Titanic's propellers


Mike Spooner

Member
Sep 21, 2017
1,070
216
138
Hi Mark, Thanks for that one less mystery solved.
I have ask before why did H&W use a turbine which they lacked the experience in? As not the tried and tested three quadruple expansion engines which they a good track record on?

Mike.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,526
1,807
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Titanic 3-bladed centre prop.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Jan 5, 2001
2,358
248
338
not the tried and tested three quadruple expansion engines which they a good track record on?Mike.

They thought a quadruple expansion system (two triple-expansion reciprocating engines and then a lower-pressure turbine, in essence providing a fourth stage of expansion) would be more economical in operation than a quadruple expansion system using quadruple-expansion reciprocating engines. It was a quirky arrangement but one used successfully on a number of vessels. The data from Laurentic and Megantic supports their contention.

It served Olympic well throughout her career and her performance shows that very clearly, particularly in terms of her fuel consumption data and speed. Based on the data I have for about 90% of Olympic's commercial voyages, she averaged 21.5 knots throughout her service - not bad for a 21 knot ship. (I expect the figure to rise somewhat when and if the missing voyages are added in.)

Best wishes

Mark.
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Sep 21, 2017
1,070
216
138
Hi Mark,
I would agree with you it served well in the Olympic over the years. Are we been wise after the advent here? But at the building time are take a bit of gamble here!
As used on the Laurentic beforehand but not the Megantic? If it was such a good idea why not on the Megantic as she was launched after the Laurentic? Or was it due to there lack experience with turbine had run into trouble?

Mike.
 
Jan 5, 2001
2,358
248
338
As used on the Laurentic beforehand but not the Megantic? If it was such a good idea why not on the Megantic as she was launched after the Laurentic? Or was it due to there lack experience with turbine had run into trouble?

Mike, the whole point of using different propelling machinery on these two ships was to compare the performance obtained. Laurentic's performance was better than Megantic's insofar as she could either generate more power for the same fuel consumption or the same power for significantly less fuel consumption. H&W were already confident in the theoretical benefits of the combination machinery and the data from Laurentic was available early in 1909 to confirm it in reality.

Best wishes

Mark.
 

A. Gabriel

Member
Jun 13, 2018
145
44
73
Philippines
Curious thing I just noticed concerning the current state of the propellers on the wreck: the fairing cones are missing. Were they forcefully detached when the stern hit bottom? Where are they now?
 

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
609
214
108
39
Tacoma, WA
It is my understanding that they have not been found. Some speculate that they have deteriorated. However research now points too them having been painted with anti-fouling paint which should have protected the steel. Some also speculate they are buried in the sediment when the stern hit the sea floor but being that the shafts were probably wrenched upwards during the collision and never properly buried I don't think this is likely the case. If anything they are amoungst the countless artifacts by the stern maybe even buried beneath other debris. They were not strongly attached based on period text drawings (at least looking at the connections of the other various propeller parts).
 
Last edited:

A. Gabriel

Member
Jun 13, 2018
145
44
73
Philippines
The idea of the fairing cones being painted with anti-fouling paint gives an amusing mental image to me, the propellers appearing to be "red-nosed" as a result (unsure if this holds for the center propeller, which I've read was a single casted Mn-bronze part). Alas though, even if they were painted with the red anti-fouling, them being detached from the prop assembly would expose the unpainted interior to attack and the fairing cones would likely be deteriorating from the inside out.
 

B-rad

Member
Jul 1, 2015
609
214
108
39
Tacoma, WA
You are correct. The funnels were also painted and are all but pretty much gone. Unfortantly tying to find what exactly the cones were made out of is difficult. The best example we have is from the Nomadic which apparently had traces of paint. Bronze would not need to be painted. The center props did not include the boss (in the sense of what is seen on the other propellers) or fairwater.
 
Last edited:

A. Gabriel

Member
Jun 13, 2018
145
44
73
Philippines
The center prop is also currently buried under 40 feet of seabed, which is a right pain in the redacted because an actual full sighting of it would finally put the 3 blades / 4 blades debate to rest. That plus it being Mn-bronze (which, to my knowledge, the bacteria devouring the hull do not consume) might mean it could be in a better state of preservation than the two exposed wing propellers, which are themselves in better condition than the rest of the hull.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Kas01

Member
May 24, 2018
175
51
73
25
With regards to ground penetration, how far could modern sonar see into the ground? Or would it somehow be more feasible to use radar?
 

