt.
b: She was starting to move astern and he wanted to bring her to a halt
C:The Captain wished to use his rudder and needed propeller wash and a little headway to do so but did not wish to get underway.

The main thing about this second last engine movement was that it was given when the ship was almost stopped.

5. Captain Smith and Mr Murdoch would not go to the bridge wing and check on te iceberg until the ship was finally stopped. Shortly after that, Boxhall went below on his first inspection.
However, about 2 or 3 minutes after impact, the ships engines were stopped but she was still moving. It is hardly likely that she was under any helm since at that time, the first officer was on the port wing of the bridge and the captain was on the starboard wing.
If Captain Smith had given his ship a 1.5 minute burst ahead, he did so, about 5 minutes after impact and would have done so for the reason of option C above. That being so, when he finally stopped his ship, he would have been heading west and the iceberg would have been on his starboard quarter. That would then have been the time when he could relax and go and have a look at what did the damage to his ship. Before that, he would be looking over the side and checking the effect of the various engine movements he had been using.
PS:
I forgot about one element to apply the the hypothetical vessel stopped in your question 1...wind-age.
Presuming that your vessel is not stopped in a vacuum but in a flat calm situation.... as it is pushed broadside by the current, the hull and superstructure meet air resistance. If the balance of air resistance is unequal one each side of the center of flotation then the part with least air resistance will be in advance of the other part. In the case of Titanic, if there was even a modicum less resistance in the forward part then the bow would swing south until equilibrium had been achieved.
 
Oct 28, 2000
3,242
550
388
White Star had its unique insurance system on the Olympic Class liners. That said, I've known of one or more occasions when an internal defect caused something to fail (including propeller blades) and an "unseen floating object" was blamed in order to make an insurance claim. The above photo contains nothing to rule out the more probable cause of the missing blade -- a bad casting that failed under pressure while driving the ship ahead. But, Harland and Wolff was known to be experimenting with new and (presumably) better materials and production methods for propellers.

We could be looking at a failure caused by the learning process. The lack of damage to the other blades makes me question the "unseen object" explanation. I am particularly suspicious of the mounting studs and nuts still in situ trapping what appears to be fractured metal of the mounting for the lost blade.

Do blades fail without hitting anything? Well my late friend, the late Capt. Jay Ottinger was riding Second on an American President liner making passage to Hawaii when it dropped a blade. Brought the Captian up all standing!

-- David G. Brown
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Quartermaster Rowe thought the engines were going full speed astern immediately after the collision and reeled up the log trailing behind the ship "half a minute" after the collision. This gives us an idea of when the vibration occurred, and likely followed the initial collision which was described by others as simply a bump. When survivors looked over the side and the saw the iceberg off the stern moving away they believed the Titanic was almost stopped and moving very slowly in the water. Their observance needs to be factored in to what orders may have been given prior to this, or what had occurred to the ship caused her to significantly slow down before the iceberg had disappeared into the darkness.


According to Lookout Lee the collision caused the ship to heel over to port.

Q - When you were in the crow’s-nest did you first of all feel the impact, the blow of the vessel on the iceberg? Did you feel it?
A - The ship seemed to heel slightly over to port as she struck the berg.
Q - You felt her strike, did you?
A - Oh, indeed, Sir.
Q - Then she heeled a little over to port?
A - Very slightly over to port, as she struck along the starboard side.


Lookout Fleet was also asked this question. However he said she listed to port just after the collision, not during.

Q - Did it tilt the ship to any extent?
A - She listed to port right afterwards.
Q - To what extent?
A - I could not say; a slight list.
Q - Just immediately on striking the berg?
A - Just afterwards.
Q - Did it seem that the blow came beneath the surface of the water and caused her to shift?
A - Yes, sir.


Either the ship was obeying a "hard a-port" order and heeling over as she turned right, or the starboard keel of the ship was sliding over the ice shelf below the surface, and if this was happening after the initial impact then the ice must have been in constant contact with the ship from bow to stern, causing her to heel over, and snap off one of her blades as it passed by. Would this full length contact make her reduce speed considerably? Would one less blade on the starboard propeller cause her to turn right after the collision?



.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Private to Sam...what you said above, "3. The is no supporting evidence that full astern on the engines was actually ordered. That story came only from Boxhall who gave a very compressed time frame for him to have witnessed all the things he said he heard. If full astern was ordered, the why would an engineer send a Stop signal to the stokeholds to dampen the fires when a full head of steam was still needed?" is brilliant. Of course!

Public to all....Sam's comment about no evidence that the apparently missing blade was lost by striking something while it was rotating must be true for the reasons he stated. The blade does seem to be gone. But the pristine state of the other two blades is proof enough that whatever happened did not take place while the prop was rotating in any direction--forward or back. Whatever happened took place with the prop stopped. Perhaps some large chunk o' metal came crashing by and struck just the missing blade. Who knows? Indeed, how will we ever know? But, damage to only one blade of three on a single shaft just doesn't happen if that shaft is rotating.

-- David G. Brown
David,

Under normal circumstances, the STOP order would only be given after the notification STANDBY had been given and all those on watch in the engines departments would be at their stations. It follows that when the STOP order was given by the bridge, the twin acts of shutting off the steam to the engines and shutting the dampers would be almost simultaneous. Steam pressure in the boilers would hardly have time to fall off before the engines came to a standstill and the next engine order was given. If the order FULL ASTERN was the next one given or if that was the second order flowing from the first, then there would be almost a a full head of steam available.

The order to STOP was not sent to the boiler room by an engineers but was immediately relayed by two greasers to the Black Gang in the Boiler Rooms of Titanic. Within seconds of receiving that order, they began shutting every single damper and firing abruptly ceased. From that moment onward, pressure would start to drop in all boilers. For every second of delay between then and the actual shutting off of steam by the engineers to stop the engines, the steam in the system would have been rapidly used-up and power would have been dropping away. If, as Boxhall claimed, the STOP order was followed by a FULL ASTERN order and it was 1.5 minutes after impact before he engines stopped, then for almost a minute (If Dillon was correct) before the engineers began the shut down, the pressure in the boilers had been dropping.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Aaron,

Quartermaster Rowe was asked at the 1912 British Inquiry -


Q - How long after the ship struck do you think it was you looked at this patent log? Ten minutes or a quarter of an hour?
A - About half a minute

I asked myself what would cause him to rush over to the port side and reel in the log so soon after the collision? In 1957 he gave a TV interview and said - "I felt her give a jar. I thought that was peculiar. I looked along the side and I saw what I thought was a windjammer, but as it came astern I saw it was an iceberg. The engine was going full speed astern then so I pulled the log in."

There wouldn't be time for the engines to go full astern so soon after the collision. This led me to believe they had lost a propeller blade in the collision, as survivors described it as a series of bumps followed by a long vibration, and as QM Rowe must have felt this vibration at the stern after the collision he mistook it for the engines going astern and immediately pulled up the log. Survivors said they thought she had lost a blade, and according to some survivors the Titanic went slow ahead after she stopped. It is my belief that Captain Smith was checking the propellers as he had recently lost a blade on the Olympic and would recognize the sensation.

Mr. Stengel was asked:

Q - How long after the impact was it before the engines were stopped?
A - A very few minutes.
Q - Give the number of minutes, if you can. You are accustomed to machinery and matters of this kind.
A - I should say two or three minutes, and then they started again just slightly; just started to move again. I do not know why; whether they were backing off, or not. I do not know. I hardly thought they were backing off, because there was not much vibration of the ship.

When the Olympic lost a blade the passengers felt a vibration that woke some of them up. Perhaps the vibration that Mr. Stengel felt was the sensation caused by the ship moving slowly with a broken blade creating the second vibration. Reading newspaper accounts it appears Gretchen Longley thought they had struck two icebergs. Perhaps she also felt the second vibration and mistook it for a second collision as the ship moved forward again.


.
When a ship slows down rapidly, the log line, which until then is stretched out way astern of the ship, clear of her wake, begins to sink. At that moment, the crew, or in this case QM Rowe, would first note the reading then haul the line and the rotator in board. If this was half a minute after impact, then the berg would have been about 200 feet astern of Titanic and disappearing into the darkness.
My guess is that Rowe noted the ship was rapidly slowing and like the excellent seaman he was, looked after his charge which was the Patent log. I also suspect that additional knowledge and the passage of time made him make that remark about the engines going full astern. However, if they did, then he would have been very much aware of the fact, since, standing where he was, the cavitation would have rocked his false teeth in his head.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
I believe the vibration of the lost blade made Rowe mistake that the engines were going astern. He said part of his regular duties was - "We read the log every two hours, and it is telephoned to the bridge and entered in the quartermaster's log book." When the iceberg passed the stern he immediately went to the port side and reeled the log in and went to the telephone on the bridge. He was asked:

Q - Did you notice the iceberg when the boat got clear of it?
A - No, sir; I went on the bridge then, to stand by the telephone.

This gives us an idea of how immediate his action was to stop looking at the iceberg and run to the port side to reel up the log, perhaps fearing that the vibration that followed the collision were the propellers reversing when it was (as I believe) a dropped blade.


.
 

Harland Duzen

Member
Jan 14, 2017
1,594
722
188
Perhaps the best thing to do to see IF a Propeller Blade was lost would be to use sonar to scan the Eastern and Southern side of the debris field if it was lost on collision with the Iceberg Or scan the area around the Starboard Propeller just to be sure it's not buried.

This may stupid since they were probably very secure, but it is possible the blade was weakened by the iceberg and then fell off when it impacted with the bottom meaning it's just fallen off and lightly covered with sand?
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
735
208
England
At the US inquiry QM Rowe states he did not believe that the iceberg struck the propeller.

At the UK inquiry he states he felt the jar of the collision, went to the rail, watched the Iceberg clear and then went to look at the log. He estimates that this was in a 30 second time frame. At the speed at which the Titanic was travelling I have calculated that it would have taken approximately 24 seconds for the iceberg to travel the length of the Titanic from bow to stern. That fits nicely within Rowe's timeframe.

If the engines were coming to a stop the propellers would start to cavitate causing a noticeable vibration back aft.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
When you drop a blade, on a twin screw, center rudder ship, the engine revs. on the [bcolor=rgb(252, 252, 255)]Read The_Inigmatic_Excursion_of_the_SS_Birma[/bcolor]one with the damaged screw increase. Apart from the sensation of being in a car with square wheels, the thrust by the two engines becomes uneven. This is because the undamaged propeller has greater thrust than the damaged one.
In the case of Titanic, she was turning left. The wash of the left prop was playing on the face of the hard over rudder, causing the stern to be pushed to the right and consequently the bow to the left. At the same time, the thrust of the starboard prop was assisting the turn by also pushing the bow to the left. When the efficiency of the starboard prop, was reduced, the left turning action would suffer and the bow would not swing as fast as desired.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
When survivors looked over the side and saw the iceberg off the stern they believed the ship had practically come to a stop, or was moving very slowly in the water. It is my belief that she grounded over the ice and snapped off a blade. Not sure how this would affect her steering. Perhaps this is why the order "hard a-port" was given to make sure the rudder itself was undamaged as the ship was not responding to the "hard a-starboard" order as she was pinned against and grounding over the ice making her rudder ineffective.


Survivors described the collision as if she were grounding over the ice. Mr. Ray gave an interesting description.

Q - What kind of a shock was it, if any?
A - A kind of a movement that went backward and forward. I thought something had gone wrong in the engine room. I did not think of any iceberg.

This could have been the keel grounding over the ice, slowing down the ship with several jolts as she slid over the ice.


Rowe felt the collision and believed the engines were going full speed astern immediately after and did not have a spare moment to see the iceberg disappear aft of the ship as he had to go over to the port side (perhaps running with all his strength) to reel in the log. As this vibration made him believe she was going full astern it could suggest why he did not believe she had lost a blade because he had wrongly convinced himself that the vibration was the ship going full astern. He was also asked:


Q - Do you not think the propeller would have hit the ice if the helm had been turned hard a starboard?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - Do you not think that if the helm had been hard astarboard the stern would have been up against the berg?
A - It stands to reason it would, sir, if the helm were hard astarboard.

