It has always been my understanding that the blades of the Olympic class wing propellers were adjustable. Olympic herself had a few different pitches throughout her career.

In drydock, the blades could be unbolted and then refitted at varying angles on their boss' to experiment with the best pitch setting.

However, now I am wondering if I have misunderstood this process and that there were in fact sets of blades cast at different pitches.

What was the actual process of changing the pitch on the outboard screws?

The very-largest of these weigh in-excess-of 30long-ton … & one of such size can be heard a really very substantial distance away. A large oceanliner, such as an Olympic-Class one, could be fitted with one even that big without its weight being a substantial accession to the total weight of the vessel or the space it would take-up being a significant fraction of that available; and quite possibly the distance over-which it could be heard would be greater over ocean. Even - albeït slowly - a Morse code message could be sent by-means-of it.

See

####this wwweb-article – The Emotional Toll of Wartime Bell Deployment in Japan – by Sherry Fowler

for source of images & a very substantially detailed disquisition on the matter of these bells.

… or not necessarily quite 'being peeled-back like the lid of an opened tinned-can' ! …

#😳

… but I mean the biggest her decks could reasonably withstand the sustained firing of mounted on.

####See this recent post aswell ,

@which I forgot to comment on the strange non-appearance of the gun itself in either of them. I @first supposed that in the first one the apparition of the gun itself had just gotten 'whited-out' by over-exposure … but having reconsidered, I'm now more inclined to suppose that the Admiralty, or the War-Office (or whatever - likely one of those, or both), had decreed that any apparition in any photgraph not in Military custody of any of the guns that had been installed on the Olympic was to be redacted . It's a tad tricky to figure just how such a directive might've been implemented, though: maybe by mandating that anyone developing any such photograph must treat the negative in-suchwise as to obliterate the apparition. But that would still leave open the possibilty of someone's taking the negative to whatever German Intelligence Agent in the firstplace .

Maybe, afterall, the apparition of the gun in the second photograph was merely by-chance whited-out, & maybe the gun that the first photograph is of just happened to be covered, and the Crew were forbidden to un-cover a gun on frivolous grounds.

####Reddit Post Image Found-@

An A380 holds 260ton ( proper ton - ie 2240lb) of fuel, & the transatlantic crossing is about ⅓ of the aeroplane's range. Leaning somewhat in disfavour of the aeroplane, that the point shall be yet the starklierly stressed, 5×A380 carries 2625 passengers, versus the Titanic's 2435 . And 5×⅓×260ton is about 440 ton … which is better than a factor of 12 an improvement on the fuel-consumption of the Titanic … which I think generally gobbled about 6000ton of coal on a transatlantic crossing - that's about right, isn't it?

#####Image From

… and

####the wwwebsite it's @ #### seems to be a remarkably good one for that sort of thing.

#####Image @ this source .

(Very typical Oldendays book-/magazine-cover art!)

'Gross', because there's some blank space in it.

####Put online @ .

Evincing - what surprised me when I first saw it - how her hull approaches fore-aft symmetry with approach to the waterline.

৺ ie two triple-expansion reciprocating engines each driving a propeller @ the flank, & a single turbine, effectively constituting a common fourth expansion stage supplementary to the two reciprocating engines, driving a central propeller.

#¶¶¶¶¶

It's only a partial answer, though, in that I'm wondering whether any yet further vessels had that propulsion system fitted.

I tend to reckon probably not ... or @least not exactly that system: maybe fitting a vessel with a system in which the roles were reversed: ie with the turbine providing the bulk of the thrust, & for high-speed cruising, & a small reciprocating engine in an ancillary role, for low-speed manœuvring,

#####much as modern 'hybrid' military vessels have ,

could've made better sense … but I'm leaning towards supposing that none of the 'classical' steam-driven oceanliners were fitted with that, either .

Mightaswell reproduce the text of the above-lunken-to wwwebpage, as it's not allthat long.

#“

####R.M.S. Laurentic (I)

Laid down at Harland and Wolff, Belfast, as Dominion Line's Alberta, this ship was transferred to White Star during construction and was launched in 1908 as Laurentic. Laurentic and her sister Megantic were used by their owner and their builder as an experiment. Although otherwise identical, they were outfitted with different propulsion systems. Megantic had a conventional arrangement of twin screws powered by quadruple expansion engines, while Laurentic was given a novel triple screw system, with triple expansion engines powering the wing propellers and exhausting into a low pressure turbine linked to the center propeller. Laurentic's arrangement proved to be both faster and more economical. As a result, that system was chosen for use in White Star's Olympic-class liners. Laurentic served on only one route, Liverpool-Canada, during her White Star career, which began with a Liverpool-Montréal voyage on 29 April 1909. (Her running mates were Megantic and Dominion Line's Canada and Dominion. Together they provided a weekly service to Montréal in summer and Halifax or, occasionally, Portland in winter.) In Montréal when World War I began, Laurentic was immediately commissioned as a troop transport for the Canadian Expeditionary Force. After conversion to armed merchant cruiser service in 1915, she sank off the northern coast of Ireland on 25 January 1917, less than an hour after striking two mines. Laurentic's sinking accounted for the largest loss of life ever in a mining: only 121 of the 475 aboard survived.

But the story of Laurentic doesn't end there. Many sunken ships are the subject of rumors about treasure being on board, but Laurentic is one of the relatively few cases where there actually was treasure. In addition to her passengers and crew, the ship was carrying about 3,200 bars of gold worth £5 million ($25 million). In what Anderson describes as "[o]ne of the world's most amazing salvage operations," Royal Navy divers made some 5,000 dives to the wreck between 1917 and 1924. At a cost of only £128,000 ($640,000), they succeeded in recovering all but about 25 of the bars. The Royal Navy returned to the site in 1952 to recover the rest.

Sources: Anderson's White Star; Williams' Wartime Disasters at Sea; Haws' Merchant Fleets; Bonsor's North Atlantic Seaway; Kludas' Great Passenger Ships of the World.

#”

Have also asked about this matter

####Here .

So if I remember correctly when olympic was converted to a troop transport she was given 4.7 inch and 12 pounder guns for defense against Uboats and when the captain saw u 103 he ordered a ram attack instead of the using the cannons?

Was the u boat to close for the guns to lower? We're the guns not fitted at the time? Or were they just out of ammo?

During the great war, RMS Olympic rammed and sank U-103, becoming the only civilian ship to successfully sink an enemy warship.

Well, now there is another. Controversy still surrounds the incident, but the fact remains that RCGS Resolute and the Naiguatá collided and the Naiguatá sank.

https://www.military.com/military-life/venezuelan-warship-lost-fight-german-luxury-cruise-ship.html

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dfNXl-P-07c