Underwater Camera Test: RMS Queen Mary Propeller

[990mustang]

that would be freakin scary if i had to dive in that tank.

[2ndOfficerCHL]

Very cool shots. Although I must say, they could have some better lighting in that room.

[ssliberte]

You should do this under the rest of the ship

[LakeNipissing]

@ssliberte The water under the ship is way too murky to see anything. Divers who have performed hull inspections under the Queen Mary have reported visibility is less than one foot. The ship's keel only clears the silt build-up from the river by five to ten feet.

[LakeNipissing]

@00ShuYin00 When the propeller tank exhibit was first opened in 1972 there was an electric motor with reduction gear drive connected to the propeller shaft to rotate the propeller very slowly (0.5 RPM). Although the idea was interesting, in practise it did not work out because the water was churned so much the propeller was no longer visible, there may have also been concerns about stressing the tank. The motor, reduction unit and chain drive are still present in the portside shaft alley today.

[jurassicparkboy]

@LakeNipissing so you're saying the thing was operational? sorta??? thats fucking scary, the propeller scared me as well

[LakeNipissing]

@jurassicparkboy For some (short) period of time (that I was told, but I can't remember right now), when the ship first opened to the public in Long Beach in 1972. Maybe it was only for a day. Apparently it just didn't work because of the turbulence and churning of the water in the tank, making the propeller impossible to see anyway. Kind of defeated the purpose of the viewing tank / room. Maybe someone who knows exact details can post. But not a joke, the motor is still there.

[Beast384]

That camera is living my worst nightmare.

[LakeNipissing]

@Beast384 In what way? Being 20 feet under water?

[Beast384]

@LakeNipissing When I visited the Queen Mary as a child, I was terrified of the Propellor Room. Something about the way it is lit was super eerie, and I believe they used to have a mannequin of a diver down there to give it scale, which made it all the worse.

[LakeNipissing]

@Beast384 I remember the diver mannequin being there too, until a few years ago. It didn't really bother me at all, but I have always wanted to dive off the railing into the tank and try to touch the tip of the propeller. It is eleven feet below the water surface, so it shouldn't really be that difficult, but I have been informed the water is very cold!! The camera on the extension pole was a good compromise.

[dawg1157]

What would've happened if that camera fell in the tank?....somebody would have to go in there and get it :/

[LakeNipissing]

@dawg1157 Aside from the 24 FT extension pole the camera was mounted to, we had a long string attached to the carrying strap, just in case the camera fell off the pole mount (doubtful), or I dropped the pole into the bottom of the tank (more likely). Didn't really want to test the tesile strength of the twine by lifting the metal extension pole and camera 35 FT from the bottom though! :)

[dawg1157]

@LakeNipissing Just curious...but was your company the original contractors hired to install the viewing tank? Love the vid, that room has always creeped me out :D

[LakeNipissing]

@dawg1157 Not with any company... just a visitor to the ship often! Thought about trying this with a camera for years and finally did this spring! :)

I believe the company which performed much of the conversion (and demolition) work when the Queen Mary was at Pier E (1967-1972) was the Lipsett Co. Don't know for sure if they were responsible for construction of the propeller viewing tank.

[MPandaSauce2]

I saw that when i went to the titanic exibet at the queen mary 2 years back, it was cool :3