Sinking of the stern section

[Marty McLarry]

I was wondering how the stern section sank so quickly after the ship tore apart. When the tear happened, and the bow section detatched from the stern, why the water wouldn't drain out when it was flipped up vertical. No doubt it would have still sank, but you'd think it would take longer then it did.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Marty. Don't think of it as flipping upward. Think of the stern rotating about a point where the front part, which was filling with water rapidly, rotated downward as the dryer rear part rotated upward. Water was not spilling out of anything.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

If anything, water was filling in through the windows and open spaces as the stern twisted into the water, causing it to sink faster.

Also consider that at this point, the water wasn't as much filling up the stern as the stern was sinking into the water, if that makes sense. I realize that this could even be said for the bow, but the bow section was more horizontal and not really sinking as much as being filled with water. As the bow submerged, it rolled about 90 degrees (?) to port and gradually assumed a more vertical position, causing the keel to bend (it is believed) because of the opposing forces in the bow and stern. After the break, the Stern, which was settling into the water, started to thrust downward as well. As it was sinking, the stern evened out on a horizontal axis again and fell like a stone, twisting around so that the tip of the stern faced north.

Sorry for the verbosity. I thought I would provide a basic description. I realize that water filling in and the ship sinking may seem synonymous, but I like to think that there is a slight different: At more even keel, the ingress of water is the dominant force, pulling the ship down. When the hull is more perpendicular, especially when filled with water, it gains momentum and dives. Did I explain this distinction clearly enough? This is sort of how I see it. Maybe someone with a better knowledge in hydrodynamic forces can correct me and/or explain it better.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>If anything, water was filling in through the windows and open spaces as the stern twisted into the water, causing it to sink faster.<<

To say nothing of the huge gaping hole as wide as the ship itself in the region of the engine room. Let's not forget the influance of the engines either in terms of sheer mass. These things weren't feathers!

 

[Marty McLarry]

Thanks for the input. It's starting to make a bit more sense.

Basically, what I was thinking was this: the stern was vertical, the "bottom" of it as it is bobbing there is open- the result of the tear. So I was having a hard time understanding how the water could have completely flooded it to sink it so quickly with an open "bottom". Especially the way it sank- completely vertical straight into the water.

It's kinda like putting a cup upside down in water. The water won't fill the inside of the glass.

 

[Mark Robert Hopkins]

Marty,

I wouldn't say that the stern sank completely vertical, or even vertical at all. It has been proposed that, while submerging, the stern rotated to port and settled on its side as it eased itself below the surface.

Please, take a look at this. Click on the "Titanic" link to the left and then go down and select the "Titanic's Final Moments - Missing Pieces: Traditionalist Theory" link on that page.

This is a graphic presentation-in-progress by Parks Stephenson (one of those working on developing an new visual of the sinking based on current evidence), which will be aired on cable sometime later this year. This depiction appears to be the most realistic so far. I hope it helps.

 

[Marty McLarry]

I see. That makes sense now. Thanks.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>It's kinda like putting a cup upside down in water. The water won't fill the inside of the glass.<<

Well, in this case, the cup wasn't stable, didn't stay upside down, and it's structural integrity was so thoroughly compromised that it was about as watertight as the proverbial sieve! Further, it didn't even start upside down. Water was already cascading in through that "Hole-As-Wide-As-The-Hull"

 

[Robert T. Paige]

>>It's kinda like putting a cup upside down in water. The water won't fill the inside of the glass.<<

I think in the case of the Titanic "It's kinda like putting a cup upside down in water" ....but the cup is full of holes and is being pulled down with weights.

 

[Bill Balla]

Something has been bothering me regarding the sinking of the stern and I really believe there are some unexplained issues.

If the stern had so much air trapped within it that it imploded, why then did it sink so quickly ?

Seems to me that such as quantity of trapped air would have provided at least some buoyancy, enough to at least slow the sinking process.

From all accounts I have read, the stern sank pretty much immediately after it broke from the bow, why ? It just doesn’t seem to make sense.

Before the break, the stern was at least partially out of the water, it could not have been totally flooded (water does not flow up hill) but yet it still sank pretty much like a rock.

Why did it not progressively sink as it filled with water like most sinking objects ?

One possibility is that the stern was not completely severed from the bow after the break and was still attached to the bow by some unknown structure (such as pipes, cables, wires, etc…) and the bow as it sank actually pulled the stern down with it. At some point on their way to the bottom the two finally parted and then drifted apart.

This scenario would account for both the speed at which the stern sank and it’s poor condition due to implosion.

I would very much like to hear your comments.

Bill

[Moderator's note: This message, originally a separate thread elsewhere in this topic, has been moved to this pre-existing thread addressing the same subject. MAB]

 

[Michael Cundiff]

Bill: Actually, the stern section did settle back for a time...and as eye-witness women in the lifeboats remarked, something of the like..."Look the stern section is going to act as a lifeboat itself"...giving a false hope of security for their men and boys. Shortly therafter the stern section lost it's buoyance, it's containment of trapped air was then far outweighd by it's ability to *push away more water than it weighed*, or in laymens terms...displacement.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>air trapped within it that it imploded<<

In the compartments aft of the turbine room, the orlop deck was watertight. If the watertight doors dropped closed as a compartment began to flood then those areas such as the shaft tunnels would tend to be places of trapped air even as the volume of space above the orlop deck flooded completely. My guess, is that it was the spaces of the shaft tunnels that imploded when the stern went under.

 

[Bill Balla]

Michael...Yes it did settle back but for how long ? If that time were more than a couple if minutes then I would conclude that the stern sank due to lack of buoyancy but, if it paused for a very brief time, then I would suggest that it is possible that it may have been pulled under by the bow.

Being pulled under would have resulted in an implosion due to trapped air being compressed as it sank.

Bill

 

[Steven Hall]

"My guess, is that it was the spaces of the shaft tunnels that imploded when the stern went under."
---------
I'd agree Sam.

 

[Michael Cundiff]

And, my friend, Matthew Tulloch, on one of two of his dives in-board the French submersible NAUTILE visited the ravaged stern section, and was quick to note the implosion of the refrigeration area...a compression of unimaginable measure, not even allowing enough clearance to deploy the submersile's R.O.V., Robin. Yes Bill, I agree with your thoughts that the forward section amidships was of a partial connection...How then would the stern section have had enough momentum to spin around, having it not been for an opposing twisting torque pressured force? Therefore agreed.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA