Ismay and the speed of the Titanic


Dec 2, 2000
58,591
386
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Really a ship built in 1912 should of been up graded abit more.<<

Upgraded to what? As David pointed out, the fundementals of hydrodynamics haven't changed one bit with the times. The shape of the stern was entirely appropriate for the system the Titanic had. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's either useless or even inferior. Sometimes, the old way is best suited for the job you're trying to do.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>the fundementals of hydrodynamics haven't changed one bit with the times. <<

With respect for you Michael sir.

Well, why does the modern ships don't have the same round stern which Titanic had? Modern ships have square sterns,
it has changed in time.Titanic stern is simply an 18 century sailing ship.
Titanic was built in 1912 making it a 20th century ship with an 18th century stern.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,591
386
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Well, why does the modern ships don't have the same round stern which Titanic had? Modern ships have square sterns,<<

Because that was the form best suited for the sort of propulsion system they were using. The stern forms may have changed, but the hydrodynamics have not. The first is an issue of technology and that does change over time. The second deals with the laws of physics which haven't changed one bit since the universe itself began.
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,241
489
213
Alyson is correct that Titanic's stern shared its heritage with 19th, 18th, 17th and any other "teenth" century going back to antiquity. So what? It was not only a good design for function, but also an eye-sweet design. Modern sterns are butt ugly. They give the appearance of a hull that was cut off with a meat cleaver when it was "long enough." Even so, if you look under water you'll see that some things have not changed.

-- David G. Brown
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>It was not only a good design for function<<, ,

Is that why Titanic could not avoid the Iceberg?

>>but also an eye-sweet design.<<

I agree. It was pretty

>> Modern sterns are butt ugly. They give the appearance of a hull that was cut off with a meat cleaver when it was "long enough." <<

I also agree they are much more ugly, but way more compact.




I thought this thread was about Ismay and speed of the Titanic?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,591
386
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Is that why Titanic could not avoid the Iceberg? <<

No. The reason the Titanic couldn't avoid the iceberg was because they saw it too late to do any good. The stern form had nothing to do with it and the rudder was adaquate. What was not adaquate to the task were the human beings in the driver's seat.
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
146
quote:

The one thing of which I am certain is that the lookouts performed their duties admirably on that night.
David, while I wouldn't necessarily argue that the lookouts were slacking off, I'm curious how one can say proof-positive that they weren't. The fact that their job was extremely unpleasant doesn't necessarily mean they were doing it as well as they could reasonably be expected to.

Can you point me to any books, essays, or discussions that support your assertion?

Many thanks.

--Jim​
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>No. The reason the Titanic couldn't avoid the iceberg was because they saw it too late to do any good. The stern form had nothing to do with it and the rudder was adaquate. What was not adaquate to the task were the human beings in the driver's seat.<<

Of cause it was Human erra, I know humans was the cause. But the rudder and her slow turning ability had a minor place in this mishap.
Did not one Officer stated *Why isn't she
(Titanic)turning*.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,591
386
283
Easley South Carolina
>>But the rudder and her slow turning ability had a minor place in this mishap.<<

Unfortunately, the evidence of the performance of the actual vessel doesn't support this. As already pointed out, the rudder was adaquate for the type of ship and the expected service. Further, if you ever see some of Father Brown's photos, you'll see among them the wake of the Titanic as she was doing turns while transiting to Cherbourg. Take a close look at the wake and the knuckles in the water which mark the turn point and what you see is a ship which was a lot more manueverable then given credit for in the movie myth.

>>Did not one Officer stated *Why isn't she
(Titanic)turning<<

No. This line was attributed to Fleet in the movie but Fleet never stated that he said anything like this either in his testimony or any extant accounts. It's pure cinimatic fabrication.

A word to the wise: Don't take any of the movies too seriously for real history.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
If i heard correctly,there was a problem with the Rudder being to small?
May i point out that Titanic never even had a real sea trial,i have no idea why they did not.
So no one had any idea how fast she can turn.

If you take notice of a modern ships stern, you can see the rudder is completely submerge under water, while if you look at a Titanic or Olympic photo you can see that a part of the rudder being submerge while the rest of the stern is completely out of the water.I'm trying to say that modern ships stern are completely under water with there rudder being completely submerge while Titanic's Stern is only a quarter submerged in water.

If you can give me an answer or reason to this,i would gladly see you're way.I just can't see Titanic turning fast with this kind of information.

About the movie, Yes i do some times relie on the movies which it's not good to do.





>>you'll see among them the wake of the Titanic as she was doing turns while transiting to Cherbourg. Take a close look at the wake and the knuckles in the water which mark the turn point and what you see is a ship which was a lot more manueverable<<

With respect Michael sir.

That's different. The Crew knew they had to slow down and start turning the ship,of cause Titanic look like she can manueverable, there was no iceberg or object to avoid and the crew knew what lied ahead. Any ship can look manueverable ,if there's nothing in the ships way.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,591
386
283
Easley South Carolina
>>If i heard correctly,there was a problem with the Rudder being to small?<<

We've all heard it. The premise has been refuted. See https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-rudder.html which is written by Captain Charles Weeks. The man knows his stuff and he's an experienced shiphandler.

>>About the movie, Yes i do some times relie on the movies which it's not good to do.<<

Quite right, it isn't. Most any movie you see is going to be two to three hours of technical and historical inaccuracies.

>>That's different. The Crew knew they had to slow down and start turning the ship,of cause Titanic look like she can manueverable,<<

They didn't have to do anything of the kind. I have some experience in this area, not only from direct observation on every ship which I've been assigned to, but on an occasion where they had me at the helm. Slowing down is definately not a prerequisite for turning the ship, and there's no evidence that the Titanic herself slowed down until after the accident.

Besides which, slowing the ship down actually robs the rudder of it's effectiveness.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
IT Stated the rudder was small, well minor small but the rudder was small for her size. I thought it would been much smaller rudder thought than i thought.
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,241
489
213
Alyson -- Captain Weeks has spent a lifetime learning about ships, operating ships, and teaching future officers about ships. He performed rudder calculations in accordance with the highest standards of naval architecture and science. His results confirm that Titanic's rudder was within the correct range for a ship of its size and intended purpose. This finding, based on science and experience, is further confirmed by photographs of the ship's own wake. Perhaps you have greater knowledge of the subject. If so, please share us your data, your training, and your experience.

-- David G. Brown
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,591
386
283
Easley South Carolina
Alyson, what the article said was:

"So Titanic’s rudder would be very slightly too small. In each case, the amount the rudder is too small is minor, so it probably didn’t influence the outcome significantly. Particularly when you take into account other activities like stopping or reversing the engines and lag time for the steering engine to put the rudder over."

In other words, the difference here was just too small to make a difference. They were too close and moving too fast. What they needed was not a larger rudder but more time.

I would also point out that the advantages of a larger rudder aren't quite what one might think it is. It might help you turn a whisker quicker, but it imposes a drag penalty which makes it unworthwhile. Titanic was not a warship and had no need to handle like one.
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
146
quote:

May i point out that Titanic never even had a real sea trial,i have no idea why they did not.
So no one had any idea how fast she can turn.
Alyson, that's just not true. Titanic's trials were very short, but they did happen--and the results of certain standard test maneuvers survive to this day. See, for example, here.

Titanic's handling was fine; especially when you bear in mind that from a performance standpoint she was designed to be the seagoing equivalent of a schoolbus and not a Ferrari.

--Jim​
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Hi James.

>>Titanic's trials were very short<<

That's what i meant by *I quoted myself - Titanic not really having a real sea trail*. I knew Titanic did have one, but it was not done probely and too short.

I am not saying she was a ferrari,just stating that the Titanic never had a real sea trail.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,591
386
283
Easley South Carolina
What do you define as long enough? The Titanic's sea trials lasted 8 hours and while prefunctory and decidely rushed, they served the intended purpose which was to make sure everything which was important worked as it was supposed to. If it hadn't, White Star could have simply returned the ship with that dreaded "Declined with thanks" response.

Mind you, I'm not saying it couldn't have been done better or more thoroughly...they could have been...but one cannot say that she didn't have sea trials.
 

Similar threads