Titanics propellers

J

James Murdoch

Member
To the contrary, Olympic was the exception at that time for ships H&W built with 'combination' machinery. She, alone, was completed with a 4-bladed centre propeller whereas all the other ships all had three 3-bladed propellers (counting the ships H&W completed between early 1909 and early 1914).

She was the exception, not the rule.

To quote an earlier post from Mark regarding Olympic I think it is you who is trying to delude people, not Mark. If I am mistaken please provide primary source material to the contrary.

Regards,

JM
 
Mike Spooner

Mike Spooner

Member
Mark,
I thought there was a photo of the centre propeller at the wreck site. If possible can you please post it.
 
Mark Chirnside

Mark Chirnside

Member
To quote an earlier post from Mark regarding Olympic I think it is you [ALowder] who is trying to delude people, not Mark. If I am mistaken please provide primary source material to the contrary.

James, I've always found it amusing that none of the minority of people who advocate a 4-bladed centre propeller for Titanic have been able to provide ANY evidence to support their claims, nor did they demand any in order for them to adopt that position.

I thought there was a photo of the centre propeller at the wreck site.

I don't know where you got that idea.
 
Mike Spooner

Mike Spooner

Member
James, I've always found it amusing that none of the minority of people who advocate a 4-bladed centre propeller for Titanic have been able to provide ANY evidence to support their claims, nor did they demand any in order for them to adopt that position.



I don't know where you got that idea.
So we can take it there is no photo of the centre propeller at the wreck site.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
Mark Chirnside as well as a number of other researchers have gone with the PRIMARY sources.... documentation and even a surviving photo...to show that the Titanic in fact had a three bladed center propellor.

Yes, shipyards keep records. Those records were presented. Yes, shipyards take photos but not alwaysas exhaustively as some believe and not all have survived to the present day. None of it is even remotely controversial except to people who for purely egotistical reasons are wedded to the notion, now disproven, that the Titanic's center propellor just....just...just...HAS to be four bladed because....well...it...it...it....just HAS to be.

It's not.

Deal with it.
 
Seumas

Seumas

Member
Those who advocate a central propellor having 3 blades instead of 4 are sadly mistaken due to some doubtful and controversial so called evidence that has cropped up in recently. Any engineer knows that any changes however slight must be fully documented. When a ship has any changes made there is a ton of documentation recorded as well as photographic evidence as well, this is a standard procedure that all shipyards and engineering firms hold to. Mark for some reason has deluded people into believing that there is sufficient evidence for a 3 bladder propellor rather than the 4 bladed propellor that the Titanic was fitted out with and was using during her maiden voyage.
A friendly word in your shell mate, I'd be very careful about accusing people of "deluding" other people if I were you.

Several years ago, when I first read about the possibility of the Titanic having a three bladed central prop, I thought the idea ridiculous. However, because I have an open mind I read Mark's article.

In it he carefully set out his stall and dealt with each argument against his proposal one by one. He completely shattered the century old belief that the ship's central prop had four blades.

The evidence for the three blades is quite simple and actually there in black and white for all to see. There is nothing on paper to indicate a four blader ever being fitted.

The three blades are fact. Four blades are fiction.
 
J

James Murdoch

Member
Dont worry Mark, it takes more than that to delude a Murdoch! I had actually read other posts and hadnt actually came across Mark's article when I made the post. I was 50/50 on the issue and reading his article: presented in a coherent, structured and analytical way backed up with primary source material allowed me to fully move to the position that she was built with a 3 bladed prop. To me, now, the idea of her having a 4 bladed one is as ludicrous as suggesting she didnt hit an iceberg. There is simply no material to back it up. Were this a court of law and the prosecution were seeking to prove she had a 3 bladed prop and presented all their evidence the judge would say

And now the defence may present their first witness

to which the defence replies

The defence rests.

 
Mark Chirnside

Mark Chirnside

Member
Dont worry Mark, it takes more than that to delude a Murdoch! I had actually read other posts and hadnt actually came across Mark's article when I made the post. I was 50/50 on the issue and reading his article: presented in a coherent, structured and analytical way backed up with primary source material allowed me to fully move to the position that she was built with a 3 bladed prop. To me, now, the idea of her having a 4 bladed one is as ludicrous as suggesting she didnt hit an iceberg. There is simply no material to back it up.

Your approach to this, in studying the primary sources, is absolutely right. It's the same one advocated by Seamus and Michael.

The evidence available to us - directly from Harland & Wolff and supported by other primary source material - is very clear Titanic had a 3-bladed centre propeller. Anyone claiming otherwise needs to provide evidence to the contrary.

Nobody has been able to do so in fourteen years!

The 4-bladed centre propeller configuration was simply an assumption that Titanic was the same as Olympic - an assumption which became accepted as fact over decades and so nobody questioned it. (It's not even clear the 3-bladed unit was a 'change', since the notebook from the Stephen Pigott papers demonstrates both configurations were being worked on c. 1910: for all we know, it was always the plan to trial the two designs, one on each ship, and compare them!)

I think the key problem here for some people is familiarity bias.

There's a double standard here:
There are those people who already believed in the 4-bladed centre propeller configuration and so they don't feel that they require any proof of it, yet they chose to ignore, mischaracterise or deny the primary source evidence of the 3-bladed centre propeller configuration on what are sometimes the most imaginative pretexts. (This has included ignoring the evidence from multiple sources that Olympic was fitted with a 3-bladed centre propeller in 1913, too!) Wilful ignorance does not amount to a credible argument or a legitimate historical research methodology.

The majority of people are perfectly sensible when they are made aware of the primary source evidence. An unscientific opinion poll for a large Titanic discussion group on Facebook (in 2020) found 82 percent supported the 3-bladed centre propeller configuration against the remainder who did not. (There were several hundred responses.) And, I suspect many of those who did not probably responded that way in the mistaken belief that all the incorrectly-captioned Olympic propeller photos they had seen in books, museum exhibits and television programmes etc., were Titanic!

However, the majority of people interested in a subject will also get their information from secondary sources, so there is still a long way to go...
 
Steven Christian

Steven Christian

Member
Probably like many others I never gave it much it thought before. Always assumed it was a four blade because that was how it was usually presented. But after reading thru Mark's evidence/research and some other info I believe it was a 3 blade prop. Unfortunately like a lot of other Titanic subjects it will have be dug out to settle it once and for all. Cheers.
 
Steven Christian

Steven Christian

Member
It's sadly very unlikely we'll get anything from the wreck, Steven. Bill Sauder discussed this in some detail here:


Yes. That's a good video. Thanks for posting it. I've watched it before. I'll have to go look for it but I remember him (Bill Sauder) discussing this also on a Titanic Channel clip. Although that was a brief few minutes clip. Cheers.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
I've known Bill Sauder for several years and known OF him long before we ever met at the Pigeon Forge conferences. He's likely one of the most meticulous researchers in any of the historical liner communities. He's as "Primary Source" oriented as Mark is and if he's convinced of anything at all, there's hard evidence to back it up somewhere.

He's right about the on going experimentation and the reasons for it as well. It still goes on too!
 
Steven Christian

Steven Christian

Member
I've known Bill Sauder for several years and known OF him long before we ever met at the Pigeon Forge conferences. He's likely one of the most meticulous researchers in any of the historical liner communities. He's as "Primary Source" oriented as Mark is and if he's convinced of anything at all, there's hard evidence to back it up somewhere.

He's right about the on going experimentation and the reasons for it as well. It still goes on too!
Never had the pleasure of talking to or meeting him buy always enjoyed his stuff I've seen or read he's done on Titanic. Seems like an all around good guy. Have to ask as I must of missed something. "Ongoing experimentation" ? As in regard to the prop? Hope you and all here are having a good evening. Cheers.
 
Michael H. Standart

Michael H. Standart

Member
That "on going experimentation" which is trying out new propellor designs continues to this day. The people who do this are striving for ever greater efficiencies and performance.

It never really stops.
 
Top