Which of the Two Most Famous Ships in the World Has Bigger Propellers?

In this episode we're underneath the ship looking at her propellers to compare the battleship to Titanic.
To get your drydock merchandise:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/s...
For all the details on drydock and to get your tickets:
www.battleshipnewjersey.org/d...
To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
To support the battleship's efforts to drydock, go to:
63691.blackbaudhosting.com/63...
The views and opinions expressed in this video are those of the content creator only and may not reflect the views and opinions of the Battleship New Jersey Museum & Memorial, the Home Port Alliance for the USS New Jersey, Inc., its staff, crew, or others. The research presented herein represents the most up-to-date scholarship available to us at the time of filming, but our understanding of the past is constantly evolving. This video is made for entertainment purposes only.

[@Zach_R]

This past weekend I had my dry-dock Tour and words and pictures cannot describe how big this ship really is, I was in just shock and awe over it that whole time. Our guide we had was amazing, we learned some really fun stories about the shipyard and I got the opportunity to meet and speak with Ryan, what a nice guy! If you have the means to go see the ship in dry-dock, I would highly recommend going the experience is of a lifetime you will not regret it. I have a whole new appreciation for the engineering that went into making this ship. Many thanks to the men and women that take care of BB-62 so we can all enjoy her as time goes on. Keep up the Great work Ryan and Libby!!!!

[@leftyo9589]

actually walking under a ship gives one a whole new perspective on how big they really are.

[@williamackerman6574]

All ships appear bigger from underneath. They shrink a lot when they are on the open sea.

[@tomkrisel4493]

@@iamsick5204 they said numerous times you can't go on the ship in drydock.

[@jefesman]

I wish I had that opportunity to be there myself. Glad to hear that you had taken the time to have that wonderful experience!!!!!

[@chrisbreneman6605]

@@iamsick5204You can do that in June

[@seatedliberty]

Another difference- Titanic hits an iceberg, Titanic sinks; USS New Jersey hits an iceberg, the crew enjoys sno-cones.

[@opieshomeshop]

*_You can see new jersey without risk of imploding._*

[@wyattlewis8559]

Lol

[@neonhomer]

Ryan: "Titanic has a good movie made about her. Iowa-class battleships do not..." Someone: "What about 'Under Seige' or 'Battleship'?" Ryan: "I said *good* movies..."

[@billmelater6470]

^this

[@leftyo9589]

he did say good!

[@cruisinguy6024]

Under Siege wasn’t good; it was exceptional

[@benn454]

@@cruisinguy6024 OK, Steven.

[@kenwphoto]

Battleship

[@johnanon6938]

Ryan: "while you can no longer go under the Titanic today"...... Stockton Rush: "Hold my discount aircraft carbon fiber"

[@sirboomsalot4902]

2:43 You might be interested in hearing that in the past few years historians have come to a consensus that Titanic, unlike Olympic and later Britannic, actually had a three bladed central propeller when she went down.

[@GlutenEruption]

Yep, was about to say this

[@dasking2120]

It’s said that the four bladed ones did offer no significant advantage over the three bladed propeller

[@jonathanbair523]

@@dasking2120 One would think, more blades means the more water she can bite so the more thrust in speed she would get.... Not saying this is the case, just sounds how things should work....

[@glytchd]

​@jonathanbair523 generally yes. BUT MORE BLADES = MORE EDGE CAVITATION! :) which reduces efficiency. Shape is very important. once you start studying some hydrodynamics, you'll understand some cool things. Start by looking up hours they taper modern rudders to reduce cavitation

[@glytchd]

More blades, now cavitation this could drop efficiency.

[@Battleshipguy20]

It’s ashame I can’t afford these especially since I live so close to this ship but seeing the dry docking experience will always be a treat on this channel for many years to come

[@Klyis]

Given the close similarities between size and displacement it is really remarkable how much more power NJ needed to go just 10 knots faster than Titanic. Something of interest to note is that the exponential increase in power needed to reach those high speeds was something that influenced the White Star Line's operation. Most other shipping companies primary focus was increasing speed. White Star decided the drastic increase in power and fuel consumption was not worth the extra knot or two to surpass their competitors. Instead they decided to focus on improving comfort and luxury. So while they may not have been in the running to win the the Blue Ribbon it wasn't uncommon for a White Star ship to have 2nd class accommodations comparable to 1st class on a rival line's vessels.

