Ship Simulator

English forum => Ship Simulator 2008 => General discussions => Topic started by: Master Captain on May 12, 2007, 13:41:53

Title: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Master Captain on May 12, 2007, 13:41:53
Another idea, Maybe in the future we could have the Britannic. Modeling her should not be hard, just reskin the titanic. Any thoughts? KM
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Shipaddict on May 12, 2007, 13:48:37
The Britannic was bought up in the old forum. Someone from the NVDG i think wanted to have the titanic model, make a few adjustments and reskin it but VSTEP didn't let them use the Titanic model.

But i really like the idea ;D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Master Captain on May 12, 2007, 14:06:53
yea i remember that, somone had pmed about the Britannic and wanted it, so i figured i  would start a topic on her. KM
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Shipaddict on May 12, 2007, 14:12:57
Oh....
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Master Captain on May 12, 2007, 17:33:49
yea, it is just a request, so here we are. KM
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 13, 2007, 11:06:10
hey

is there someone ho is also like to have the hmhs britannic in the new game?
write your text here down!  8)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Shipaddict on May 13, 2007, 11:08:26
I wouldn't mind having her. ;)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 13, 2007, 11:21:54
but I would she is a beauty
and she is a very important ship!  ;D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 13, 2007, 11:22:08
(http://)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 13, 2007, 12:38:53
 :o

what for cind of ship do you want to have in the new shipsim?
and would it be a problem if the britannic cames in the new shipsim or do
you dont care about that?  ;D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: LucAtC on May 13, 2007, 13:11:18
Hello,
There is probably no difficulty incorporating the nice Britannic in the simulation.
There just remains to model her, independently of the Titanic as it is in fact copyrighted, and to ask to VStep to publish it, similarly to the ships of the NVDG or even with their help.
Needless to say that there is some design work to be done, a true challenge for a modeler.
Good luck to your proposal,
Luc
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 14, 2007, 11:51:51
hey

here is a movie about the britannic very nice movie   ;D
here you can see how she sunk...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWXpvOiWzao
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: strassenkreuzer on May 14, 2007, 14:36:36
Take a look there are a lot of differrences at the modell, especially at the back and the Boat Deck. so you not only can repaint it, you have to remodell it (or update).....

But why not.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Britannic on May 14, 2007, 14:47:17
but I would she is a beauty
and she is a very important ship!  ;D
I agree, but if we are going to make a liner of this type might I suggest we also think about the Mauretania or Aquitania? Maauret held the blue riband for many years and aquitania was a merchant ship, troop ship, hospital ship AND cruiser-britanic lasted two years then hit a mine and sunk. However, i would also very much like to see her in the game-on the grounds that she was attractive and had a smaller wheel making cornering faster, which, to be honest, would be a welcome change from the Titanic! :D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: KDS on May 14, 2007, 15:03:34
I wouldn't mind having it either. :D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 14, 2007, 15:18:50
hey

THNX for the picture ho shows that there is realy a big different between the titanic and the britannic.
And of course I also like to go with the hmhs britannic she is a beautiful ship.
THNX for you help  ;D I realy purchade all help!  8)
 
 -greats maritiem-
and thit you see the movie ho I put on the site?
realy nice movie!  ;)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 18, 2007, 00:12:38
I was one of the few that brought thips topic up a long time ago.

At the time we cannot do the Britannic based on the existing Titanic model - it is copywritten.

Also, I would prefer to see a new model - done right. This would include her increased length, her different exterior features, etc.

If she were added I would like both her Hospital Ship and White Star Livery.

However, the point is, as mentioned, if we did a model of this type and complexity we might as well do a different ship to therefore reduce redundancy in the came and add a bit more variety.

