Titanic's Dimensions


Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,015
248
333
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.

Titanic's Dimensions
 

Bob Read

Member
Mar 3, 2002
393
4
171
Dave:

You refer to "correct" dimensions and "authentic"
numbers. What is your source?

How do you explain the LOA given in
The Shipbuilder as 882 ' 9 "?

Regards,
Bob Read
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,015
248
333
Maybe they measured it on a hot day! Seriously, my figures are from H & W, including a document I was given in confidence.
 

Bob Read

Member
Mar 3, 2002
393
4
171
James:
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.

Regards,
Bob Read
 
A

Alicia Coors

Guest
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]/°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.

Titanic's length depends on when you measure it.
 

Bob Read

Member
Mar 3, 2002
393
4
171
Alicia:

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.
 
C

Colin W. Montgomery

Guest
An inch is microscopic to a nine hundred foot ship. Personally I like the 882'9" figure but of course it does depend upon the conditions.
 
A

Alexander John Cooley

Guest
What I would like to know is how high was the ship in from keel to tank top from keel to A-Deck and from Keel to tipsy topsy of the masts.
 

Similar threads