[@electrowizard2000]

This must also be the difference between published maximum speed and reality, hard to belive the hydrodynamics can be that much worse..?

[@jayss10]

Both air and water are a fluid and subject to fluid dynamics. While I am not a physicist, I do understand the basic laws of resistance with fluid dynamics, and that is that it isn't linear, but exponential. If fluid resistance was not a factor a 3000 lbs car could sustain 70 mph with only 35ish horsepower. Additionally if fluid resistance was not a factor it would take only 70ish hp to run 140 mph. But this is not the case. Resistance in the fluid (whether it be air or water) has an exponential effect. Real world data in that stock cars at Talladega and Daytona before restrictor plates (1987) had approximately 600 horsepower. This would give them a top speed of roughly 215 mph without a draft. Step up one year to 1988 when they put plates on the cars and dropped the horsepower to 450. Cars had a top speed of roughly 195 hp. So we had roughly a 10% drop in speed but a 25% drop in horsepower. Granted the teams did everything they could when they lost the horsepower to trim the cars out more etc, but my point is made. This is why ship builders work so hard to get a hull as hydro-dynamically efficient as possible, why racecar teams work to get drag out of cars etc.

[@NBSV1]

During Titanic's time they were also running into vibration and harmonic problems with trying to push big ships faster. Often the fastest ships couldn't really run near their max speeds or else they'd vibrate and be uncomfortable or damage themselves. That top down profile shot shows that Titanic was likely much slicker through the water and wouldn't require as much power to match the speed of the New Jersey. It would be very interesting if we still relied on ships for main transportation instead of planes. We'd likely have big modern ocean-liners running 40-50 knots if not faster. As it is we've been downgraded to cruise ships that are just lumbering floating hotels.

[@glytchd]

​@@NBSV1one word. HYDROFOILs! Gosh imagine a world like SeaQuest DSV. but with hydro foils! :)

[@uhavenosushi]

The advancement in technology and the huge increase in efficiency and power in 30 years between titanics era and New Jerseys is astounding. I didn’t think it would be that interesting comparing the two ships but that was great!

[@aerochrome9712]

Interesting note about that center turbine on Titanic: It was fed off the final cylinder of her main engines, so actually further boosted efficiency. Also without a gearbox it was unable to run in reverse.

[@johndeglavina3729]

Also, in the movie, when they're departing Southampton, they show the propellers spinning underwater. The center one spinning right away was wrong, and wouldn't have spun until enough steam pressure was built up.

[@selkiemaine]

One point of interest - there is recent evidence that Titanic's central propeller was in fact a 3 blade prop. People have always assumed that she had the same type of 4 blade central prop as Olympic. However, paperwork from Harland and Wolff has recently come to light referencing receipt of a 3 bladed prop for the central shaft. The reason for this was likely that, like most ships of this era, they had to try different propeller geometries in order to minimize vibration. It is my understanding that Harland and Wolff or White Star were hoping to improve on Olympic's vibration levels by varying the design of the central screw. IIRC, Britannic was fitted with a 4 blade central screw - it may be visible on her wreck.

[@robert506007]

I thought about how Titanic compared to New Jersy on the tour but I didn't think to ask. Thankyou Ryan for answering a question I forgot to ask. And thankyou for reminding me about the date. And oh dearwhat a tragedy, abosolute heartbreak when you know the IRS are coming for you.

[@doctordoom1337]

Fun facts. Passenger manifests were filled out at the port of departure, including Titanic's, NOT upon arrival at an immigration station such as Ellis Island (which has been perpetuated in myth for decades). Pages of Titanic's original manifest did exist, but the missing pages were hastily rewritten at sea and state Carpathia instead of Titanic as the vessel the immigrants arrived on. The original passenger manifests were microfilmed in 1944 and then destroyed. The only manifests that exist are on microfilm rolls for the Port of New York. I am happy to answer any questions related to passenger manifests or steamship arrivals.

[@kevinshannon9917]

@doctordoom1337 are the microfilm manifests now digitized?

[@doctordoom1337]

@@kevinshannon9917 Yes and no. It depends on the port and time period you're looking for. The Port of NY/NJ is available from 1820 - 1957 for free and up until 1966 for a fee. Prior to 1820 there was no federal mandate for manifesting arrivals into the United States. From 1820-1890 each state was responsible for it's own immigration process and the documentation is chaotic. Immigration itself wasn't a process of the fed until 1890.

[@glytchd]

​@@doctordoom1337looks like we may need to go back to States responsibility for immigration - diversify the power add one of the things to help reduce tyranny exploit in this Democracy Game ;) Nah srsly tho. I wonder how that would turn out. Ppl would just self sort mostly. Move to a state that aligns with your values. That was part of the point of having 50 nation-states under one

[@mokdumoknonsharrall1868]

It might be interesting to do a video on New Jersey's "abandon ship" procedures.

[@mrkeiths48]

Those are some big, bad ass screws ( submarine speak ). The engineering is super cool and I can just imagine the cavitation at top speed. My 80's flashback is waiting on the pier with 120 plus shipmates, Navy divers and shipyard support for a brand new screw to show up for a WestPac deployment. Quite the choreography to see the big rig arrive and everybody jump into screw replacement mode......after that pesky roooooskie satellite clears our observation area. Ahhh yesss, a brand spanking new screw so we can hit the accelerator and move!!

[@glytchd]

Dude. I'd love to hear some stories sometime ✌

[@mrkeiths48]

@@glytchd We were set free by Sherry Sontag when she wrote Blind Man's Bluff.

[@kenmcgee1845]

When my awesome wife asked me what I wanted for my birthday, I told her I wanted to walk under an Iowa class battleship. Yesterday, we both did just that! She bought us two tickets and took the dry dock tour. Not sure who enjoyed it more, me or her! A once in a lifetime experience and well worth the investment that goes toward the upkeep,of the ship. Many thanks to Ryan and all of the volunteers who do what they do!

[@michaelfregoe5875]

I flew into Philadelphia yesterday, and during the approach I could see the New Jersey in drydock. Pretty cool.

[@DoreyPaul]

My great grandfather Joseph Akerman an Assistant Pantryman perished on the Titanic. His body was recovered and is buried-in Fairview cemetery Halifax NS. Great piece on this excellent channel. Loved the piece inside the boilers I saw recently- still get goose bumps remembering being bolted inside the stbd boiler of HMS Plymouth during the cold blow as we came out of refit in 85

[@mattblom3990]

People saying Ryan is "nice" at the tours and such...Of course! Guy is mid-30s, just like many of us, part of this modern wave of naval history enthusiasts that have used the internet and KZbin to connect. Great ambassador for the community!

[@haunter_1845]

Definitely. Museums need to stay current to survive. I'm tired of museums run by a club of old hobbyists who prefer to stay disconnected from the people they should be welcoming in. It's too often the case for railroad museums, but finally things are starting to change for the better!

[@wtmayhew]

Interesting comparison: Titanic’s 46,000 SHP to obtain 23 knots versus BB-62’s 220,000 SHP to obtain 34+ knots. That’s almost five times the power to get about 50% velocity increase. Presuming both ships are well engineered and similarly efficient, that is a good lesson in fluid dynamics. Power required is a factor of speed cubed. It takes a huge increase in power input to get just a little more velocity when running at flank speed.

[@hairy-one]

with aircraft at least, to double the speed takes 8 times the power. Drag increases exponentially.

[@wtmayhew]

@@hairy-one Thanks for replying. The same fundamental fluid dynamics equations apply to ships and aircraft.

[@jbepsilon]

Ships are slightly different than aircraft or submarines in that they move on the surface of the fluid. So they have wavemaking resistance, resulting in things like Froude numbers etc, or colloquially "hull speed". But yes, to go faster you need a lot more power.

[@wtmayhew]

@@jbepsilon There is a pretty good fairly contemporary starting reference for people who want to look at ship performance in greater detail. There are so many variables that advanced design goes into computer based numerical analysis. _Barrass, Bryan. Ship design and performance for masters and mates. Elsevier, 2004._

[@wtmayhew]

@@jbepsilon Thanks for the reply. My initial remark was trying to avoid going too far into mathematics.

[@t1m3f0x]

While you can't go under Titanic, her sister Britannic is laying on her side and can be reached by divers so you could get "under" Britannic.

[@ChiefTiff]

If New Jersey is technically drawing zero feet of water, then Titanic is technically drawing 175!