In that sense he was suggesting that if the hard a-starboard order was really given the propeller should have been pushed up against the ice. Mr. Witter was in the 2nd class smoking room aft of the engine room near the stern. He believed they had lost a blade. Another 8 survivors believed the vibration came from a lost blade. Mr. Wheat who experienced it before said - "I thought she had cast one of her propeller blades. It sounded to me like that."

Q - Have you been on a ship where that has happened?
A - Yes.
Q - And you thought it was that?
A - Yes, I thought it was the same thing.


As this topic is about the break-up, would the grounding pop open rivets below the ship? Was it possible that significant damage occurred where the ship broke in two, weakening or cracking the plates of the double bottom? According to Harold Bride the Captain told him the iceberg had damaged the ship "just aft of amidships" - where the ship broke in two?


.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
View attachment 2825
There is a blade clearly missing from the starboard propeller, including the bolts that held it in place. This has to be considered proof at the very least that the blade is not attached to the propeller.
View attachment 2819
.

Sorry I still can not see any holes where the bolts should have been . Also this does not match comparing it (from the port side propeller) with how it looked like. Also we see the same on the port side why should there be a missing blade too?

propeller_R29a1.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
735
208
England
That's another point, the unbalanced prop would make the starboard shaft vibrate severely. Certainly enough to be noticed by Thomas Dillon and Frederick Scott.

Both of those mention a slight impact and the engines coming to a stop. Neither talk about the starboard shaft vibrating violently.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The port propeller is half buried in the mud and the base for the third blade is hidden below the mud. The area is greatly disturbed by the effects of the third blade digging deep into the mud and driving the mud upwards around the base of the propeller. However this is not the case with the starboard propeller. The mud around the base of the propeller is not unsettled, so nothing has been pushed down forcing the mud up around the base, and there is a huge hole where the third blade would have been mounted, and the bolts that held it in place are also missing.




propstarboard1.PNG



Just curious to know where the missing blade is, and if this explains why Captain Smith ordered "half speed ahead" after the collision.



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
The port propeller is half buried in the mud and the base for the third blade is hidden below the mud. The area is greatly disturbed by the effects of the third blade digging deep into the mud and driving the mud upwards around the base of the propeller. However this is not the case with the starboard propeller.

Both shafts with the propellers are bend upward, the starboard one even is pushed outwards while the port one inwards as the stern was rotating when it hit the bottom. Your explanation with the mud did not fit in that case.


The mud around the base of the propeller is not unsettled, so nothing has been pushed down forcing the mud up around the base, and there is a huge hole where the third blade would have been mounted, and the bolts that held it in place are also missing.

If that is the case why do we not see a large hole like this one? The bolts were actually the last thing which would give away (as seen at the pictures of Olympic with the lost blade or the damage after the collision with the Hawke). We see nothing of it at the starboard wreck picture.

Oly2.jpg
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,187
735
208
England
I think I'm right in saying that in Dr Ballard's 86/87 expeditions to the wreck he said that the propellers weren't visible at all as they were under the mud.

I think that area has been exposed over time and subsequent, more intrusive expeditions.

This is one of Ken Marshall's paintings from the 86 expedition showing an impression of Ballard's sub under the stern. These pictures were faithfully re-created from photos taken of the wreck and this painting clearly shows the props buried under mud.

The Art of Ken Marschall
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
I think I'm right in saying that in Dr Ballard's 86/87 expeditions to the wreck he said that the propellers weren't visible at all as they were under the mud.

I think that area has been exposed over time and subsequent, more intrusive expeditions.

That was not the case. Ballard did not go close enough in 1986, the bad lighting and the current were a factor too. The 1987 IFREMER expedition did "better" filming and photographing the starboard one (and later the port one). Ballard missed many things including the large opening on the starboard side of the bow section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Similar threads

Similar threads