Fitzgerald Wreck Site

[CosmicBlue]

Fitzgerald wreck site image from drain the lakes. When you look at the wreck site from this perspective i would agree more than likely she broke up after the bow hit bottom as there really is not much distance between bow & stern.

[Guest]

Anderson skip Cooper talked about the massive rogue waves that rolled over his ship and wondered if they also hit the Fitz and put her bow under. If this is indeed what happened can anyone estimate how long it would have taken for the Fitz's bow to hit bottom?

[Jon Paul]

The depth of water is less that 70% the length of the Fitz. The twisted midsection and the stern upside down and in close proximity indicate the ship was basically intact then the bow hit the bottom.
Granted it is a theory as anything concerning the Fitz is. The hull was full of water and taconite, heavy seas lifts the stern, inertia causes the cargo to rush forward. Bow hits lakebed, propeller still turning with stern on surface creates torque that shatters the now empty cargo hold amidships. Stern flips over from torque and lands upside down on bottom.
Time to descend is not an issue as from start to finish it would be mere minutes.
It explains why the bow is buried and why the rest of the wreck lays the way it does.

[Jared]

Here is a sidescan taken by GLHS in 2006. Others that were taken recently I do not have in my personal collection or allowed to release. But in both this released one and ones of acquaintances, the spar deck does not appear. These are online if someone knows the site.

[Guest6]

Not sure why people think the ships was "still under power" when it hit the bottom...think about it. Depth of water and time to descend, water temperature and boilers exploding, depth pressure, etc...the only thing that would drive the ship into the bottom would be the loss of buoyancy, the weight of cargo and steel, and the speed of descent.

[Scott]

I'd love to see a copy of any side scan sonar images.

[Guest]

I think the evidence points to the fact that when the bow hit the bottom it was still under power and that combined with the inertia of all all that taconite rushing forward it drove itself into the lake bed. It would not require an especially "soft" bottom to do that. That is a lot of energy and something had to give. As for the afterend, once it flipped over it more or less dropped to the bottom, not under power and the cargo would have poured out on the way down. That's why it is not buried as deeply as the bow.

[Jared]

Yes the spar deck has collapsed. The "myth" about fresh water preservation is exaggerated as I stated in the shipwreck law thread earlier last week. People say that is a mistake in the shadow, but from other sides scans that have been done recently, the spar deck is not longer intact. I could send a fish cam down to the wreck along with other people, but the expense of fighting a government is not worth it.

Don't forget that the wreck is heavily damaged from impact with the bottom and the spar deck could have been barley hanging on before the last dives took place. Iron always rusts and decays. Parts of the Morrell and Bradley have shown significant deteoration since their discoveries by divers in the 80's. I am sure there are experts on this board who could back me up in saying that none of the 5 modern wrecks on the lakes were in peak condition when their demise occurred with the exception of the Jodry in the St. Lawrence. The Morrell, Bradley, and Steinbrenner were structural failures. The Cedarville might have been saved if the captain beached her.

[Guest]

Is it known for sure that the Fitz's spar deck is collapsed? The last manned survey was in 1996 and since then there has only been one dive by two divers and a side-scan sonar survey done by the museum at Whitefish Bay. I've seen images of the side- scan survey and it does show part of the spar deck missing, but has it really collapsed or is it a shadow that gives one the impression it has?

[middlerouge]

In a previous thread it was stated that the bow marks show 20+ ft into the mud. In that part of the lake it was mentioned that mud is no where near that deep. The stern will collapse. The main cargo deck on the bow is now collapsed.

so the area I have circled here has collapsed? does this mean that the condition of the wreck is deteriorating? and the stern is close to doing the same?
ships were never mean to last forever, even if they end up on the bottom. but a boat as new as the fitz is, already to the point it is now, is sad to hear. would expect to hear something like that about a ship that's twice as old.

[Jared]

In a previous thread it was stated that the bow marks show 20+ ft into the mud. In that part of the lake it was mentioned that mud is no where near that deep. The stern will collapse. The main cargo deck on the bow is now collapsed.

[Russ]

It is assumed that there is 27 feet of soft sediment beneath the foreward section of the Fitzgerald because of the draft marks on the hull. However, Lake Superior is an oligotrophic lake with an extremely low rate of sedimentation. The only place in Lake Superior where 20+ feet of ssoft sediments are known to occur are up in the vicinity of Thunder Bay. The calculated sedimentation rate in the eastern basin of Lake Suerior would have produced less than 10 feet of soft sediment since the end of the ice age. I suspect that the foreward section is at least partially collapsed in the soft sediments. Notice that the after end of the Fitzgerald, only a couple hundred feet away, is barely covered to the boat deck despite the weight of the Fitzgerald engines.

[Denny]

If I can remember correctly, one of the DVD videos I have on her says "She is buried on one side at the 24 foot mark and on the other side it is 27 feet give or take!" I am sorry but, I don't recall which side was which? Hope that this helps some.

[Scott]

Has it ever been determined just how far in the mud/silt the bow is sunken in? Also, would the inverted stern section collapse or just sink in the lake bottom?