Posted on 09/22/2010 2:37:37 AM PDT by tlb
When sailing vessels got large enough that the simple tiller was too hard to hold under human power, wheel steering evolved. The rudder had a tiller attached but it was below decks and a block and tackle system was used to exert the force needed. The wheel would turn in the direction intended by pulling the end of the tiller the opposite direct. So if you wanted to make a left, your turned the wheel left. Makes sense but under the deck the tiller was being pulled right.
Since crews were used to the terms from the tiller days they just stuck, especially in the British navy. “hard to starboard” turns you left, “hard to port” turns you right.
Now days its the opposite, meaning it isn't the opposite anymore...
Binoculars would have been good, but they were hard to come by in those days, usually a ship had just a couple of pair.
The sinking was a bunch of things coming together, the ship going to fast for the conditions (as ordered by the owners representatives) rudder too small for the ship, not enough warning, faulty design and materials. There could have been a bad command as well or a panicked sailor who knows...
With 4 minutes to go if they had any sort of visual at all it does not sound right, unless the Titanic did not have that much rudder authority built into it.
I don’t believe this new revelation one bit.
The problem is they didn’t hit the iceberg head-on, they side-swiped it, tearing it along the side.
They would have been better off hitting the iceberg straight-on.
I have been out in the middle of the ocean on a sailboat a few times and even with modern lighting and everything it took more than a few seconds to judge closing speeds and direction of other vessels.
I always remember one experienced captain saying that they would have been better off not turning at all and ramming it head on. Passengers would have been thrown around and such, but only the front compartment would have flooded like what happened when the Stockholm hit the Doria.
Bad lighting, too much speed for the conditions, ill equipped lookouts, flawed rudder design not tested in an emergency turn, lots of things added up to sink the ship.
Plus the rudder was steam driven so there was that delay between wheel input and actual motion of the tiller gears.
My point is, there is a conflict as to which direction they steered. You have to consider both.
If they tried to steer in back of the berg they were trying to compensate for lack of control by using the speed of the berg to put distance between themselves and the berg.
If they were trying to steer in front of the berg, they were trying to used the speed of the ship to compensate for lack of control by passing in front before the berg moved into their path.
Here’s something else few people know about Andrea (Andrew) Doria — Andrew Doria was the name of the first US vessel saluted by a foreign power:
USS Andrew Doria was purchased by the Continental Congress in October of 1775. The ship was originally named the Defiance, but was renamed Andrew Doria, after being fitted out as a fighting vessel.
The brigantine was named after a 15th century Genoese admiral Andrea Doria. She was part of the first amphibious operation in the taking of Fort Montague as part of Esek Hopkins’ fleet.
The Andrew Doria was flying a flag long expected at St. Eustatius—the Grand Union Flag—representing the newly independent Colonies (Griffis 1893).
The Andrew Doria also carried a precious cargo to St. Eustatius—a copy of the Declaration of Independence (Griffis 1893).
The ship received the first-ever salute to the United States by a foreign power when on 16 November 1776 she arrived at St. Eustatius. Johannes de Graaff, the Dutch governor of the island paid tribute with a 11-gun salute, two less than the amount of states and stripes in the flag. T
Yes he was and he was also officer in charge at the time of the collision.
They were prenaturally lucky and, admittedly, very good. The pilot was an experienced glider pilot, so he was experienced with energy management, not coming in too hard or too soft. The copilot was a reserve CRAF officer who was familar with the disused CRAF air field they landed on. They were also lucky because a go-cart rally at the field was just breaking up, the runway had just cleared, but the participants came to their aid with fire extinguishers, which might not have been available otherwise and came in handy in putting out a small fire that broke out.
BTW, how can you tell there is a pilot in the room? Don't worry, he'll tell you.
Sounds like ObamaCare...
Sounds like a new tagline...
Ships are generally referred to as female no matter who they are named for so "Her" is proper.
And whoever was in charge didn't? Sorry doesn't pass the logic test.
CRAF = RCAF “Royal Canadian Air Force”, my bad.
There was a book out about the rivets. Supposedly, the Brittanic was retrofitted with new rivets. Interestingly, this would mean that the ship sank straight down, except they know it broke apart because the two sections were found in separate areas.
??????. Steam ships had been crossing the Atlantic for 60 years before the Titanic was built.
While signaling “full speed astern,” [First Officer William Murdoch] ordered “hard a’ starboard” to [Quartermaster Robert] Hichens, who promptly spun the wheel hard over.
”Hard a’ starboard. The helm is hard over, sir, [Sixth Officer] Moody called from where he stood behind Hichens. (The order stemmed from the early days of sailing when putting the helm to starboard caused the ship to turn to port.)…
Once the bow began to swing, Murdoch ordered “hard a’ port,” intending to bring the stern away from the berg, but it was too late.
- Don Lynch, “Titanic: An Illustrated History,” 1992
A few points (assuming the author is correct):
1) Apparently the Titanic used the older design, where “putting the helm to starboard caused the ship to turn to port.”
2) If the helmsman had indeed made a mistake, with a junior officer [Quartermaster Alfred Olliver, as well, not mentioned above] standing in his immediate vicinity, the officer would have intervened immediately.
I find the theory less than plausible. For the helmsman to have made the mistake suggested, he apparently would have had to have most of his previous experience in ships of more modern design than the Titanic. And if Second Officer Lightoller (who wasn’t even on the bridge) lied while testifying under oath, one might suspect that he was less than a reliable witness, particularly when describing events years after the fact to a grandchild.
On the other hand, I guess it’s possible. It reminds me of the theory put forth by a physician familiar with bullet wounds, suggesting that the fatal shot that hit President Kennedy was an accidental discharge from an M-16 in a security vehicle behind the Presidential limousine. Murphy’s Law might even suggest that both theories are probably correct…
;>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.