[@Wildstar40]

And when you visit Battleship New Jersey today you don't have to worry about implosion !😁

[@davidb4113]

An engineering notebook from Harland & Wolff came to light in 2007 which indicates Titanic’s center propeller had 3 blades, not 4.

[@VindicatorFSX]

Titanic is really overdue for her dry dock. She’s really starting to show some deterioration.

[@speed150mph]

One minor correction Ryan. Titanic did not have a 4 bladed central propeller as a lot of people believe, Olympic did. At the time, white star and Harland & Wolff were experimenting on different propeller designs and pitch to refine the efficiency of the ship. A document was discovered in the Harland & Wolff archives relatively recently indicating that titanic was fitted with a 3 bladed prop.

[@ShadowXII]

Don't let the IRS repossess your battleship.

[@eb17816]

Under Siege is a good movie about an Iowa Class Battleship.

[@F-Man]

I figured there’d be a Titanic cameo in today’s video, given the date.

[@abobymous]

Nice comparison between the two famous ships.

[@sjmuffler1]

Hmmm "Under Siege" has the USS Missouri as the star of the movie. It is also the hero ship of Battleship.

[@VyarkX]

Yeah i think the joke is that Battleship is not a good movie. Ive never seen under siege though, sounds interesting.

[@paulbegley1464]

I was going to mention both of those movies. But now I don't have to

[@paulbegley1464]

And wasn't there also Sink The Bismark ?

[@matthewerwin4677]

I love Under Siege.

[@wcgdenmasterken3431]

@@paulbegley1464 Yes, but it doesn't feature an Iowa class battleship. Since the Bismarck was sunk 2 1/2 years before Iowa was first commissioned it would have been very odd to have an Iowa class ship in that movie.

[@OLJoe947]

I like these videos. This man is a good curator

[@ChainsawFPV]

I have always loved propellers. A great feat of engineering. The disappearing man in the beginning was pretty cool to tho. Lmao

[@suryia6706]

How much insurance did the rat's relatives get 😂

[@Chuckiewashere]

Less than what it actually cost to Build the Titanic. You really need to do better research before believing a stupid conspiracy

[@rrice1705]

Neat comparison, Ryan, thank you. I confess I didn't realize how close in size these two ships really were. The horsepower comparison really puts in perspective just how powerful NJ's engines really were (that's just nuts that one of them had more power than the whole of Titanic!).

[@oscarcouch5127]

KEEP UP THE Great videos'. i have learned alot about USS New Jersey and her sister ships. i was on Flat tops. Uss Enterprise CVN-65, USS Roosevelt CVN-71, and some work ups on the cvn-74. all with VFA-37

[@jamesgroccia644]

2:43 Titanic's center screw was a 3-blade propeller 17' across, and her wing screws were 23' triple-blades.

[@kolt4d559]

It would be quite the feat if someone managed to get underneath Titanic as she currently sits. Got to take the dry dock tour on Sunday, what an absolutely stunning experience!

[@kef103]

There is some doubt about that 4 blade propeller on titanic . Official records show that it was changed to a three bladed propeller. However, it cannot be determined because it is buried under sediment at the wreck site.

[@Joseph55220]

I appreciate all the research and preparation that went into creating a side-by-side of the two

[@iceslayer777]

Didn't expect Ryan to get into some friendly beef towards Titanic on the exact day of its sinking whilst being underneath the Battleship New Jersey. Something you can seriously only do once in a life time but hey it was well worth it so those die hard fans can finally shut up. Even though I'm over the Titanic personally, was interesting to see that comparison and some similarities.

[@hamaljay]

The pressure not to mention ocean gate was intense and affected me deeply. But in the end Ryan is correct you cannot go under Titanic.

[@stephenlebold9126]

Nice Segway into the tour talk. Great Video as always Ryan and Libby.

[@michaeldeaktor8190]

Great video, I enjoyed the comparison and also seeing pictures of the SS Jeremiah O'Brien engine room, which is as old as USS New Jersey but still runs on it's own power in the San Francisco Bay. Keep up the good work.

[@rifleman7.62]

Thank you! I always enjoy your videos, but this one was a topic that I hadn't thought about. Ive only been on one battleship, and that was the USS Alabama, ive been on tours of her twice and im in awe of their massive size! Thank you again for all of your hard work and the hard work of all of your crews to keep such a wonderful part of American history alive.