I am more for Mauritania than Britannic - however, both work.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Master Captain on May 18, 2007, 02:37:09
ok, AriesDW i could go for the Mauretania. Here is a link for just about everything on her. http://classicliners.nicholaswwilson.com/ships/mauretania.htm (http://classicliners.nicholaswwilson.com/ships/mauretania.htm) :) KM
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: CG Rocker on May 18, 2007, 03:43:05
Yeah I think the Mauretania would be a great addition to the game!
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 18, 2007, 07:47:02
I have more info on her than that page. I am a HUGE fan of the Mauritania. She is beautiful as she was fast. With her vibrant colors and complex, compressed appearance I think she would be a good contrast yet not too contrasting to Titanic. We would get the Cunard vs White Star fans going!
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 18, 2007, 12:18:08
And I am still for the britannic.
She not even looks like the titanic.
And she had much more lifeboats than the titanic etc...
other colors,funnels,red crosses etc...(and she had special davits)
Its a pitty that you prefer more for the mauretania than the britannic.
If I had to chooche wich ship I would like in place for the britannic than should I
take the lusitania ore the queen mary the sister ship of the qm2!
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 18, 2007, 12:49:01
here are some pictures about the fantastic model ship the britannic.
and the titanic so you can see that there are big differents between those ships.
:P(I know I cant stop saying that there are big differents between them) :P
 
 http://titanic-model.com/models/murray/index.html
 
 http://titanic-model.com/models/spressler/spressler.shtml
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Ship Sim on May 18, 2007, 17:22:23
I think it would be nice to have all of the sister ships in the game. ;)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 18, 2007, 17:32:12
exactly that is what I mean all the 3 sister-ships 
Like one happy family  ;D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 18, 2007, 22:44:55
MARITIEM - You need to calm down a bit. Using the word pity here is a bit harsh. Regardless of how much you want to defend and proclaim Britannic's greatness, it does not change the fact she looks very similar to her famous sister.

To be honest, my friend, I am sure I know more about Britannic than you do. I have held a lecture on the vessel and I am currently writing a book about her.

She is a fine ship and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need to respect peoples opinions to like something else, not put them down. If it happens again, I will report you. And it is possible, I am a moderator.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 19, 2007, 10:50:27
Ok Sorry  :-[
But what you are saying that I thake people down is not true
and if it was than I saying sorry
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 26, 2007, 10:46:45
Ok Sorry  :-[
But what you are saying that I thake people down is not true
and if it was than I saying sorry
Thank you. So you know the book is still under development. But the novel is two fold - a book about the vessel itself and it includes a fictional story, tracing the lives of the crew before and during the crisis.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Gustav on May 26, 2007, 23:53:01
If they would model Brittanic(gigantic) it would not suprise me that another member of our forum where asking if not to model old reliable.
We should have an even variety of ships instead of focusing on one company. Thus the game would be a white star game and I do not belive that was intended for VSTEP.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 27, 2007, 00:11:11
I do not tgink people are intentilly being company specific. They just like these ships. If we build all three of the Olympic class, great. If not, oh well. I like all three ships, I love them, however, I do not think we NEED to build another Olympic class rather than the ship of another class - where we can add more variety to the game
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Gustav on May 27, 2007, 00:17:27
I love them too but 2 of the same class is like juhup what difference ???
I would like to see more steamers of other clases. Then we can make a brittanic or olympic. In fact I like the olympic most. You made my point more accurate and i thanks you for that  ;)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 27, 2007, 00:30:45
Being that we are in agreement - that is one reason you may see me so often press for the RMS Mauritania and SS Normandie. I like them so much and think they would add a lot of diversity to the game. I mean, simply look at them and compare them to the Olympic class. HUGE variety.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Gustav on May 27, 2007, 00:39:30
The SS Normandie is just a beutiful ship. Her front bridge section especially. Well i've had a new idea. Would it not be great to have flags on the ships. Like ón titanic you'll fly union jack.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 27, 2007, 00:40:05
The SS Normandie is just a beutiful ship. Her front bridge section especially.

I love the interior layout of the bridge, as well.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on May 27, 2007, 13:04:43
hey

I have also a question: wich steamship are in the new shipsim 08?
and you said that you already could horn the claxon in shipsim 06 but wich
button do I have to use than?
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 28, 2007, 00:03:56
"H" commands the fog horn.

