Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index Titanic news Not the Titanic but the Olympic sank ! |
Browsing this Thread:
204 Anonymous Users
Bottom Previous Topic Next Topic |
|
|
---|
Poster | Thread | Rated: 8 Votes |
---|
|
Re: Not the Titanic but the Olympic sank ! | #1 |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users |
Hi!
'How bigger was the Titanic?' According to Harland & Wolff, and the final set of builder's plans (particularly the framing plan), Titanic's length was identical to Olympic's; 882 feet 9 inches, notwithstanding the common reports that they were either three, six or nine inches different. In terms of gross tonnage, Olympic's was 45,323.82 tons in 1911; Titanic's was 46,328.46 tons in 1912. Figures for the two ships' displacement are a bit murky, although the figure of 66,000 tons has been quite thoroughly debunked. (For instance, on the www.titanicmodel.com forum.) Let's go for the most common figure, of 52,310 tons for Titanic at a draft of 34 feet 7 inches; then take Olympic's at maybe 250 tons less. I won't offer any more comments on the switch theory, other than saying anyone interested in it should read Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall's book 'Olympic and Titanic: The Truth Behind The Conspiracy.' It's on Amazon UK, Amazon COM, etc. Their photographic comparison of the two ships sheds a lot of light on the two ships, and the true extent of their differences. I'll see you all after Christmas! Best wishes to all for the festive season and 2005, Mark. |
|||
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England. 'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.' |
||||
Posted on: 2004/12/23 19:33
|
Top Previous Topic Next Topic |
|