How big is Titanic compared to modern liners or an aircraft carrier
Tom Pappas
Liners and carriers come in different sizes.
Titanic was just shy of three football fields long.
Stefan Christiansson
The Titanic was about the same size as a modern standard aircraft carrier.
jste...@pelican.talon.net skrev i inlägg
<34e22704...@news.talon.net>...
>
>
Lane Willard
Stefan Christiansson wrote:
> The Titanic was about the same size as a modern standard aircraft carrier.
Not quite.
Compre CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln (a US aircraft carrier):
Length: 1092 feet
Height (keep to mast top): 206 feet, 6 inches
Displacement (full combat load): 95,000 tons
The titanic was 882 feet long. I believe the
superstructure was somewhat higher than the
Lincoln, but then again, the Lincoln doesn't
really have a superstructure. It also doesn't
have smokestacks to vent coal smoke. The
benefits of nuclear power.
In any event, she was about 80% the size of
a modern carrier.
- Lane
Andrew and Rebecca Hall
Lane Willard wrote:
> Compre CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln (a US aircraft carrier):
> Length: 1092 feet
> The titanic was 882 feet long.
> In any event, she was about 80% the size of
> a modern carrier.
No. Merchant ship size is generally measured by gross registered tonnage
(GRT), which is a measure of volume (not weight or displacement). Naval
vessels are usually measured by displacement, which is the actual
weight of the vessel. Titanic's displacement was around 60,000 tons, so the
aircraft carrier you mention is about 50% larger. Some supertankers today
are over 500,000 GRT, and so are 10x Titanic's size (46,000 GRT). The cruise
ship Norway, formerly the transatlantic liner France, is 76,000 GRT, and so
is about 65% bigger than Titanic.
-----------> Andy Hall
L. W. Mahalak, III
In article <34EA26D7...@ticnet.com>, Lane Willard <la...@ticnet.com>
wrote:
>Stefan Christiansson wrote:
>
>> The Titanic was about the same size as a modern standard aircraft carrier.
>
>Not quite.
>
>Compre CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln (a US aircraft carrier):
>Length: 1092 feet
>Height (keep to mast top): 206 feet, 6 inches
>Displacement (full combat load): 95,000 tons
>
>The titanic was 882 feet long. I believe the
>superstructure was somewhat higher than the
>Lincoln, but then again, the Lincoln doesn't
>really have a superstructure. It also doesn't
>have smokestacks to vent coal smoke. The
>benefits of nuclear power.
>
>In any event, she was about 80% the size of
>a modern carrier.
>
>- Lane
Maybe this'll help. The USS Missouri, an Iowa class battleship, is 884
feet long, from stem to stern... 2 feet longer than Titanic. She stood
_ALMOST_ as high as a Nimitz class carrier.
Lane Willard
Andrew and Rebecca Hall wrote:
> Lane Willard wrote:
>
> > Compre CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln (a US aircraft carrier):
> > Length: 1092 feet
> > The titanic was 882 feet long.
> > In any event, she was about 80% the size of
> > a modern carrier.
>
> No. Merchant ship size is generally measured by gross registered tonnage
> (GRT), which is a measure of volume (not weight or displacement). Naval
> vessels are usually measured by displacement, which is the actual
> weight of the vessel. Titanic's displacement was around 60,000 tons, so the
> aircraft carrier you mention is about 50% larger. Some supertankers today
> are over 500,000 GRT, and so are 10x Titanic's size (46,000 GRT). The cruise
> ship Norway, formerly the transatlantic liner France, is 76,000 GRT, and so
> is about 65% bigger than Titanic.
I knew about the supertankers and superfreighters, but didn't
think it would be fair to mention them, since they usually run
with such small crews, and half submerged anyway. Carriers
have a crew capacity similar to the passenger and crew capacity
of the Titanic, so I thought the comparison more "valid".
Without a combat load, the Nimitz class carriers displace in
the neighborhood of 75,000 tons (if my foggy memory is
correct...if it isn't, I'm sure someone will correct me).
In any event, if you lined up the Lincoln (or Enterprise, or
John F. Kennedy, etc) next to the Titanic, the carrier(s)
would be significantly longer, but also noticeably shorter.
But the length difference would be more dramatic. And
there is the fact that the carriers can cruise at 30+ knots
indefinately, something the Titanic definitely couldn't do.
- Lane
Patrick Nethercot
The message <34EB3170...@ticnet.com>
from Lane Willard <la...@ticnet.com> contains these words:
> if you lined up the Lincoln (or Enterprise, or
> John F. Kennedy, etc) next to the Titanic, the carrier(s)
> would be significantly longer, but also noticeably shorter.
> But the length difference would be more dramatic.
Eh? How much have you drunk?
--
Patrick (Durham UK)
Tom Pappas
2 <nos...@this.address.ok> wrote in article
<199802182...@this.address.ok>...
This is one of those things that makes English the hardest language to
learn. "Shorter" means both "not as long" and "not as tall." In the
context, I think "tall" would be the correct interpretation. (But I'm not
sure it's true.) There is a comparison chart on the Discovery Channel
Titanic site.
--
Tom Pappas
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can."
dood...@webtv.net
How would Titanic compare to the WW2 Tirpitz class Destroters(Bismarck
and Tirpitz)?
-Dave
"The Beatles might have made better albums than us, but we could have
blown them off the stage" JAE
Dispatch
In article <6cgoa6$5kr$1...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, dood...@webtv.net
says...