No new steamers are known to be added to SS2008 that we know of, yet.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: CG Rocker on May 31, 2007, 00:00:40
After SS08 is released there should be an addon like "Classic Steamers" or something of the such that had the Mauritania, the Normandie, the Empress of Ireland and maybe even the Carpathia.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: rvm3192 on May 31, 2007, 02:02:37
I think people won't like the Britanic, but the Normandie is a good boat. Andrea Doria would also be a good boat. She would also be set (if they do make her) for walk-arounds with her layout.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on May 31, 2007, 10:48:06
I think people won't like the Britanic, but the Normandie is a good boat. Andrea Doria would also be a good boat. She would also be set (if they do make her) for walk-arounds with her layout.

I agree. I am more in favor of Normandie than the 'Doria.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on June 03, 2007, 09:47:50
hey CG rocker

I saw your idea about ann add-on pack for steamships!
Very nice idea!
You goth my voice! ( ore something )  :-[
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 05, 2007, 07:51:22
hey CG rocker

I saw your idea about ann add-on pack for steamships!
Very nice idea!
You goth my voice! ( ore something )  :-[

Yeah but it is a project that will require A LOT of proper programming, development, optimization, etc. Funds would be needed for something of this magnitude.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: rvm3192 on June 05, 2007, 22:09:00
Yeah but it is a project that will require A LOT of proper programming, development, optimization, etc. Funds would be needed for something of this magnitude.

yes that is true, but on the flip side I think people would know an Ocean Liner over a cargo ship or somthing else almost every time. Its just their area of profit in the industry, people know ocean Liners and Cruise ships more because these ships transport people, not shoes and cars etc. I think the idea is worth it. And I always wanted to roam the decks of the Normandie, Andrea Doria, and the Majestic. It would be cool :)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 05, 2007, 23:14:25
yes that is true, but on the flip side I think people would know an Ocean Liner over a cargo ship or somthing else almost every time. Its just their area of profit in the industry, people know ocean Liners and Cruise ships more because these ships transport people, not shoes and cars etc. I think the idea is worth it. And I always wanted to roam the decks of the Normandie, Andrea Doria, and the Majestic. It would be cool :)

Yes, if I would be able to acquire the funds and the people, I myself would move into negotiations with VStep to produce a product such as this. However, I have a lot of my capital tied in projects regarding my business. Of course we could aid VStep in some manner or another, thereby eliminating some costs and making it easier for them to launch. However, that is a lot to be figured out, but I do agree, I think it would be a very profitable and popular add on item.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on June 08, 2007, 15:21:41
hey

Is it true that maybe the Qm2 is also in the new ss 08?  ???
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Shipaddict on June 08, 2007, 15:41:23
No! Sorry.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 08, 2007, 19:20:46
hey

Is it true that maybe the Qm2 is also in the new ss 08?  ???

Sadly no.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: maritiem on June 09, 2007, 10:15:26
ok I read your message  8)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 11, 2007, 01:35:49
Okay.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: CG Rocker on June 11, 2007, 19:32:11
Hopfully they can add the QM2 in an expansion for SS08 in the future ;D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 11, 2007, 21:52:03
Is it not the Red Ensign?  ???
Regards
Luc
Edit : Hmmm no:  Blue Ensign
No Luke, right first time.

NOW:
Red ensign - commercial/private vessels
Blue ensign - Royal Navy Fleet Auxilliary
White ensign - Royal Navy

This is a good website for the history:
http://www.sea-dreamer.com/page.asp?pagename=ensign

THE PAST:
The flags were all Royal Navy (until 1860's) to denote squadron colour.
I think it was
Red - Pacific Australia also any ships not assigned.
White - Home fleet and Atlantic
Blue - Mediterranean.

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 12, 2007, 03:16:13
If you look at films such as 'bounty' and 'master and commander' you will see they are wrong.

