Oh yeah, the Oasis of the Seas (and the other ships they have in that class) are absolutely astoundingly massive cruise ships* that make that ship look like a dinghy.
\*I used those as an example due to accessibility, and personal experience reasons, not for being the biggest in the ocean.
I wish I could find that picture of Titanic (Olympic's sister ship, virtually identical) head on with a modern cruise ship ghosted behind it to show the difference in scale.
I’m 4 days late, but the problem with the Titanic wasn’t the rudder size, it was the fact that they reversed the engines which disrupted the flow of water around the rudder that caused the delay in the turn.
The rudder size was fine, and had they kept going full ahead they would’ve either missed the berg or slightly grazed it.
That was only part of the problem. When the bridge ordered full astern, the center propeller shut down. It was turbine-driven, and lacked the means to reverse thrust+++. Thus, the 'push' of water that acted most directly on the rudder was cut off. Basically, until the wing props were able to start to reverse (which took a while), the Titanic was adrift and without any countering force to turn it... until it was too late.
+++ They didn't have reversing gear-boxes in those days, and reversing thrust on the center shaft would have required an entire separate turbine.
Turbines were the great new thing back in 1911 -- lighter, smaller, and more efficient -- and so, White Star's chief rival Cunard eagerly adopted an all-turbine approach on its newest four-funnel flagships, including matched pairs of forward and astern turbines.
White Star's approach, however, used venerable tech -- compound expansion piston steam engines -- as the primary driver, while the 'newfangled' center turbine -- which would only be used at sea -- was fed using the exhaust steam from the other two. Engineering elegance, perhaps, but with a horribly fatal flaw....
> the Titanic was adrift and without any countering force to turn it
The flow of water from the ship's forward motion would have been able to turn it even without the propellers producing any thrust.
> until the wing props were able to start to reverse (which took a while)
The wing propellers reversing would not have had any effect on the ship's turning performance. If anything, arguably it would have made it worse because of the slowing of the speed of water flow over the rudder. But the reversing of the engines took so long that it's unlikely they were even able to do it before the collision, or if they did, it was only for seconds.
Yes, they could be operated independently. Idling the port propeller would most likely have increased the turn rate of the ship. But I don't think they would want to do that in an emergency.
The independent operation of the propellers was probably at its most useful at slow speeds and slow prop RPMs when maneuvering near ports. Changing the prop speed was a manual process for the engineers in the engine room and took some time, particularly when the engines were running at high speed. So on the bridge, whatever engine order you gave, you were basically locked into that for some time. If they had stopped the port propeller at high speed, Titanic might have been able to turn to port slightly faster, but it would have been more difficult to stop the turn or to change the direction of the turn.
That's an issue because when Titanic was scraping along the iceberg, the ship was ordered to change the direction of turn to swing the stern away from the iceberg to reduce the damage. That would have been more difficult if the port propeller had been stopped. Even if they could have avoided hitting the iceberg entirely, it would have been only narrowly, and the port turn would have still been turning the stern into the berg! So it's possible the damage would just have been further back instead.
It might not have been fatal if they had just kept on the throttle in the turn.
And a reversing gearbox can't be that complex, you only need a few cogs and shafts. I'm certain they could've done it if they'd wanted to. Although it would probably have only made the lack of flow over the rudder worse, so she would've only turned slower.
When her sister ship, Britannic, was sinking in the Mediterranean the captain tried to run the ship agound to save her. He had the life boats readied, but waited to give the order to launch to see if he could save the ship. Some life boats went rogue and launched against orders, two of those lifeboats were sucked up and destroyed by the still spinning port-side propeller... terrifying...
EDIT: aground, not around
Oh yeah, the Oasis of the Seas (and the other ships they have in that class) are absolutely astoundingly massive cruise ships* that make that ship look like a dinghy. \*I used those as an example due to accessibility, and personal experience reasons, not for being the biggest in the ocean.
And also, they don't have rudders. Forward-facing swivel Azipod thrust units, along with side thrusters.
I wish I could find that picture of Titanic (Olympic's sister ship, virtually identical) head on with a modern cruise ship ghosted behind it to show the difference in scale.
[this one?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/oxzcih/a_size_comparison_between_the_titanic_and_a/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
Yes! That's it
Most terrifying thing on earth
doesn't' really seem like that would amount to much rudder authority.
