While we're talking about flooding and bulkheads, what you you think about the new "evidence" of the coal bunker fire being more serious than we thought it was and actually caused the Titanic to sink much faster than it should have? I just watched the documentary last evening in YouTube:
I haven't watched the show yet but if this picture going around in the news is right, the spot is on the wrong place, far away from the coal bunker and much to high.
That is another myth which is not true (if I remember right it was first mentioned about 1996). The postal workers gave it up after the water rose to quickly and watched then together with passengers from E Deck down into the flooding mail below. Later some of them were seen on the boat deck.On another point, they say if the bulkheads held no one would have died. This ignores the postal workers who would have been dead before CQD was sent.
The bulkhead did not collapsed. If it would have Barrett would had no chance to get out of BR 5. It was more likely the coal bunker door (which was not designed for water pressure) which collapsed and let water fill BR5.Did the bulkhead collapse make a difference anyway? I would have thought the rate of flooding was dependant on the area open to the sea irrespective of the bulkheads' condition.
Not really.Had the collapse happened, just suppose, would that even effect the rate of flooding?
Oh cool. You're here. I just got your book for Christmas. No spoilers.If that bulkhead had collapsed allowing the water that built up in BR6 to flow aft into BR5, then the center of gravity of the floodwater within the vessel would have shifted suddenly aft by a small amount. The effect would have been that the trim of the vessel would come back up slightly with the bow rising up a little bit. Think about it. How would a life boat with too many people seated up in the bow, and noticeably down by the head, look after a few people suddenly were allowed to move aft?