Jane Smith

Ship-interior-fan
Member
Aug 16, 2018
89
8
38
US East Coast
Hey. I’m just wondering about this. I’ve seen photos of the wreck. I’ve always wondered which propeller survived the sinking. Is it the port or starboard propeller that survived the sinking and wreck? I know that the center propeller is completely unknown, probably buried.
 
Nov 14, 2005
2,307
1,202
308
From the pictures I've seen both the wing propellers survived with the starboard prop missing a blade. Yes the center prop is buried. As been discussed by others on board there might or not might be technology that could scan to get a picture of the center prop. It would be nice to find out for curiosities sake.
 

A. Gabriel

Member
Jun 13, 2018
145
44
73
Philippines
If the sonar/ground-penetrating radar technology exists that can determine the number of blades on the center propeller, surely it can be used to determine the presence/absence of the buried starboard propeller blade.

...Now that I think about it though, when was the last time the wreck was dived?
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
From the pictures I've seen both the wing propellers survived with the starboard prop missing a blade. Yes the center prop is buried. As been discussed by others on board there might or not might be technology that could scan to get a picture of the center prop. It would be nice to find out for curiosities sake.

Very true. One starboard blade is clearly missing. We can see how close the blades were to each other from these photographs, and perhaps more importantly how close the blade mountings and bolts were.


A matter of inches between each blade.


blades1a.png




The gap should be the exact same distance apart. Something is missing.

bladebolts.png



Here are both sides of the starboard propeller. We can see how close the blade mountings were. The space on one side is far greater than the other. They should be the same.


bladecompare.png




Another comparison of the propeller.

propeller2a.png


propeller2aa.png



According to this documentary clip the stern rotated and smeared itself against the sea floor.


There are no marks to indicate the blade had scarred a deep impression into the mud as the stern smeared itself on the seabed as it came to a stop. No scarring, no built-up of sand around the propeller, no bolts in place, no mountings visible. Conclusion: The blade is gone. We also have survivors who believed they lost a blade including Ismay and Lightoller and survivors who were on the Olympic when she lost a blade and they believed the sensation they felt was the exact same thing happening again, and we also have what appears to be a large blade resting on the sea floor some distance away from the wreck which would indicate the possible location where she struck the iceberg. As always we are free to believe what we think happened based on what we have researched, regardless of what other people think.

Just my two cents.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
Below is the same propeller. Left side and right side of the starboard propeller shows the gap between each blade is much larger on one side. They should be the same.


upload_2018-8-26_13-11-48.png




The graphic below which you showed as proof is not accurate. The diagram of the blade is not in sync with the blade. The centre does not align at all with the centre of the top blade.


direction.png


It is a manipulation to create the false impression that the blade is completely hidden underneath, despite the fact the blade was not that narrow. It also does not explain why the gap between the blades on one side is so much larger compared to the other side, and why there is no mound of sand driven up, or scarring in the sand adjacent to the alleged hidden blade. If this diagram is proof that the blade is there then it is pretty poor evidence.


.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,652
1,153
248
Germany
The graphic below which you showed as proof is not accurate. The diagram of the blade is not in sync with the blade. The centre does not align at all with the centre of the top blade.

It is a manipulation to create the false impression that the blade is completely hidden underneath, despite the fact the blade was not that narrow. It also does not explain why the gap between the blades on one side is so much larger compared to the other side, and why there is no mound of sand driven up, or scarring in the sand adjacent to the alleged hidden blade. If this diagram is proof that the blade is there then it is pretty poor evidence.

The only one manipulating stuff it is you. I do not think there is more to say it has been already pointed out in the link I posted above #77.
 
A

Aaron_2016

Guest
The only one manipulating stuff it is you. I do not think there is more to say it has been already pointed out in the link I posted above #77.

If you think that diagram is accurate then that is your opinion. I believe it is not and that is my opinion.

Here is a photo of the propeller and roughly where the blade would be if it actually was there.


blade001a.png


The bolts and mounting would be above the sand. There is nothing there. Also the angle of the blade would leave a deep scarring on the sand to the right and a hill of sand to be driven up around the blade to the left. There is nothing there. No sign at all that there was a blade there.


.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads