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

Are you saying that the rudder effrectiveness is not reduced if the
engine is stopped?

Cheers

DSK wrote:

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

Helm commands were quite normal as the officer decided how much helm to
use to deterimine the rate of change of turn (very important in
formation). For example, the order "port 20" did not mean turn the ship
to port 20 degrees.

Cheers

Joe wrote:

(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 Feather!

When the conning officers says hard to Starboard that means he wants
the vessel to turn hard to starboard. It dont matter a rats ass which
way the wheel is turned. And I can not think of one single wheel ship
that works like a tiller. Thats just plain stupid, and dangeriously
confusing.

Joe
USN Certified Helmsman
With 100's of hours on the Helm of a 865 ft ship.

Nav wrote:
Are you saying that the rudder effrectiveness is not reduced if the
engine is stopped?

I'm saying that many of the statements made about why the Titanic hit
the iceberg, with regard to her rudder's ineffectiveness, are incorrect.

As for "engine stopped" that is not a very useful terminology... you
mean shaft stopped & locked? Applying throttle in reverse? Spinning in
reverse with forward way on?

*If* the Titanic's central shaft had been either stopped & locked, or
spinning in reverse with forward way on, then of course her rudders
effectiveness would have been reduced. However neither of those cases
apply for several reasons, the main one being that her central shaft had
no reverse and could not have been stopped & locked.

Regards
Doug King

"Nav" wrote ...
For example, the order "port 20" did not mean turn the ship
to port 20 degrees.


What did it mean?

SV

DSK wrote:

Nav wrote:

Are you saying that the rudder effrectiveness is not reduced if the
engine is stopped?


I'm saying that many of the statements made about why the Titanic hit
the iceberg, with regard to her rudder's ineffectiveness, are incorrect.


Such as?

As for "engine stopped" that is not a very useful terminology... you
mean shaft stopped & locked? Applying throttle in reverse? Spinning in
reverse with forward way on?

*If* the Titanic's central shaft had been either stopped & locked, or
spinning in reverse with forward way on, then of course her rudders
effectiveness would have been reduced. However neither of those cases
apply for several reasons, the main one being that her central shaft had
no reverse and could not have been stopped & locked.



If the engine were stopped the rudder effectiveness would have been
reduced. I think that is most likely true, why do you disagree with it?
If it were reversed, effectiveness would be even lower.

Cheers

I'm saying that many of the statements made about why the Titanic hit
the iceberg, with regard to her rudder's ineffectiveness, are incorrect.


Nav wrote:
Such as?

Such as yours.


If the engine were stopped the rudder effectiveness would have been
reduced.

OK, tell us what you mean by stopped. Then tell us about the Titanic's
engineering plant and how they would have "stopped" the central shaft.


... I think that is most likely true, why do you disagree with it?

Oh, just a silly whim on my part, no doubt. Years of marine propulsion
engineering have nothing to do with it.

If it were reversed, effectiveness would be even lower.

That's a mighty big "if." As above, please explain how they would have
put the central shaft in reverse.

In any case, the ship was going full speed, the loss of the prop stream
across the rudder would not reduce the rudder's effectiveness very much.

DSK

DSK wrote:

I'm saying that many of the statements made about why the Titanic hit
the iceberg, with regard to her rudder's ineffectiveness, are incorrect.


Nav wrote:

Such as?


Such as yours.


If the engine were stopped the rudder effectiveness would have been
reduced.


OK, tell us what you mean by stopped. Then tell us about the Titanic's
engineering plant and how they would have "stopped" the central shaft.



The engine would be stopped by opening the steam bypass valve. That
might not stop the propellor but that's not the issue here.

Now are you still saying that stopping the engine has no effect on
rudder effectiveness


... I think that is most likely true, why do you disagree with it?


Oh, just a silly whim on my part, no doubt. Years of marine propulsion
engineering have nothing to do with it.


So you think an engine in neutral has no effect on rudder?


If it were reversed, effectiveness would be even lower.


That's a mighty big "if." As above, please explain how they would have
put the central shaft in reverse.

In any case, the ship was going full speed, the loss of the prop stream
across the rudder would not reduce the rudder's effectiveness very much.


Do you know what slip is and how it would affect the rudder? What would
have been a likely value of slip for the central propellor of the
Titanic at full speed?

It's strange but every time I've taken the helm of a displacement boat
the loss of helm authority when the engine is throttled back has been
most obvious. Perhaps it's your engineering expertise that makes the
difference.


Cheers

OK, tell us what you mean by stopped. Then tell us about the Titanic's
engineering plant and how they would have "stopped" the central shaft.


Nav wrote:
The engine would be stopped by opening the steam bypass valve. That
might not stop the propellor but that's not the issue here.

Please tell me what ships you've steamed where the engine could be
stopped by "opening a steam bypass valve." Also please tell me where the
steam is bypassed to... are you suggesting dumping main steam directly
into the condenser?

Another point I'd like you to explain is how do you stop the engine and
not the shaft. Push in the clutch, maybe?


Now are you still saying that stopping the engine has no effect on
rudder effectiveness

No, I'm saying that 1- a ship running at full speed is not going to stop
& lock the shaft in less than a minute, 2- if it did then the water flow
over the rudder would still be quite strong (ie 20+ knots), 3- in the
specific case of the Titanic, the central prop had no reverse and thus
no way to stop the shaft. Did you pay any attention at all to my post
explaining some of the basics of the Olympic class ships propulsion plant?



Do you know what slip is

Yes.


... and how it would affect the rudder?

Sure. Is it supposed to be rocket science? Are you insisting that a ship
going 20+ knots is suddenly not going to answer her helm because of the
loss of the prop stream?

It has been suggested that if the Titanic's central prop had been spun
in reverse, the cavitation would have greatly diminished her steering
response... now that is a stronger case, except that it's simply not
possible when there's no reverse on the central engine.



... What would
have been a likely value of slip for the central propellor of the
Titanic at full speed?

I don't know, but it wouldn't be hard to figure out. The stats for the
engine's RPM and prop pitch are public.



It's strange but every time I've taken the helm of a displacement boat
the loss of helm authority when the engine is throttled back has been
most obvious.

Yes, and I'm sure you have lots and lots of experience driving 800+
ships at 20+ knots. They handle *very* differently than a sailboat with
under auxiliary power.

If you're claiming that a vessel cannot be steered without a prop stream
over the rudder, then how do you manage to control your boat's heading
when under sail?



.... Perhaps it's your engineering expertise that makes the
difference.

Perhaps.

DSK