They show the red ensign but in bounty- it was more a navy freighter and would have been a lower squadron (blue?) and again in master and commander he wasn't a post captain but a luitenant commander and so would again have been in blue or white squadron.

I LOVE lookng for technical inaccuracies in films with multi million pound budgets and so many experts that can't even tie their shoe laces. God I must get out more.

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 18, 2007, 21:18:36
If you look at films such as 'bounty' and 'master and commander' you will see they are wrong.

They show the red ensign but in bounty- it was more a navy freighter and would have been a lower squadron (blue?) and again in master and commander he wasn't a post captain but a luitenant commander and so would again have been in blue or white squadron.

I LOVE lookng for technical inaccuracies in films with multi million pound budgets and so many experts that can't even tie their shoe laces. God I must get out more.

Stu

LOL! I hear that! People always get annoyed when I pick apart 'Titanic' or similar film types.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: LucAtC on June 18, 2007, 21:45:14
No Luke, right first time.

NOW:
Red ensign - commercial/private vessels
Blue ensign - Royal Navy Fleet Auxilliary
White ensign - Royal Navy

This is a good website for the history:
http://www.sea-dreamer.com/page.asp?pagename=ensign

THE PAST:
The flags were all Royal Navy (until 1860's) to denote squadron colour.
I think it was
Red - Pacific Australia also any ships not assigned.
White - Home fleet and Atlantic
Blue - Mediterranean.

Stu
Errare humanum est, my excuse  :-[ came from
http://www.nava.org/Flag%20Information/articles/Titantic/titanic.htm
Regards,
Luc
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 19, 2007, 00:09:20
It;s okay, Luc - We won;t make ya walk the plank. This time . . .
 ;) ;) :D :P
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: [RWP]DJM on June 19, 2007, 00:11:37
It;s okay, Luc - We won;t make ya walk the plank. This time . . .
 ;) ;) :D :P

LOL :D

Better watch out for next time Luc ;)
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 19, 2007, 00:11:45
I watched a documentary last night about all three of the Olympic class vessels and about the conspiracy White Star and Harland & Wolff was keeping secrets about the weakness of the expansion joints in the design and secretly, without altering the blueprints of the Britannic, designed and developed a very different expansion joint that may have been on of a series of secret modifications to improve the Olympic design (aside the obvious exterior changes and the well publicized increase in watertight compartment height.)

Hrm . . . . It was awesome. I also liked seeing the old girl on HD . . .  Wow.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 19, 2007, 00:12:10
LOL :D

Better watch out for next time Luc ;)

 :D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 19, 2007, 00:15:51
I watched a documentary last night about all three of the Olympic class vessels and about the conspiracy White Star and Harland & Wolff was keeping secrets about the weakness of the expansion joints in the design and secretly, without altering the blueprints of the Britannic, designed and developed a very different expansion joint that may have been on of a series of secret modifications to improve the Olympic design (aside the obvious exterior changes and the well publicized increase in watertight compartment height.)

Hrm . . . . It was awesome. I also liked seeing the old girl on HD . . .  Wow.

Conspiracy theories... There are so many with any major story. I suppose any company will continiously be developing new technology for its new ships and retrofit on older ships. They usually don't advertise it during testing. I'm a great cynic and believe few of these things.

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 19, 2007, 00:33:12
Conspiracy theories... There are so many with any major story. I suppose any company will continiously be developing new technology for its new ships and retrofit on older ships. They usually don't advertise it during testing. I'm a great cynic and believe few of these things.

Stu

Well the thing I thought interesting is that the vessels official blueprints were found to not reflect the structural change . . .  I just thought it was an interesting point. Of course, in all reality I am not surprised that structural modifications were made, especially in secrecy. They wanted people to feel safe on the ships, however, they did not want to seem all the more stupid if an upgraded ship STILL failed. Of course in this case, the ship could of used A/C because if all the damn portholes weren't open that morning Britannic would of spent more time above the waves than below . . . Burnett should of used a more . . . strict policy on board. HA HA HA!

