Posted by Scott Andrews on February 26, 1999 at 09:29:24 in 205.147.245.41:
In Reply to: Re: Olympic conversion article: Attn: Scott Andrews posted by Bob Read on February 26, 1999 at 04:22:43:
: Bruce:
: Sorry but that's a little too thin to hang my hat on. It has to come from some authoratative source and I think we've seen most if not all of them.
: I would tend to defer to Scott on this one.
: What say you Scott? Was there a difference in the p&s bow anchors from any authoritative source you know?
I've heard this one before, too. I've yet to see this for myself in any photograph. Yes, I've noticed differences from ship to ship, but not on the SAME ship. As for the propeller thing, I'll post here what I sent to Bruce yesterday evening.
...What about the idea that the outboard prop blades were a different size
Bruce...
Per the design notebook:
propeller: wing center
blades: 3 4
diameter: 23' 6" 16' 6"
pitch: 34' 6" 14' 6"
surface area: 160 sq ft 120 sq ft
Olympic after post disaster refit:
propeller: wing center
blades: 3 3
diameter: 22' 9" 17' 0"
pitch: 36' 0" 14' 0"
surface area: 165 sq ft 125 sq ft
I've never seen or heard anything to suggest that any of these changes were applied to the Titanic during her fitting out. I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it, and until I see written or photographic proof to dispute this, I'll go with the information given above. The lines plan also has a notation regarding this where the propeller diameters are shown, indicating the 22' 9" and 17' 0" diameters as being "After March, 1913". There's no note indicating a change to "401 only" as is the case in other drawings where changes were made to the Titanic during her construction and fitting out. You'll see notes like that on the shell plating plan near the hawse hole and on the deck iron drawings at the crew stairway just aft of the number three boiler casing.
Scott