[@ed9492]

I think sailors on NJ got to write letters to home every so often. Think of the tragedy of all the lost mail on titanic.

[@crazyguy_1233]

An interesting fact you might like. When they hit the mail sorters were actually bringing the bags of mail up to avoid them from getting wet. One of the officers went down there to see the damage and reported to the bridge that there was mail floating in the mail rooms. When they heard that they began to really realize the severity of what had just happened.

[@pjdava]

Battleship New Jersey, This made me so happy! I liked and subscribed!

[@AsbestosMuffins]

titanic's turbine was also fed by waste steam from the piston engines, so they weren't giving up efficiency to run the turbine

[@crazyguy_1233]

And didn’t it all then vent into the steam dynamos? They didn’t waste any power on those ships. They were well built aside from the bulkhead flaw.

[@adamk203]

@@crazyguy_1233 the dynamos ran on their own separate supply of steam. But interestingly, the steam exited the reciprocating engines and went into the turbines at 9 psi absolute (or roughly 5 psi below atmospheric pressure) and then exited the turbines and went into the condenser at 1 psi absolute (or about 13 psi below atmospheric), extracting nearly every bit of energy possible from the steam. The Olympics were quite efficient for their time. As for the "bulkhead flaw", are you referring to the fact that most bulkheads only went up to E deck?

[@crazyguy_1233]

@@adamk203 Yes that’s the flaw. It was fixed on Britannic and Olympic. It was a hindsight change. It was also something they didn’t ever expect to happen.

[@rogerlevasseur397]

In 1908 they decided to build the Panama Canal locks from their original size of 95 feet wide to 110 feet to accommodate the largest battleship being planned, the USS Pennsylvania (98 foot beam), and largest ship being built, the Titanic (94 foot beam). New Jersey was built to squeeze into that canal lock.

[@mokdumoknonsharrall1868]

@Ryan, if someone were to make a movie about an Iowa-class battleship, What real event(s) do you think it should cover, or what fictional events? (i.e. A massive WWII battleship engagement, Something like "Star-Blazers", battleships vs aliens, massive Cold-war-turns-hot engagement?)

[@timbonjovi]

Great video!!! Very interesting

[@danielmkubacki]

Keep up the good work. Fun video.

[@30AndHatingIt]

“Iowa Class battleships don’t have good movies made about them” Under Siege: “Am I a joke to you?”

[@Chuckiewashere]

Titanic's Inboard Propeller was actually a 17 Foot 3 Bladed Propeller. It's been documented. Olympic in 1913 had a 3 bladed Inboard Propeller but was quickly switched back to the 16 Foot 4 bladed Propeller after it was found the 3 Blades Propeller caused to much Vibration.

[@christine_penn]

Well, there is sort of a movie for the Iowa class battleships. Under Siege. Even though it is implied that the battleship is the Iowa Class Missouri, the interior shots were on the South Dakota class Alabama. (Missouri was still active at the time of the movie...)

[@Shipspotting_Vietnam]

Great video!

[@notpurple]

that was a very interesting statistical tour

[@billmelater6470]

If I recall, Titanic's turbine engine wasn't an inefficient means to get more speed, it was actually a move to greater efficiency because it could use the lower pressure that even the low pressure pistons of the main engines could not use.

[@Lando_P1]

I can’t believe you raised the Titanic and dry docked it just to compare propellers.

[@henrycarlson7514]

Interesting , Thank You .

[@Deltarious]

I think the average person can also likely name USS Enterprise too...at least *one* of her incarnations ;)

[@TheSpaceEnthusiast-vl6wx]

Thanks!

[@whatever8282828]

Wow BB-62 NJ is a big ship! I'm amazed it can be hauled around!

[@Jopsyduck]

1. You don't like "Battleship"? 2. I think it's currently believed that Titanic only had 3-bladed propellers to see which configuration was more efficient. Sinking on her first crossing rendered the results non-existent.

[@JamesF0790]

Battleship is an objectively terrible movie. I do however love it to death though.

[@unsunggosling37plays55]

Titanic had a 3 bladed center prop for a test that was not completed until her sister Olympic completed the test the next Year in 1913

[@joelmacdonald6994]

You can also pretty much bet that Titanic would have been scrapped rather than kept as a museum ship.