And of course when the ship exploaded (mine or torpedo, your weapon of choice) the ONE wire connecting the critical set of water tight doors had to be servered. MAN! The odds were terribly against her. And it is a tragedy, considering I found her the most beautiful of all three ships.

I tend to find Titanic to be the ugliest of the three . . . Something about the smaller windows on the A deck prominade . . . I like the curving introduction to the larger set of "viewports", however, I just am not a fan of the smaller viewports in the between the stern and bow. I think on B deck is a different story, since the deck has those predominately . . . . Just a quark . . .  I think Olympic also had the greatness of being the first of the Olympic class . . .
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 19, 2007, 00:37:17
again, I don't know so I won't say you're wrong. But ammendments to design often aren't reflected in the blueprints if they are minor and will be appended on a seperate sheet.

But in the 21st century, we may have access to SOME blueprints, we haven't got access to the ships so we will never know for certain.

On wikipedia there is an article on titanic conspiracy theories.

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 19, 2007, 00:40:08
I would think that something like an alteration in an expansion joint would appear on the plans, or even yes, an amendment sheet - which appears to be non-existant or has been deliberately removed (or possibly lost) and from one of the early copies.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 19, 2007, 00:47:03
I would think that something like an alteration in an expansion joint would appear on the plans, or even yes, an amendment sheet - which appears to be non-existant or has been deliberately removed (or possibly lost) and from one of the early copies.

I didn't know. What evidence is there that these changes were made?

If a change is made now it has to be documented in 100s of forms, back then paperwork wasn't so strict.

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 19, 2007, 00:49:52
I didn't know. What evidence is there that these changes were made?

If a change is made now it has to be documented in 100s of forms, back then paperwork wasn't so strict.

Stu

The evidence of the joint was prooven when divers went to the wreck and evaluated the expansion join. It is quite different from those on Titanic and Olympic. Photo references and design notes proove one thing on the first two ships (which their design was common practice at the time) and then the wreck of Britannic shows a different joint than the other two vessels as well as her own plans.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: LucAtC on June 19, 2007, 13:39:30
 :D
It;s okay, Luc - We won;t make ya walk the plank. This time . . .
 ;) ;) :D :P
Being on the plank, at the end ....  :-X  :-\
http://www.titanic401.co.uk/blue.html   http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5921/6437.html
http://www.therealtitanic.cwc.net/E.J.Smith.htm
Falling...   :o
 ;D
Luc
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: LucAtC on June 19, 2007, 17:58:36
Hello,
Expansion joints, whether longitudinal or transversal, do not add to the strength of the hull taken as a beam.
Transverse joints are instead used to enable deflection of the hull without stressing the superstructure.
Such joints are a source of problems when rust appears, and improving the design aims at reducing water ingress, improving slippage of lips, inspection,...
Is this the same conspiracy theory as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/10/nwreck110.xml  ?
The bending moment of the hull is indeed maximum at some point when the sternpost comes just out of the water, and so was also the bending stress on deck B (if it was indeed the highest resistance deck).
But I too can confirm  :( that, had Titanic been stronger, with higher watertight bulkheads, better steel, stronger and quicker steering gear, and more lifesaving equipment, perhaps it could have floated during a longer period, and perhaps less lives would have been lost.  :-[

Regards,
Luc

Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 19, 2007, 18:47:15
Luc;

  The documentary I was watching was aimed at confirming if that theory was correct or incorrect. It was prooven that for the period, Titanic was plenty strong and would of sustained herself, however, later in her service life, would of had cracking problems in the deck area surrounding the expansion joint, I think the aft of the two joints in the superstructure. It was discovered that Olympic had a lot of structural issues as she aged due to the design of the joints.

I know the purpose of the expansion joints - and the concept of the joints make sense. I am not criticizing that. What I ma criticizing was the design of the joint. It was, however, at the time deemed very acceptable . . .  So no shame on them for not knowing better?

I too believe Titanic was built quite strong and she did well in her sinking, considering what she was designed and built with. I think, should she had a larger rudder and certain manuever orders not had been given, Titanic may not of even gone down. However, that is not what happened. I think ignorance, in many ways, lead to the collision. I think there is a lot to be learned from both that and from the design of the vessel, not to mention it shows good quality materials matter.

However, it was a tragedy, in many, many ways. It is fun, however, to be on a ship in rough seas and to see the joints in action - looking down a transverse corridor in rough seas does a good job of messing with your head. HA HA HA!
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 19, 2007, 21:16:58
The biggest ship I've been on is the Pride of Bilbao. I must admit to never noticing any movement in the structure. Anywhere specific I should be looking?

If I understand you rightly you are saying the ship bends??? I thought they were built rigid by design.

B****Y hell

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: mporter on June 19, 2007, 21:54:29
The biggest ship I've been on is the Pride of Bilbao. I must admit to never noticing any movement in the structure. Anywhere specific I should be looking?

If I understand you rightly you are saying the ship bends??? I thought they were built rigid by design.

B****Y hell

Stu

Small ships do have a relatively rigid hull -- in fact they are generally somewhat overbuilt because other priorities push them in that direction (not true of all -- witness the America's Cup boat that broke in two a few years ago!).

In the case of large ships, however, there are several factors involved. First you must understand that the hull is a box girder, and is relatively shallow for its length.  A box girder is inherently strong, but the soct, both in material and the fuel to carry any extra thickness or structural members around form powerful arguments for engineering a just-adequate ship. 

Then there is the environment;  small ships are small relative to offshore waves so they climb up one side and down the other, while larger ships may find bow and stern suspended on peaks with the middle basically unsupported in the hollow between.  A ship rigid enough to bridge such a gap without bending would be enormously heavy and also susceptible to cracking from other stresses.  Instead she must (and does) flex in such situations. You can hear them creak and groan in a seaway-- this is natural.

Expansion joints are no longer used, hosever -- I suspect because welded steel is inherently stronger and more flexible than riveted iron (or steel).

Cheers,
Michael
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 19, 2007, 22:27:02
Well said, Michael. As you mentioned, vessels can be suseptible to cracking under major stress. After a series of investigations, Olympic was found to be suffering from such a situation. She was, closer to the end of her career, to be getting to a point of "structurally unsound". Again, that is just some new information floating around the web these days.

Larger vessels, expansion joints or not (although I was under the impression they were still in use, pending on the vessel) do still tweak and groan in heavier seas. Just last year when on Carnival Pride in some rough waters, looking down the corridor gave to some interesting sights.

Considering the length and size of the Bilbao and Rotterdam, I would think that the vessels would show some bending and make some groans while in heavier seas, no? I know they tend to be over-built, but to show hardly and signs of flexing could be dangerous to the entire structural soundness of the vessel, no?
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 19, 2007, 22:59:16
The pobi was way over engineered for her purpose, that I do KNOW. Well advanced for 1986. I've been very lucky to see a little below deck and she's built like a battleship- but Im no engineer.

I've never watched before, but Ill make a point next time (soon) :D She doesn't creak at all (I DO) and Ive sailed in pretty grotty weather. I know she was built to handle Baltic and Artic ice...

I know stories of the US WW2 liberty ships that snapped in half.

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: LucAtC on June 19, 2007, 23:04:18
Hello,
You are right indeed, and the sinking of Erika is an example of hull failing under bending stresses in a heavy sea, originating from rust not discovered by RINA inspectors, I think.
I know not much of passenger liners or ferry superstructures, but there are still naval vessels with expansion joints. There are also superstructures (blocks?) resting on elastic supports (name??).
As for the deflection from bending, some cm would be normal, while remaining easily in the elastic domain, far from fatigue limits, just as was the torsion of a hull visible in a video of Youtube (who knows the reference?).
Well, just as in a steel bridge (best visible underneath) submitted to a heavy traffic.
Are there still structural failures  :( of ships, like the Erika, although there are classification societies, etc...?