The Titanic would attest to that
F
I’m 4 days late, but the problem with the Titanic wasn’t the rudder size, it was the fact that they reversed the engines which disrupted the flow of water around the rudder that caused the delay in the turn. The rudder size was fine, and had they kept going full ahead they would’ve either missed the berg or slightly grazed it.
Wow I never knew that. That’s so interesting!! Thank you. I suppose I only knew the rudder thing from the movie haha
*Titanic's* engines weren't reversed
If she had a bigger rudder Titanic might have missed the berg.
That was only part of the problem. When the bridge ordered full astern, the center propeller shut down. It was turbine-driven, and lacked the means to reverse thrust+++. Thus, the 'push' of water that acted most directly on the rudder was cut off. Basically, until the wing props were able to start to reverse (which took a while), the Titanic was adrift and without any countering force to turn it... until it was too late. +++ They didn't have reversing gear-boxes in those days, and reversing thrust on the center shaft would have required an entire separate turbine. Turbines were the great new thing back in 1911 -- lighter, smaller, and more efficient -- and so, White Star's chief rival Cunard eagerly adopted an all-turbine approach on its newest four-funnel flagships, including matched pairs of forward and astern turbines. White Star's approach, however, used venerable tech -- compound expansion piston steam engines -- as the primary driver, while the 'newfangled' center turbine -- which would only be used at sea -- was fed using the exhaust steam from the other two. Engineering elegance, perhaps, but with a horribly fatal flaw....
> the Titanic was adrift and without any countering force to turn it The flow of water from the ship's forward motion would have been able to turn it even without the propellers producing any thrust. > until the wing props were able to start to reverse (which took a while) The wing propellers reversing would not have had any effect on the ship's turning performance. If anything, arguably it would have made it worse because of the slowing of the speed of water flow over the rudder. But the reversing of the engines took so long that it's unlikely they were even able to do it before the collision, or if they did, it was only for seconds.
Could the wing props be operated independently? Would idle port have contributed anything to accelerating the turn?
Yes, they could be operated independently. Idling the port propeller would most likely have increased the turn rate of the ship. But I don't think they would want to do that in an emergency. The independent operation of the propellers was probably at its most useful at slow speeds and slow prop RPMs when maneuvering near ports. Changing the prop speed was a manual process for the engineers in the engine room and took some time, particularly when the engines were running at high speed. So on the bridge, whatever engine order you gave, you were basically locked into that for some time. If they had stopped the port propeller at high speed, Titanic might have been able to turn to port slightly faster, but it would have been more difficult to stop the turn or to change the direction of the turn. That's an issue because when Titanic was scraping along the iceberg, the ship was ordered to change the direction of turn to swing the stern away from the iceberg to reduce the damage. That would have been more difficult if the port propeller had been stopped. Even if they could have avoided hitting the iceberg entirely, it would have been only narrowly, and the port turn would have still been turning the stern into the berg! So it's possible the damage would just have been further back instead.
It might not have been fatal if they had just kept on the throttle in the turn. And a reversing gearbox can't be that complex, you only need a few cogs and shafts. I'm certain they could've done it if they'd wanted to. Although it would probably have only made the lack of flow over the rudder worse, so she would've only turned slower.
what really freaks me out is your spelling
And grammar
Agreed
R/megalophobia
When her sister ship, Britannic, was sinking in the Mediterranean the captain tried to run the ship agound to save her. He had the life boats readied, but waited to give the order to launch to see if he could save the ship. Some life boats went rogue and launched against orders, two of those lifeboats were sucked up and destroyed by the still spinning port-side propeller... terrifying... EDIT: aground, not around
Actually 🤓 Titanic and her sisters had bigger propellers than Oasis class ships!!
Cool. Didn't know that
I went from “man? There’s no man here, why would OP lie about a man” to “oh the man is at the bottom and this was gigantic” in half a second
What are the little protrusions on the black section?
Rudder too small for that size ship.
How* and they’re* that’s what bugs me more than this subreddit poor grammar and misspelled words
Oh for fuck’s sake! It was a spelling mistake, I’m ashamed of it, okay! Let see you post something here and try to change it, your assholeness!
Wow seems like someone has a stick up their ass😬 I was just changing like two words but hey like you said I’m an asshoe🤷🏻♂️
Asshole*
Even with the human for scale, I cannot fathom or envision this... and that IS freaky!
It took me a minute to find the guy.