For those who are not clear on the correct dimensions of Titanic, I've just put the authentic numbers on my website, together with drawings of how some were arrived at. It's surprising how hard they are to find.
I think you may be inferring something I did not imply. While the 882'8" figure seems to come from the more credible source, I'm still not persuaded. It is obvious that this figure was not taken from a direct measurement of the ship.
It had to be taken from plans.
The question that has not been satisfactorily answered is where the 882'9" figure came from.
You will find this figure given for LOA in references almost exclusively. Why? Especially when the other figure was available.
If I had to lean one way or another I would lean toward the 882'9" figure.
To state the length of a ship, the conditions must be specified, because myriad variables affect the measured distance from stem to stern. The most significant of these are the temperature of the hull and how the ship is loaded.
Iron's coefficient of expansion is 1.2 x 10[sup]-5[/sup]/Â°C, so an 882-foot vessel would expand and contract 0.127008" per degree Celsius.
Loading the coal (for example) would cause the mid-forward part to flex downwards, causing the ends to come together.
Everything you said is true. That is why I said that a ship of Titanic's size had to have been measured "as designed" off of plans. Trying to measure a 900 ft. ship would introuduce at least
the variables you state and then some.
My only question was who measured it as 882"8"
and who measured it as 882'9". All other dimensions appear to agree among different sources.