[@edwardscott3262]

No way. The Titanic was so well built even today it's pool and boilers still hold water.

[@ed9492]

On the way back floating down the river, you should reenact that King of the World scene on the bow.

[@StephenMartin-pc1fo]

If memory serves me. Titanic's Turbine; central prop capable of going backward. Outer triple expansion engines only go for'd. Stephen

[@rrice1705]

Other way around. The reciprocating engines could go in reverse but the center turbine couldn't

[@nohands3255]

Did a drydock tour last weekend. Any chance you can do a behind the scenes of the drydock with a worker from there. Maybe showing the pumps and more of how it works?

[@bret9741]

I wish you had been in charge of the Texas also… you provide more learning and interesting information per week than the Texas administrative group provides every 6 months.

[@Ahnenerbe1944]

Nothing against the Texas people- but I think Ryan is doing more for museum ships than any one person on the planet right now. Nobody else even comes close. Just the amount of content he can pull out of the ship is amazing

[@JamesF0790]

The Texas crew are doing their best with the staff they have. They are passionate about the ship but can only do so much

[@discombubulate2256]

@@JamesF0790 yeah but come on, make a 5 minute video every week. there's a ton of stuff to show off and talk about while she's out of the water.

[@brucesim2003]

It also might be budget. If Texas is financially tight, as I imagine a lot of museum ships might be, these sort of videos would be the last thing they would spend money on.

[@gunhog11]

Shane at Buffalo and Erie County Naval museum puts out some good content too. Also the gentleman from USS Cod whose name I can't immediately remember does too.

[@FU2Max]

Great Video. 2 of the most famous ships in the world? Titanic possibly. Saying that the New Jersey is the most famous ship in the world before USS Constitution, Santa Maria, Mayflower, HMS Victory and HMS Beagle is a bit of a stretch though.

[@MihaelTurina]

And if we're talking about WWII warships, I'd say that the Bismarck and Yamato are more famous than New Jersey. I knew about those 2 since I was a kid because they are mentioned reasonably often in pop culture and on TV, but I didn't even know the Iowa class existed until I started playing World of Warships.

[@Ronaldl2350]

Did you see the dock worker get vaporized?

[@robertf3479]

Not "vaporized" but stumbled into NJ's experimental cloaking field while it was being tested. 😉

[@Ronaldl2350]

@@robertf3479 ah, that makes sense.

[@willmc4403]

I was looking forward to the comparison of firepower - I bet there were a few handguns on the Titanic

[@user-ki2jp1cp3o]

He’s like the Chieftain in an alternate universe.

[@abyssaljam441]

Who said I can't go under Titanic. I'm sure someone could come up with a way to dig underneath the wreck!

[@Yaivenov]

I wonder what sort of props would be used if you made a similar sized/speed of warship today? More blades, different blade shapes?

[@whatever8282828]

Video editor is getting very good at nearly unnoticeable cuts, but the tarp in the background gave it away.

[@justapeasant8949]

Aha. That's the thing about Titanic. It's (her?) center propeller WAS three (3) bladed. How do I know this? Harland & Wolff has this specified in their archives. There's very few actual photos of Titanic. Olympic & Britannic had four (4) bladed central propeller that was driven by Parsons direct drive turbine. After Olympic was put into revenue service, H&W wanted to test the difference on the coal/fuel efficiency on her sister ship. But, since the results couldn't be verified because... you know... the three bladed central propeller (yes, in their documentation, Harland & Wolff refer to them as propellers, NOT screws) was eventually fitted onto Olympic, but after a while they put the four bladed one back when she drydocked again.

[@Lou-f]

The steam for the turbine on titanic was from the exhaust of the triple expansion engine.

[@cjc_0167]

What about comparing to the Pacific Princess aka "The Love boat"? 😉

[@brianb8060]

April 15th isn't all bad. It's my birthday. I share it with Leonardo Da Vinci.

[@Forscythe80]

I always presumed the Warspite was the most famous ship in the world.

