 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
triple expansion engines
editThe article implies that fitting new engines was a waste of time because the result was only one knot faster than when originally built. I understand the other advantage of triple expansion engines is that they were more efficient than previous designs, meaning they used less coal and thus increased endurance. Don't know the details of the original engine type, doesn't say. I also find her final refit of seven years puzzlingly long. Maybe 6 years laid up while people decided what to do with an old ship and 1 doing the work? Sandpiper (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- User:Anthony.bradbury apparently never checked what WP:NPOV was. Most his early writings are hopelessly biased. Parkes when discussing the modernisation on pages 134-135 of British Battleships gives no reason for the length of the process, merely stating "… work was brought to a belated conclusion in 1897—the longest period for refitting ever recorded." --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's also interesting to note that according to a contemporary trade journal, Monarch "easily attained" 17¼ knots on trial in April, 1897. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 08:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Painting
editThis image is identified as being of Monarch, but it doesn't look like Monarch. Does anyone know its true identity? Who is the artist? Drutt (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)