Titanic's propellers

[Encyclopedia Titanica]

young, talented historian

Well, maybe two out of three

 

[Mike Spooner]

Looking at the poor quality photo of propeller on the floating crane barge. After an enhancing to 3D it looks more like is a three bladed propeller. However could it or not be a built up three bladed wing propeller already assembled? The tip of the bladed looks very pointed as against the four bladed propeller is much more rounded.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

However could it or not be a built up three bladed wing propeller already assembled?

If you had read my second article (part 2) you will find that the size of the prop on the barge has a diameter that matched the specification for the center propeller, not a wing propeller. The tips are not pointed.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

A serious researcher or investigator never assumes anything

Assumptions are made all the time. The problem lies when an assumption becomes someone's conclusion without the backing.

BTW, I like the title of your forthcoming book.

 

[Sam Brannigan]

I'm surprised by how much this has interested me. We should pass the hat around and get those thousands of dollars Bill Sauder says would be needed to investigate the wreck

 

[Michael H. Standart]

His older opponents dream of making such a discovery but know they never will. As such, it creates an intense jealousy towards Mark. Furthermore, his research on the Olympic, Oceanic, "The Big Four" and the history of the WSL has proved superior to anything previously published, and he has shattered myths and misinformation in the process.

I don't think it's so much the older people as it is the people who might be called "wannabees" and who like to believe, or wish they we're, on the cutting edge of some kind of evolution in historical studies. That or they want to be THE One to make the BIG Discovery.

I've known Mark since he made his first appearance here when he was 14 and he was the bloke who was practically living at the Public Records Office in Pew even then. He hasn't so much re-written the history books as he has corrected a lot of them, and he did it the old-fashioned way: Diligent research into primary source material and presenting what it actually said and showed as opposed to what some interpreter wanted it to mean.

In any follow up, he corrects mistakes, and if new information comes out, makes the appropriate revisions.

This is how it ought to be done in the first place.

 

[Mark Chirnside]

You flatter me too much, Seamus!

I would very much hope that isn't the case. Historical research is fascinating and should be a journey of shared discovery and endeavour, rather than something driven by personal egos or animosity. Anyone involved in serious, primary source research will know the humbling feeling when you find out new information which calls into question what you knew previously, or makes you realise how much remains unknown.

However, there is very much a double standard being employed in this particular case whereby a number of people (not necessarily anyone here) have chosen to adopt a belief supported by no evidence (the 4-bladed centre propeller configuration) and disregard anything that counters that, even to the point of deliberately mischaracterising the evidence.

The only reason for doubt lies in the fact that until that notebook was uncovered, nobody knew the full details about the props fitted on Titanic. They ASSUMED it had to be the same as Olympic because they were sister ships. Now, because that assumption has been proved wrong relatively recently, some of these same people demand to see "hard evidence."

Precisely so.

Prior to 2007-08, nobody was at pains to point out that the 4-bladed configuration was simply an assumption based on Olympic, or that it was 'unproven' until the wreck had been excavated(!) It was simply repeated as fact down the years and went unquestioned.

The objective approach is to accept that the evidence we have available to us (including, by the way, that discovered by other researchers) demonstrates that Titanic had a 3-bladed centre propeller. If ever that changes and further evidence comes to light, we'll review it - that is the same process of continual learning which has led historians away from the 4-bladed configuration.

In any follow up, he corrects mistakes, and if new information comes out, makes the appropriate revisions.

This is how it ought to be done in the first place.

Absolutely. Historians are still learning about the Roman Empire. Why should Titanic be different?

I don't think it's so much the older people as it is the people who might be called "wannabees" and who like to believe, or wish they we're, on the cutting edge of some kind of evolution in historical studies. That or they want to be THE One to make the BIG Discovery.

One of the things that has surprised me is how aggressive/emotional many people have become about what is an interesting (to me, anyway!) but relatively mundane discovery about Titanic's propeller configuration. Years before, Bruce Beveridge had pointed out that Olympic was fitted with a 3-bladed centre propeller in 1913. That was something broadly accepted and not questioned. This seems to be a Titanic-specific problem.

