Titanic ship details

Status
Not open for further replies.
This has been a controversial over the years as there are no know photos of Titanic propellers. So where did the three bladed centre come from? As Olympic was fitted with a four bladed propeller and was for sound reason why Olympic had a four bladed centre propeller. Propeller designs is far from straight forward especially dealing with turbine speed which is twice the outer propellers powered by triple expansion engine. Steam turbines where the new technology of the day and very few knew about the correct efficiency. The king of turbines for ships comes from Charles Parsons. Who had to redesign the propellers suited for turbine speeds. Parsons had a strong connection with John Brown shipyard as they took out a licence agreement to build turbines. As for H&W had no licence or experience in turbines where they have to rely on a sub contractor who was John Brown shipyard and built the turbines for Laurentic, Olympic and Titanic. Where again H&W relied John Brown for the correct design propeller. As the there chief designer Stephen Piggot put forward a proposal for a four or three blade centre propeller. In his calculation he slightly favourite the four bladed over the three bladed for efficiency. But what would convince me if a three bladed centre propeller was made and fitted to
Titanic. If a set of manufacture blue print drawings and production cards can be found, but yet to see. So the only way we know for 100% sure still lies buried at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean seabed.
I believe any photo of the "Titanic's" propellers were actually of olympic
 
I certainly agree...
I love reciprocating engines...they are so straight-forward, primitive and ...well... "muscular" to me. Turbines have always seemed like a humming box o' nothing to me. Ho-Hum.

Yet, it seems incredible that somewhere along the line... someone thought of them, given the state of scientific engineering at the time. What a leap of technology.
the way they move so large and yet so refined and smooth
 
Didn't the Lusitania vibrate would the Titanic do the same depending on how many blades were on her central propeller?
Yes she did and never really got rid of it, though perhaps that would eventually happen if she hadn't been sunk. Mauretania also had vibration which was fixed by propeller design as the Tyne - and especially Parsons - had experimented for years, along with a 40-odd foot model running in Northumberland dock.
 
Yes she did and never really got rid of it, though perhaps that would eventually happen if she hadn't been sunk. Mauretania also had vibration which was fixed by propeller design as the Tyne - and especially Parsons - had experimented for years, along with a 40-odd foot model running in Northumberland dock.
I thought so maybe the Titanic or Olymipic would have vibrated if they had a four bladed propeller.
 
Didn't the Lusitania vibrate would the Titanic do the same depending on how many blades were on her central propeller?
Vibration was a serious problem with both the Lusitania and the Mauritania throughout their careers, and it was especially pronounced when they were brand new. There were modifications made to alleviate the problem which made it tolerable, but it never really went away.

The Olympic class however was not designed to be a speed demon so it was never really that bad.

Regarding the three blade center propellor, it was tried on the Titanic and There weren't any serious issues reported. Whether or not it would be a problem would depend on the design of the blades.
 
Just to be clear, the propellers themselves were not vibrating. The vibrations that were felt were cause by propeller cavitation at high rotational speeds; i.e, the formation of vapor bubbles within the water that occur in places where the water has been accelerated to high velocities.
 
Thanks.
TITANIC's engineering plant has always been a particular fascination of mine.

Not to be "snarky", but at first I thought you might be referring to some kind of reduction gear(s)... which I was unaware of. Drawings/plans of anything astern of the turbine are hard to come by, and have always been something of a mystery.

To clarify a tad bit further (if I may), here's a bit more on the turbine:
Her turbine was run with exhaust steam leaving her low pressure cylinders of the reciprocating engines (at 9 psi, I believe), not directly from the boilers (which put out well over 200 psi...which would have damaged the turbine...ergo the name "low pressure turbine).
The turbine was used only if the reciprocating engines were working at half-speed or greater. Trying to operate the turbine at lower speeds would have put too great of stress on the turbine and shaft.
The turbine was first and foremost an efficiency thing... like "booster" engine... useful for extracting the last bit of work from the reciprocating engine's exhaust steam and while driving the ship at higher speeds without drastically increasing coal /steam consumption. The turbine's efficiency would do very little for assisting slow speed maneuvering (over the use of the reciprocating engines), even if it was used.
Think of the turbine as a little kid trying to help an adult push a car.
From a dead stop, the kid is practically useless... BUT... once inertia is overcome and the car is rolling, even the kid's tiny contribution can help keep the car rolling, reducing the dynamic effort the adult needs to put out.

Lastly, as 1) the turbine was directly connected to the center shaft/propeller (ie no gearing), 2) the turbine fan blades were specifically designed to increase in size/surface area as the steam progressed thru it, and therefore 3) could only be fed steam in one direction, you could not "reverse" the turbine/shaft/propeller.
Because of all these restrictions to turbine use, the turbine was "bypassed" at speeds lower than half-speed and at any call for a backing/astern bell...and cut out ENTIRELY during restricted maneuvering situations (such as entering/leaving port) where rapid backing/ahead bells might be expected (preventing the engineers from having to constantly cut the turbine in and out). Large bypass valves diverted the reciprocating engine exhaust steam straight to the main condensers instead of feeding the exhaust steam through the turbine.
Cutting the turbine out basically allowed the center screw to "trail" and go along for the ride... LOL.
Did the turbine driven shaft ‘trail’ or was there a shaft locking arrangement or additionally ‘shaft turning gear?’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top