Hi!
I have to agree with those statements, re.: the early stage of Titan's career compared with Titanic's story. If memory serves the Titan was supposed to be setting a speed record, presumably the 'Blue Ribband;' whilst Titanic was not capable of that, I am one of those who believes she was trying to beat Olympic's maiden voyage time (as *opposed* to Olympic's record). I also believe that the evidence against Ismay's belief in a Tuesday arrival can be combined with the evidence of his expectation on the voyage for such an occurance; but this is not the thread for discussing that.
Dave wrote: Where on earth did you get a 'Registered Displacement' of 77,780 tons?
My sources were Olympic's May 1911, Titanic's March 1912, and Britannic's December 1915, British Registry Entries respectively, filed by Harold Sanderson and Henry Concannon(sic?). These also mention something about a block co-efficient of 150 tons per inch, if memory serves.
such a displacement would sink her something like 14 feet (at a ballpark calculation) above her marks.
I calculated that 66,000 tons would sink the ship to F-deck; 77,780 tons would bring her down to D-deck. The problem here is that you are taking it too literally. We need a technical expert to help us, but I am reasonably sure that -- from memory -- the term 'registered displacement' is correct. Certainly the figures are.
Best regards,
Mark.
I have to agree with those statements, re.: the early stage of Titan's career compared with Titanic's story. If memory serves the Titan was supposed to be setting a speed record, presumably the 'Blue Ribband;' whilst Titanic was not capable of that, I am one of those who believes she was trying to beat Olympic's maiden voyage time (as *opposed* to Olympic's record). I also believe that the evidence against Ismay's belief in a Tuesday arrival can be combined with the evidence of his expectation on the voyage for such an occurance; but this is not the thread for discussing that.
Dave wrote: Where on earth did you get a 'Registered Displacement' of 77,780 tons?
My sources were Olympic's May 1911, Titanic's March 1912, and Britannic's December 1915, British Registry Entries respectively, filed by Harold Sanderson and Henry Concannon(sic?). These also mention something about a block co-efficient of 150 tons per inch, if memory serves.
such a displacement would sink her something like 14 feet (at a ballpark calculation) above her marks.
I calculated that 66,000 tons would sink the ship to F-deck; 77,780 tons would bring her down to D-deck. The problem here is that you are taking it too literally. We need a technical expert to help us, but I am reasonably sure that -- from memory -- the term 'registered displacement' is correct. Certainly the figures are.
Best regards,
Mark.