I understand people will get confused. If they've seen Olympic propeller photos captioned as Titanic, for example, it's quite natural. The fault lies with those who misinformed them, not the consumer. What is harder to understand is the accompanying hysteria. There have been a number of cases on Facebook discussion groups, for example, where people have had to be removed or their posts deleted by moderators, because they couldn't discuss the subject without swearing and becoming abusive; two people invented fake relatives who had worked at H&W and supposedly witnessed a 4-bladed centre propeller(!); more than one person compared the discovery to the Robin Gardiner conspiracy theory; and I know you and others are aware of a mere few of the many examples of this. And I have lost count of the number of people who so generously go out of their way to tell me how 'stupid'/'arrogant'/'clueless' (or whatever it might be) that I am. In many cases, I believe it stems from ignorance, so I recognise that these people are incapable of doing any better.

You don't get these problems with pussycats or dogs. ;-)

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Mark, I suspect some of it comes from an ingrained notion which confuses the Legend of the Titanic for some sort of holy writ. The mythos which is a part of the culture which must never be questioned or challenged.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if anybody here was to run into people who really think a 1500 strong choir was serenely singing "Nearer My God To Thee" on the stern of the ship as she plunged.

The mythos is a great story, a wonderful script for a movie and perhaps even inspiring, but we both know it's not real. Yet, people cling to it.

Real is that a transatlantic liner was mismanaged enough to have an unfortunate encounter with an iceberg and a lot of people died because of it. Simple human fallibility in sum, but that doesn't make for good movie drama.

 

[Emil Dąbrowski]

You flatter me too much, Seamus!

I would very much hope that isn't the case. Historical research is fascinating and should be a journey of shared discovery and endeavour, rather than something driven by personal egos or animosity. Anyone involved in serious, primary source research will know the humbling feeling when you find out new information which calls into question what you knew previously, or makes you realise how much remains unknown.

However, there is very much a double standard being employed in this particular case whereby a number of people (not necessarily anyone here) have chosen to adopt a belief supported by no evidence (the 4-bladed centre propeller configuration) and disregard anything that counters that, even to the point of deliberately mischaracterising the evidence.



Precisely so.

Prior to 2007-08, nobody was at pains to point out that the 4-bladed configuration was simply an assumption based on Olympic, or that it was 'unproven' until the wreck had been excavated(!) It was simply repeated as fact down the years and went unquestioned.

The objective approach is to accept that the evidence we have available to us (including, by the way, that discovered by other researchers) demonstrates that Titanic had a 3-bladed centre propeller. If ever that changes and further evidence comes to light, we'll review it - that is the same process of continual learning which has led historians away from the 4-bladed configuration.



Absolutely. Historians are still learning about the Roman Empire. Why should Titanic be different?



One of the things that has surprised me is how aggressive/emotional many people have become about what is an interesting (to me, anyway!) but relatively mundane discovery about Titanic's propeller configuration. Years before, Bruce Beveridge had pointed out that Olympic was fitted with a 3-bladed centre propeller in 1913. That was something broadly accepted and not questioned. This seems to be a Titanic-specific problem.

I understand people will get confused. If they've seen Olympic propeller photos captioned as Titanic, for example, it's quite natural. The fault lies with those who misinformed them, not the consumer. What is harder to understand is the accompanying hysteria. There have been a number of cases on Facebook discussion groups, for example, where people have had to be removed or their posts deleted by moderators, because they couldn't discuss the subject without swearing and becoming abusive; two people invented fake relatives who had worked at H&W and supposedly witnessed a 4-bladed centre propeller(!); more than one person compared the discovery to the Robin Gardiner conspiracy theory; and I know you and others are aware of a mere few of the many examples of this. And I have lost count of the number of people who so generously go out of their way to tell me how 'stupid'/'arrogant'/'clueless' (or whatever it might be) that I am. In many cases, I believe it stems from ignorance, so I recognise that these people are incapable of doing any better.

You don't get these problems with pussycats or dogs. ;-)

Unfortunately. That's the way it is in life, you meet people who tell themselves untruths. We have quite a bit of reasonable evidence that the ill-fated propeller had 3 blades and only one piece of evidence (if you can call it evidence at all) that it had 4 blades, namely that Olympic had four blades, so Titanic might have too. And despite this preponderance of evidence that it was a three-bladed propeller, some people tell themselves that it had four blades and create a bubble with their own reality in which this propeller has four blades and they can't accept that it had three blades and suddenly they're smarter than historians and researchers. The same is true in some cases with these green winches or green capstans.
All we can do is explain to them what the truth is and hope that they will eventually open their eyes and mind. Though some of them probably won't.

 

[Jim Currie]

Unfortunately. That's the way it is in life, you meet people who tell themselves untruths. We have quite a bit of reasonable evidence that the ill-fated propeller had 3 blades and only one piece of evidence (if you can call it evidence at all) that it had 4 blades, namely that Olympic had four blades, so Titanic might have too. And despite this preponderance of evidence that it was a three-bladed propeller, some people tell themselves that it had four blades and create a bubble with their own reality in which this propeller has four blades and they can't accept that it had three blades and suddenly they're smarter than historians and researchers. The same is true in some cases with these green winches or green capstans.
All we can do is explain to them what the truth is and hope that they will eventually open their eyes and mind. Though some of them probably won't.

The problem (not yours) is the "Eureka" moment, Mark, and the arrogance that there is no more to be discussed.

 

[Mike Spooner]

If you had read my second article (part 2) you will find that the size of the prop on the barge has a diameter that matched the specification for the center propeller, not a wing propeller. The tips are not pointed.

Thanks Sam got a better understanding with part 2. So now we are just left what lies at the bottom of the Atlantic for sure.

 

[Andy A Carter]

You flatter me too much, Seamus!

I would very much hope that isn't the case. Historical research is fascinating and should be a journey of shared discovery and endeavour, rather than something driven by personal egos or animosity. Anyone involved in serious, primary source research will know the humbling feeling when you find out new information which calls into question what you knew previously, or makes you realise how much remains unknown.

However, there is very much a double standard being employed in this particular case whereby a number of people (not necessarily anyone here) have chosen to adopt a belief supported by no evidence (the 4-bladed centre propeller configuration) and disregard anything that counters that, even to the point of deliberately mischaracterising the evidence.



Precisely so.

Prior to 2007-08, nobody was at pains to point out that the 4-bladed configuration was simply an assumption based on Olympic, or that it was 'unproven' until the wreck had been excavated(!) It was simply repeated as fact down the years and went unquestioned.

The objective approach is to accept that the evidence we have available to us (including, by the way, that discovered by other researchers) demonstrates that Titanic had a 3-bladed centre propeller. If ever that changes and further evidence comes to light, we'll review it - that is the same process of continual learning which has led historians away from the 4-bladed configuration.



Absolutely. Historians are still learning about the Roman Empire. Why should Titanic be different?



One of the things that has surprised me is how aggressive/emotional many people have become about what is an interesting (to me, anyway!) but relatively mundane discovery about Titanic's propeller configuration. Years before, Bruce Beveridge had pointed out that Olympic was fitted with a 3-bladed centre propeller in 1913. That was something broadly accepted and not questioned. This seems to be a Titanic-specific problem.

I understand people will get confused. If they've seen Olympic propeller photos captioned as Titanic, for example, it's quite natural. The fault lies with those who misinformed them, not the consumer. What is harder to understand is the accompanying hysteria. There have been a number of cases on Facebook discussion groups, for example, where people have had to be removed or their posts deleted by moderators, because they couldn't discuss the subject without swearing and becoming abusive; two people invented fake relatives who had worked at H&W and supposedly witnessed a 4-bladed centre propeller(!); more than one person compared the discovery to the Robin Gardiner conspiracy theory; and I know you and others are aware of a mere few of the many examples of this. And I have lost count of the number of people who so generously go out of their way to tell me how 'stupid'/'arrogant'/'clueless' (or whatever it might be) that I am. In many cases, I believe it stems from ignorance, so I recognise that these people are incapable of doing any better.

You don't get these problems with pussycats or dogs. ;-)

Hey Mark,

I remember one of the fake relatives on FB, as during that 'discussion' I caught them out by posting that due to there age and how old they were when there 'Grandad' told them about the 4 Bladed Centre Propeller he would have been at least 108 at the time.

They went a bit quite after that, lol

Best regards
Andy

 

[Mark Chirnside]

All we can do is explain to them what the truth is and hope that they will eventually open their eyes and mind. Though some of them probably won't.

I think in these cases their views are driven by emotion rather than reason or evidence, so the evidence won't be of any benefit.

As you say, all we can do is continue to promote an evidence-based analysis.

I remember one of the fake relatives on FB, as during that 'discussion' I caught them out by posting that due to there age and how old they were when there 'Grandad' told them about the 4 Bladed Centre Propeller he would have been at least 108 at the time.

That sounds familiar. Yes, I think they gave a few dates and it soon became clear they hadn't done their sums!

I think in another case, the person claimed they had a relative who had served aboard Majestic and Olympic, yet their name was mysteriously absent from the crew agreements! The argument was then that they had been on Olympic when she returned to H&W after the Hawke collision, and witnessed Titanic with a 4-bladed centre propeller. The problem, again, was that they had not checked their facts, because Titanic's propellers were not even fitted until February 1912, whereas Olympic was being repaired months earlier!

 

[Steven Christian]

You flatter me too much, Seamus!

I would very much hope that isn't the case. Historical research is fascinating and should be a journey of shared discovery and endeavour, rather than something driven by personal egos or animosity. Anyone involved in serious, primary source research will know the humbling feeling when you find out new information which calls into question what you knew previously, or makes you realise how much remains unknown.

However, there is very much a double standard being employed in this particular case whereby a number of people (not necessarily anyone here) have chosen to adopt a belief supported by no evidence (the 4-bladed centre propeller configuration) and disregard anything that counters that, even to the point of deliberately mischaracterising the evidence.



Precisely so.

Prior to 2007-08, nobody was at pains to point out that the 4-bladed configuration was simply an assumption based on Olympic, or that it was 'unproven' until the wreck had been excavated(!) It was simply repeated as fact down the years and went unquestioned.

The objective approach is to accept that the evidence we have available to us (including, by the way, that discovered by other researchers) demonstrates that Titanic had a 3-bladed centre propeller. If ever that changes and further evidence comes to light, we'll review it - that is the same process of continual learning which has led historians away from the 4-bladed configuration.



Absolutely. Historians are still learning about the Roman Empire. Why should Titanic be different?



One of the things that has surprised me is how aggressive/emotional many people have become about what is an interesting (to me, anyway!) but relatively mundane discovery about Titanic's propeller configuration. Years before, Bruce Beveridge had pointed out that Olympic was fitted with a 3-bladed centre propeller in 1913. That was something broadly accepted and not questioned. This seems to be a Titanic-specific problem.

I understand people will get confused. If they've seen Olympic propeller photos captioned as Titanic, for example, it's quite natural. The fault lies with those who misinformed them, not the consumer. What is harder to understand is the accompanying hysteria. There have been a number of cases on Facebook discussion groups, for example, where people have had to be removed or their posts deleted by moderators, because they couldn't discuss the subject without swearing and becoming abusive; two people invented fake relatives who had worked at H&W and supposedly witnessed a 4-bladed centre propeller(!); more than one person compared the discovery to the Robin Gardiner conspiracy theory; and I know you and others are aware of a mere few of the many examples of this. And I have lost count of the number of people who so generously go out of their way to tell me how 'stupid'/'arrogant'/'clueless' (or whatever it might be) that I am. In many cases, I believe it stems from ignorance, so I recognise that these people are incapable of doing any better.

You don't get these problems with pussycats or dogs. ;-)

Good post. A few subjects that I have been reading about since I learned to read I consider myself fairly well versed in. I don't like to call myself an amateur historian but more of an enthusiast. One of them being the Roman Empire. Your right about new discoveries being made all the time. Some of the professionals I disagree with their conclusions. But usually they are professional about it if they disagree. From all I've seen you handle it well and in a manner that speaks well of you. But in some ways as continuous as some subjects get with Titanic it's pretty mild compared to other boards I have participated in. One of the worst which is also a hobby of mine is archaeology. Just mention that there is evidence that the Solutreans came to America before the people of the Alaskan land route. They'll want to burn you at the stake for heresy. It's a religion to them. No discussion allowed. Cheers.

 

[Titanic100012]

We all know from false depictions that the titanic had four blades on her central propeller. However the H&W notebook published 2006 and then the Mignot book from Brown & Co seem to have asserted that she had three blades on her central propeller.

I take it this is now universally accepted?

My simple question is, if the left and right propellers were four bladed would this have been advantageous in her doomed meeting with the iceberg. My rationale being is that the fourth blade would push a higher volume of water out of the way allowing for a tighter turning circle? Or would they be ran at a lower RPM hence no appreciable difference. I do apologise if this question comes across to seafarers as, for want of a better word, daft, I guess what I am trying to ask is there any prop. Configuration that would have made Titanic more easily manoeuvreable. I guess my question boiles down to: would there have been an optimal propellar configuration that would have allowed the ship to turn on a tighter circle, thus avoiding collision. Thank you!

I hope you all had a good Christmas and New Year, and hello to my fellow clanmate Mr Currie.

Well I also added 4 blades to the central propeller in my algodoo scene of the engine room of titanic (includes propellers). i was thinking it was correct until I saw the pictures of the props.