(Bobsprit) wrote in message ...
It used to be common for the watch officer or pilot to give helm orders
in terms of a tiller... ie, to turn starboard, they'd order the helmsman
"put the helm to port." and vice versa.


Good god. WRONG!!!!
Titanic's wheel worked counter to today's wheels. Tiller logic prevailed for
quite a few years, even with wheels on large ships.
The wheel on Titanic had to be turned to PORT for a starboard course.

RB

Bull Feathers!

When the conning officer says hard to Starboard...He wants the ship to
turn hard to starboard.

There is no wheeled ship in the world that ever set op the helm ass
backwards.
That would be confusing and dangerious.

Joe
USN Helmsman

Joe wrote:
Bull Feathers!

When the conning officer says hard to Starboard...He wants the ship to
turn hard to starboard.

That is true now, and has been since some time around 1910 in the U.S.


There is no wheeled ship in the world that ever set op the helm ass
backwards.
That would be confusing and dangerious.

This is an issue of some contention among old time boat enthusiasts.
I've heard a lot of people, inclduing a few that knew a lot about
maritime history, say that backwards steering used to be fairly common.
However I don't think it was ever "the standard" and I don't think that
it's the reason for "reverse helm orders." For one thing, there are too
many boats & ships surviving from that time period with their steering
intact. For example, Edson has been in business for a long time and they
never made any "reverse" or "tiller-order" steering mechanisms. OTOH who
knows wether some crusty old geezers rigged their wheels to steer like a
tiller because they liked it that way.

DSK

On an old cornish working boat I sailed you had the wheel behind you.
Even on that boat the wheel turned the head normally.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Joe wrote:

Bull Feathers!

When the conning officer says hard to Starboard...He wants the ship to
turn hard to starboard.


That is true now, and has been since some time around 1910 in the U.S.


There is no wheeled ship in the world that ever set op the helm ass
backwards.
That would be confusing and dangerious.


This is an issue of some contention among old time boat enthusiasts.
I've heard a lot of people, inclduing a few that knew a lot about
maritime history, say that backwards steering used to be fairly common.
However I don't think it was ever "the standard" and I don't think that
it's the reason for "reverse helm orders." For one thing, there are too
many boats & ships surviving from that time period with their steering
intact. For example, Edson has been in business for a long time and they
never made any "reverse" or "tiller-order" steering mechanisms. OTOH who
knows wether some crusty old geezers rigged their wheels to steer like a
tiller because they liked it that way.

DSK

OH! Thanks Doug.

SV

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Scott Vernon wrote:
My wife watched Titanic the other night, I sat down for the
'crash'
scene. When they spotted the ice cube, they yelled 'hard to
starboard, but it looked to me like they turned the wheel to port.
Then the order 'hard to port' was given and , to me, they turned
to
'the right'. Anybody else notice this? Should I quit drinking?

Yes, it was quite a little controversy and some people will still
argue
about it.

It used to be common for the watch officer or pilot to give helm
orders
in terms of a tiller... ie, to turn starboard, they'd order the
helmsman
"put the helm to port." and vice versa. That way, it was up to the
helmsman to know how his helm worked, not the officer. A pilot could
step aboard any ship using a tiller, wheel, whipstaff, shin-cracker,
or
whatever, and bring her safely in.

Somewhere around World War 1, people noticed that no ships had
tillers
any more. So they changed the standard terms. the Royal Navy held on
to
"reverse helm orders" until the early 1930s, most everybody else
changed
about 10 ~ 15 years sooner.

So, when 2nd Officer Murdoch received the report of an iceberg right
ahead (and the odds are good he saw it himself about the same time),
he
ordered the boatswain's mate of the watch (who survived BTW, a man
named
Hitchins) to put the helm "hard a-starboard" in order to put the
ship to
port. Then as the ship started swinging, Murdoch ordered the helm
put
the other way in order to swing the stern out away from the iceberg.

They almost made it.

Regards
Doug King

Doug was correct about the wheel.

I was wrong. Scotty Potti is still an idiot.


RB

Doug was correct about the wheel.
I was wrong.

As usual.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

In article ,
SAIL LOCO wrote:
Doug was correct about the wheel.
I was wrong.

As usual.

At least he stood up and admitted it.... something your hero Bush
refuses to do.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

The sad part about this observation is that, if true, they might not
have lost the ship if the turn had continued. By turning back in course
the iceberg was able to breach the hull along many watertight sections.
If I remember correctly, she was designed to survive three sections
flooding but not more.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Scott Vernon wrote:

My wife watched Titanic the other night, I sat down for the 'crash'
scene. When they spotted the ice cube, they yelled 'hard to
starboard, but it looked to me like they turned the wheel to port.
Then the order 'hard to port' was given and , to me, they turned to
'the right'. Anybody else notice this? Should I quit drinking?


Yes, it was quite a little controversy and some people will still argue
about it.

It used to be common for the watch officer or pilot to give helm orders
in terms of a tiller... ie, to turn starboard, they'd order the helmsman
"put the helm to port." and vice versa. That way, it was up to the
helmsman to know how his helm worked, not the officer. A pilot could
step aboard any ship using a tiller, wheel, whipstaff, shin-cracker, or
whatever, and bring her safely in.

Somewhere around World War 1, people noticed that no ships had tillers
any more. So they changed the standard terms. the Royal Navy held on to
"reverse helm orders" until the early 1930s, most everybody else changed
about 10 ~ 15 years sooner.

So, when 2nd Officer Murdoch received the report of an iceberg right
ahead (and the odds are good he saw it himself about the same time), he
ordered the boatswain's mate of the watch (who survived BTW, a man named
Hitchins) to put the helm "hard a-starboard" in order to put the ship to
port. Then as the ship started swinging, Murdoch ordered the helm put
the other way in order to swing the stern out away from the iceberg.

They almost made it.

Regards
Doug King

DSK wrote:



So, when 2nd Officer Murdoch received the report of an iceberg right
ahead (and the odds are good he saw it himself about the same time), he
ordered the boatswain's mate of the watch (who survived BTW, a man named
Hitchins) to put the helm "hard a-starboard" in order to put the ship to
port. Then as the ship started swinging, Murdoch ordered the helm put
the other way in order to swing the stern out away from the iceberg.

Doug, apparently he did not reverse the order. See:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...an_collins.pdf

It would seem that reversing the engines to full power would have been a
mistake that would have reduced rudder effectiveness.

Cheers

Nav wrote:


DSK wrote:



So, when 2nd Officer Murdoch received the report of an iceberg right
ahead (and the odds are good he saw it himself about the same time),
he ordered the boatswain's mate of the watch (who survived BTW, a man
named Hitchins) to put the helm "hard a-starboard" in order to put the
ship to port. Then as the ship started swinging, Murdoch ordered the
helm put the other way in order to swing the stern out away from the
iceberg.


Doug, apparently he did not reverse the order. See:

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...an_collins.pdf

It would seem that reversing the engines to full power would have been a
mistake that would have reduced rudder effectiveness.

Cheers


Coupla points:

1. When he shifted the rudder, from (new world) hard port to hard stbd,
the ship would continue to swing to port for a time before starting to
swing to stbd. It's a matter of timing and conjecture as to whether his
was right or wrong.

2. Putting the engines astern on a ship that is running full speed, is
not the fastest of processes, so he probably still had good steering
power ... i.e., doubt they got the engines stopped and started astern
prior to collision.