In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the
conditions.
That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake.

I agree with Jim.

Thanks, Hans.

A few years ago an AMATEUR sailor from landlocked Minnesota safely
crossed the Atlantic in a 10-foot wooden boat. He obviously understood
the seakeeping capabilities of his vessel and practiced good seamanship.

Gerry Spiess, a schoolteacher. The 3800 mile trip took 54 days in 1979.

Interesting list of similar trips (look behind the first window that opens):

http://www.famoussmallboats.com/locm...tfreebies.html

Spiess wrote a book about his trip - "Alone Against The Atlantic"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...-9316516-62481
41?v=glance

I've gotta check the Radnor library. If they don't have it, a donation may be
in order....

But that's not the end of the story. In 1981, Gerry Spiess took "Yankee Girl"
to the Pacific, and successfully sailed from California to Australia.

How did he fit enough supplies for such a voyage in such a small boat? Doesn't
seem to be enough room, but he did it.

How big was his boat? Judge for yourself:

http://www.famoussmallboats.com/Graphics/speiss1c.jpg

Built of recycled plywood....

The loss of the Titanic, crewed by PROFESSIONAL sailors, can be laid
squarely at the feet at their obvious ignorance of the seakeeping
capabilities of their vessel and poor seamanship.

My point exactly.

The chain of events is full of apparently "little" mistakes, any one of which
would have changed the outcome completely.

It's made even worse by the fact that they were among the most experienced
available, and many of them (including the captain) had experience with
Titanic's sister ship, Olympic. So it wasn't even a matter of a new class of
ship whose characteristics aren't fully known yet.

73 de Jim, N2EY