Newly found evidence documents changes to Titanics propeller configuration... Titanica! Mon, 26 Oct 2020

TITANIC’S CENTRE PROPELLER: THE STEPHEN PIGOTT EVIDENCE
Newly found evidence documents changes to Titanic’s propeller configuration
Point taken Mark. Thanks again for the good work.Thanks for your very kind comments. I'm pleased the article was of interest.
Mike, the section of the article you allude to is simply looking at Harland & Wolff's completed ships with combination machinery, for both White Star and other owners. Ships built by other builders were excluded from the analysis.
Best wishes
I think it was the general practice to prevent them from spinning once the ship hit the water.Hi Mark,
Whilst on the subject of propellers. Can you give me a reason why H&W did not fit the propellers when on the slipway?
Or was the general practice of H&W not to so.
10/10 would read againView attachment 72832
Newly found evidence documents changes to Titanics propeller configuration... Titanica! Mon, 26 Oct 2020
![]()
TITANIC’S CENTRE PROPELLER: THE STEPHEN PIGOTT EVIDENCE
Newly found evidence documents changes to Titanic’s propeller configurationwww.encyclopedia-titanica.org
Something interesting, the 1997 movie shows a Four bladed prop. Although, this isn’t their fault, since the movie is based on what evidence they had at the time.View attachment 72832
Newly found evidence documents changes to Titanics propeller configuration... Titanica! Mon, 26 Oct 2020
![]()
TITANIC’S CENTRE PROPELLER: THE STEPHEN PIGOTT EVIDENCE
Newly found evidence documents changes to Titanic’s propeller configurationwww.encyclopedia-titanica.org
It’ll be no use, there’s no reasoning with the Switch theorists, for example.The question should be put to all those who claim that Titanic had a 4-laded center prop to show on what historical basis does such a claim depend on.
Because both her sister ships had 4 bladed center props? Not disputing Mr. Chirnside's work on this. He's done excellent research on the subject and knows way more about it than me and most others. But until a definitive photo is found the only way to be sure is for someone to go clean out the mud and look or possibly use a mud (ground) penetrating radar. Both expensive endeavors.The question should be put to all those who claim that Titanic had a 4-laded center prop to show on what historical basis does such a claim depend on.
A job well done! Mark outdid himself once more!
Hi Mark,
Whilst on the subject of propellers. Can you give me a reason why H&W did not fit the propellers when on the slipway?
Or was the general practice of H&W not to so.
10/10 would read again
Something interesting, the 1997 movie shows a Four bladed prop. Although, this isn’t their fault, since the movie is based on what evidence they had at the time.
wasn’t Olympic fitted with a three bladed propeller in 1913?
The question should be put to all those who claim that Titanic had a 4-laded center prop to show on what historical basis does such a claim depend on.
Because both her sister ships had 4 bladed center props? Not disputing Mr. Chirnside's work on this. He's done excellent research on the subject and knows way more about it than me and most others. But until a definitive photo is found the only way to be sure is for someone to go clean out the mud and look or possibly use a mud (ground) penetrating radar. Both expensive endeavors.
I can not find what was fitted on the Laurentic ship centre propeller for blades. I can only think if a three bladed propeller was on the ship in direct line of the rudder was considered a better idea. However new technology never stand still and so why not try a four bladed propeller against a three bladed propeller?
Thank you for your reply. I've always enjoyed reading your research over the years. You do excellent work on the subject of Titanic and other ships. As for the center prop if I was sitting on a jury I would rule in your favor that you have proven your case. If I was sitting in a casino and asked to place a bet on it I wouldn't. I know thats not logical but I guess I have some Missouri blood in me. Show me after we dig it out. That's my flaw not anyone elses. Anyway again thanks for your hard work and your book on the Aquitania is on my list to get. I look foward to reading it as I have liked the history of her. Especially her later years. Cheers...SteveC.Thanks Juha, much appreciated.
H&W certainly did fit propellers before launch, including Oceanic (1899) whose port and starboard propellers were almost as large as Olympic's. She was launched with her propellers in place as was Celtic. We can see them turning in launch footage. I believe Scott Andrews addressed this issue before regarding Olympic, but I cannot find my note.
Thanks. Please do.
Yes. Many people have cited the movie to me as an example of why I'm wrong. ;-) Another person explained to me that their Titanic model had a 4-bladed centre propeller, therefore I was mistaken. And one person invented a fictional great grand father (aged 115) who had allegedly worked at H&W and told them that they'd witnessed Titanic being fitted with a 4-bladed centre propeller. For some reason, Titanic having a different propeller configuration to what they imagined seems to provoke strong emotions among some people.
Bruce Beveridge's research shows Olympic was fitted with a 3-bladed centre propeller in 1912-13, which was similar in specification to the 3-bladed centre propeller fitted to Titanic in 1912. She later reverted to a 4-bladed centre propeller configuration.
Exactly so.
There is no evidence Titanic had a 4-bladed centre propeller.
H&W's own records state she had a 3-bladed one.
Anyone claiming she had a 4-bladed centre propeller needs to provide primary source evidence of their claims.
Olympic, Titanic and Britannic were different in many ways, so assumptions about one ship's configuration do not take precedence over ship-specific evidence.
In fact, there are FIVE different wing propeller configurations for 1911-14 alone (Olympic's original configuration, Olympic's November 1911 configuration, Titanic's completed configuration, Olympic's 1913 configuration, and Britannic's completed configuration). These were simply differences of blade pitch or diameter and were all 3-bladed configurations.
Olympic had a 3-bladed centre propeller for a period and a 4-bladed centre propeller for the majority of her career. (By the way, although Britannic was completed with a 4-bladed centre propeller, Simon Mills' research indicated she was envisaged with a 3-bladed centre propeller at an earlier stage of construction.)
I'm advised that, even if some sort of ground-penetrating device could be used, the results from Titanic's wreck may hardly be definitive.
I agree with you that the wreck itself would be the best evidence. However, the absence of that should not blind us to the evidence we have available. Every detail of the H&W engineering notebook specifications which could be checked with other sources is correct and nobody has provided a legitimate reason to doubt it.
We need to be very clear that there's a familiarity bias at work.
The result of this is that people were perfectly happy to assume Titanic had a 4-bladed centre propeller, based solely on Olympic's (1911) configuration, without wanting any proof.
The only reason people question the H&W documentation that Titanic had a 3-bladed centre propeller is simply because it conflicts with their existing assumptions.
In other words, people prioritise the familiar (an assumption supported by no evidence) in favour of the unfamiliar (something documented clearly in H&W's records). This is a natural human bias that all objective researchers have to seek to overcome.
Laurentic's centre propeller is mentioned in the article. As stated, she had a 3-bladed centre propeller. The results of her trials were apparently so satisfactory that they went a long way to cementing H&W's confidence in using the new combination propulsion system. It was Olympic's 1911 configuration that is the odd one out, since she's the only combination ship H&W completed from April 1909 to January 1914 with a 4-bladed centre propeller.
Best wishes
Mark.