[@krispayne729]

I don't know the USS Missouri had two movies made about her Under Siege from the 1990s and from the 2000s the movie Battleship

[@Jesseingham]

Hey Ryan, great video!! Do the outboard propellers stick out beyond the side of the ship? And if so, what stops a ship from hitting New Jersey’s props if they are along side of her? I know on Cod they have a “cage” thing (I can’t remember the proper name for it) that stops ships from damaging her props (which do stick out), so is there anything similar on New Jersey? 🤔🤔

[@CaptainBill22]

Ryan, this is cool and all, but when are you going to put rocket engines on this ship and turn it into the "Space Battleship New Joisey"?

[@crazyguy_1233]

It was only in recent years that we learned Titanic actually had a 3 bladed central prop not a 4 bladed like Olympic had. We also learned after the sinking Olympic was fitted with a 3 bladed prop for the First World War while the newer sister Britannic was fitted with a 4 bladed central prop. After the war Olympic went back to the 4 bladed prop for the rest of her career. From what everyone is able to guess it was likely Harland & Wolff testing the efficiency of the two. Titanic was meant to be the other ship testing but she sank so Olympic had to undergo both tests in her stead. This was all found out because Harland and Wolff found the career spec books for the Olympic class in their archives it talked about every change made to each ship during construction as well as changes made during refit periods. In the book Titanic was listed as having three 3 bladed props one being the smaller central prop. Olympic was listed as having changed many times including adjustments to the blades for further efficiency tests. Britannic was listed as having two 3 bladed props and one 4 bladed prop after Olympic’s 3 bladed test period. It’s a neat thing to look at and it’s cool they wrote it all down including every change made during their careers. I figure that was all for future ships so they knew what worked well with what. Because of all the design designs the Olympic class was well known for being the smoothest sailing ships ever built and they were known for turning very well. Olympic during her scrapping was said to have been in the best running shape she had ever been in and she was in very good shape for her age.

[@michaelholt8590]

The biggest difference between the New Jersey and Titanic is that an iceberg wouldn't have dared touch an Iowa class battleship.

[@ronwingrove683]

Missed an opportunity to talk about the ships' cat (I'm sure NJ must have had at least one), or her illustrious crew of rats.

[@akwinoz]

Interesting comparison. How about something closer to home? New Jersy vs SS United States!

[@garywayne6083]

They did some videos from her a while ago, i think there were comparisons there

[@Chris123NT]

Titanic's central propellor was 3 blade, 17 feet in diameter.

[@jagwrenchstudios1065]

If you are doing this video of the two maybe if they let you you may be able to do one about the United States and the Titanic beans the United States is similar to the Iowa class battleships and it’s also used to be a passenger liner. I would love to see that video. Thank you.

[@MyTv-]

I know there’s a certain curator working on making Titanic the second most famous big ship.

[@Slaiyen]

Titanic only had 3 bladed props. Olympic had a 4 bladed center prop which was replaced with a 3 bladed one which was later switched back to the 4 bladed one

[@zackmagnusson8583]

I believe that it’s been pretty well established that Titanic’s inboard propeller is 3 bladed, unlike Olympic’s 4.

[@timbonjovi]

I believe theres a bit of a controversy about whether the center prop on Titanic was 4 or 3 bladed.

[@aliciabrinkofski386]

Just a FYI. The propeller picture is not Titanic but her sister Olympic.

[@GeneCash]

You mean like it's labelled in the upper left?

[@aliciabrinkofski386]

@GeneCash Not all copies of this photo have this information. No I didn't see as I have seen this photo mislabeled many times and had no reason to look in the corners .

[@darkwood777]

@@aliciabrinkofski386 LOL!

[@POVwithRC]

@@aliciabrinkofski386”Akshually”

[@wwrunk5551]

After Titanic sank, many photos were labeled as Titanic but were actually Olympic. After taking hundreds of photos of the first child, the enthusiasm may drop off for the second. A close view would tell the difference. I believe it was Promenade B deck that was open on Titanic and closed on Olympic.

[@robb010762]

Is there any reason why more museum ships aren’t painted with camouflage patterns? I believe NC is the only one today that has a unique paint scheme and all the others just use battleship gray

[@mariosebastiani3214]

Titanic displaces 52k tons... you mean NOW?

[@ngcolby]

How much torque does NJ make?

[@peterosmanski7466]

Wait a minute Ryan, Big Mo was the star of the movie Battleship. It could be argued I guess that it wasn't as good a movie as Titanic, but it was ok.