mmm very interesting, i fully agree with the point of not reversing but going full steam ahead. I don't know if at that point murdoch panicked and reversing the engines seemed like a good thing to do at the time. I thought he should have conversed with captain smith over the action.

To Murdoch's mind it made perfect logical sense to reverse the engines. Mind you he only had 37 seconds between time of spotting the iceberg and time of impact. If you put yourself in his position "hard-a-starboard and reverse engines to make the ship slow up as well as turn at the same time" isn't something you would even question as being a wrong move. To his mind, full speed ahead towards the iceberg while only trying to turn the ship seems wrong... because your still at full steam towards it. Little did he know using this move instead of his could have saved 1,500 lives. He didn't expect the ship to start pulling backwards as soon as he gave the command to the engine room, he expected it to slow the ship. Just stopping the engines would have allowed Titanic to continue along at a fast speed for a great while. Murdoch thought putting the engines into reverse would slow the ship enough so that the turning process would take effect. Thus follows the command of reversing the engines and putting the ship hard-a-starboard (slowing the ship gives more time to turn). If you think about it you can understand why he did it, and in the heat of the moment it just seemed like the right thing to do.

-Mark

Yes, the fact is that there was little to no friction on the ship's rudder to guide the direction still moving forward. As with riding a motorcycle (or cars w/rear wheel drive) and making a turn, keeping traction is done by steadily maintaining speed or even adding power to the rear wheel(s). ..with motorcycles this is practiced to keep the bike upright and to avoid skidding out from underneath. Power is traction, traction is friction.

Had the Titanic run straight-away into the iceberg instead of turning, she would have sustained damage to only the front hull and possibly the first one or two water-tight compartments, and she would not have floundered.

It’s just hingsigt I am afraid as was said ,Murdoch had 37seconds to decide how to avoid sinking the titanic, he made the wrong decision on the spur of the moment, and the rest is history.

Exactly correct..

quite i must congratulate u bell on that fine little sumarry you gave

Humm, i think yes if Titanic hit head on she would if stayed afloat, but the whoel front of the ship would of been destroyed maby right up to the bridge, but human instinct would tell you to avoid not collide.
Also a head on would obviously have its own problems... people at the frot of the ship would be killed and tons of things would of been destroyed, considering back then ships wernt built as strong as they are now, traveling at full speed into a berg.. the funnels and masts would all been ripped off forwards, boilers might of rupture and explode it could of been just as bad.

I think the way to of saved Titanic would of been to put the left engine in reverse (full speed) and the right in forwards (full speed) to increase turning power, also to keep the middle propeller in full forwards pushing as much water on the rudder opposed to reverse where it would of taken water away from the already small rudder.

Quote:

Lol am sorry mate a year later I reply to this lmao if you ever return to the site, I say THANK YOU MR MOORE :P.

I agree with you Dan, it's just, well I doubt anyone in that situation would think to them self 'Ah hah, how about I crash into it' instinct is to turn to avoid, he struck the berg and, that was the end. Besides, if they did survive he would be out of a job after trashing the new Titanic on it's first voyage.

That would be a Titanic of a crash test.

Seriously though, I think if Murdoch had only the wheel turned and not try stopping the ship, the Titanic would've missed the berg. By reversing the engines, though done in good intention, he not only lost the turning capability but also precious seconds needed to avoid the collision.

If Titanic turned just 10 seconds earlier, she would've missed the berg entirely. If she turned 10 seconds later, she would've hit head on. Unfortunatly, She struck in the worst possible way - With her side. Now that's what I call bad timing.

I think it would have stayed afloat much longer and evn enough to keep going because that would only be one compartment flooded and itwould have been like in king kong when the wave carries the boat and smacks it into the rock it would have hit it and then bounced off so i think it probably wouldnt have sunk