>
>How would Titanic compare to the WW2 Tirpitz class Destroters(Bismarck
>and Tirpitz)?
>
standard diplacement of 41,700 and 50,900 fully loaded. Tirpitz was
slightly bigger at a displacement of 42,900 standard and 52,600 fully
loaded.
Although shorter than the 882 foot, 60,000 ton displacement Titanic,
comparing battleships to ocean liners is like comparing apples to
oranges. When trying to get a feel of how big Titanic was, you should
compare them to the world's ocean liners of today, like the QE2.
CA
Martti Halminen
Andrew and Rebecca Hall wrote:
>
> Lane Willard wrote:
>
> > Compre CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln (a US aircraft carrier):
> > Length: 1092 feet
> > The titanic was 882 feet long.
> > In any event, she was about 80% the size of
> > a modern carrier.
>
> No. Merchant ship size is generally measured by gross registered tonnage
> (GRT), which is a measure of volume (not weight or displacement). Naval
> vessels are usually measured by displacement, which is the actual
> weight of the vessel. Titanic's displacement was around 60,000 tons, so the
> aircraft carrier you mention is about 50% larger. Some supertankers today
> are over 500,000 GRT, and so are 10x Titanic's size (46,000 GRT). The cruise
> ship Norway, formerly the transatlantic liner France, is 76,000 GRT, and so
> is about 65% bigger than Titanic.
A little error here (and a little more complication...): the size
quantity usually used when talking about tankers and bulk ships is the
deadweight, which is the weight of cargo, stores etc. it can carry.
There are some tankers of over 500 000 dwt, but their gross tonnage
would only be approx. 200 000 GRT. (deadweight on a passenger ship is a
relatively useless measure: most of it is fuel.)
Another way to compare ships would be by the passenger numbers. On that
basis Titanic is quite close to the size of today's largish cruise
ships, for example CCL's Fantasy series or RCCL's Sovereign of the
Seas. As space requirements per passenger have grown considerably, the
tonnage numbers differ; machinery takes far less space today, though.
--
________________________________________________________________
^. Martti Halminen
/ \`. Design Power Europe Oy
/ \ `. Tekniikantie 12, FIN-02150 Espoo, Finland
/\`. \ | Tel:+358 9 4354 2306, Fax:+358 9 455 8575
/__\|___\| Mailto:Martti....@dpe.fi http://www.dpe.fi
Lane Willard
Patrick Nethercot (2) wrote:
> The message <34EB3170...@ticnet.com>
> from Lane Willard <la...@ticnet.com> contains these words:
>
> > if you lined up the Lincoln (or Enterprise, or
> > John F. Kennedy, etc) next to the Titanic, the carrier(s)
> > would be significantly longer, but also noticeably shorter.
> > But the length difference would be more dramatic.
>
> Eh? How much have you drunk?
Re-reading my post, I spotted the ambiguity (or
condradiction depending on where you stand).
Let me clarify.
Length wise, from bow to stern, a Nimitz class
carrier is longer than the Titanic.
Height wise, from keel to the tip-top of the
mast, the Titanic is "taller" (ergo,
the Lincold et al are "shorter").
- Lane
Hugh1959
Modern cruise ships are enormous. They are nine or ten decks ABOVE the
waterline and displace over 100,000 tons.
They dwarf the Titanic
TresBonBon
>Modern cruise ships are enormous. They are nine or ten decks ABOVE the
>waterline and displace over 100,000 tons.
>
>They dwarf the Titanic
That is not entirely true. I don't belive there is currently a CRUISE ship in
service that exceedsd 100,000 tons. I know there are some being built and
close to their maiden voyages. One by Celebrity (I think this is correct) and
two by Royal Carribean. I know of the two RCCL ships for sure because my son
is providing the PCs for them.
Thanks for listening,
Bonbon
Hugh1959
I think my info is correct. The Carnival Destiny is over 100,000 tons; as is
the Celebrity Galaxy. There are at least two Royal Caribbean cruise ships of
comparable tonnage, and at least one Princess line ship.
This was all big news when these ships started docking in Charlotte Amalie
harbor. They had to lengthen and strengthen the Havensight pier to accomodate
these new, larger ships.
dgri...@theriver.com
According to the Guiness Book of World Records:
The RMS Queen Elizabeth [GRT of 83,673] was the largest passenger ship
every built and lthe largest displacement of any liner in the world. The
largest in current use is the Norway, 76,049 tons. However, my book is
a couple years old and no doubt outdated.
dg
larsenj...@gmail.com
> Liners and carriers come in different sizes.
>
> Titanic was just shy of three football fields long.
thekma...@gmail.com
would stand in today's harbor:
https://malcolmoliver.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/oasis_titanic.jpg
perrig...@u4sd.org
> Liners and carriers come in different sizes.
>
> Titanic was just shy of three football fields long.
thekma...@gmail.com
Most modern aircraft carriers are much
bigger than Titanic. The Olympic class
were bathub toys when they were
launched: Germany already had a trio
of ships framing out that were each
10% bigger than Olympic, Titanic, and
Britannic.
Bill Leary
http://twistedsifter.com/2016/09/putting-big-things-in-perspective-through-comparison/
Number 7.
wrote in message
news:f353189f-5156-4cb0...@googlegroups.com...
Martti Halminen
Essex -class aircraft carriers.
The nuclear-powered carriers are approximately 50 meters longer and have
about twice the displacement (weight).
--