Regards,
Luc
Edit: Well, found an example  http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/marine/2000/m00c0026/m00c0026.asp
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 19, 2007, 23:13:23
Next time I go on holiday, I'm going by plane ;)

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: [RWP]DJM on June 19, 2007, 23:15:37
Next time I go on holiday, I'm going by plane ;)

Stu

LOL, as far as me never sailing.....I rest my case ;D
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 19, 2007, 23:32:41
Do you not like ships then? Or do you get seasick? I know many people do (I did ONCE... but that was right after I found the bar on POB was selling Stella...)

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: [RWP]DJM on June 19, 2007, 23:36:42
To be perfectly honest, I've never really felt the need to sail.  I do love ships, Titanic being my favourite, but prefer dry land ;)

Kinda strange really, because I love Ship Sim ;D

Regards.

DJM.
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: mporter on June 20, 2007, 00:18:41
Next time I go on holiday, I'm going by plane ;)

Stu

Ships are actually in general very safe-- preferable to planes in that if there is a problem one's fate is closer to being in one's own hands than if in a plane.

Look closely at the next good-sized flatbed truck (probably "lorry" to you) you see carrying something heavy, maybe a bulldozer.  It will flex (load bouncing up and down) as it goes down the road, but it will usually get where it is going.

I suspect the Pride of Bilbao may as well, but one has to be in the right place to see it  ;D

@ Luc -- superstructures on springs or other soft mounts are for vibration isolation and the comfort of the crew, which is another issue.  the 124' Towboat I'm working on has its superstructure mounted on 20 spring-isolators.

Cheers,
Michael

EDIT PS @ Stu:  Next time you fly, take a look out the window and watch the wings waggle, especially if there is any turbulence   ;D ;D ;D



Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: Stuart2007 on June 20, 2007, 00:39:20
I suppose an inch over a 600ft ship isnt going to be noticed. I really thought theyd be more rigid than that.

This has surprised me no end.

Stu
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: LucAtC on June 20, 2007, 00:43:23
Hello Michael,
I thought most structural problems had disappeared, and that wreckages from that were a thing of the past, due to HR steel and finite elements calculations.
Looking for info, I found a thrilling IMO document (in French, alas)
edit: http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D2312/BulkCarriersfrench.pdf
It looks like I was wrong, wondering if it has improved since 2000, at least for bulk carriers.

And Stu ought to try Jupiler next time he is on board of a decent ferry, instead of Stella.
It is raining again __ on my fresh painted roof!
Regards,
Luc
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 20, 2007, 01:29:56
To be perfectly honest, I've never really felt the need to sail.  I do love ships, Titanic being my favourite, but prefer dry land ;)

Kinda strange really, because I love Ship Sim ;D

Regards.

DJM.

Hrm . . . Interesting . . . .
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 20, 2007, 01:34:08
So tell me, these links explain explain this spring system you mention? I am wondering, however, when I was on the Carnival Pride how I saw shifting in the superstructure if for lack of expansion joints. I just find it hard to imagine some of these long, tall, and quite hollow vessels would be without them . . .
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: mporter on June 20, 2007, 01:39:31
Hello Michael,
I thought most structural problems had disappeared, and that wreckages from that were a thing of the past, due to HR steel and finite elements calculations.
Looking for info, I found a thrilling IMO document (in French, alas) http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php?action=post;topic=206.50;num_replies=74
It looks like I was wrong, wondering if it has improved since 2000, at least for bulk carriers.

And Stu ought to try Jupiler next time he is on board of a decent ferry, instead of Stella.
It is raining again __ on my fresh painted roof!
Regards,
Luc

Hi Luc,

As to structural problems; first, HY steel ("high yield", maybe your HR?) is stronger but also more brittle than normal ASTM A36 "mild steel". And I think most big ships, unless something special is envisaged, manage without finite-element analysis. And then there are classification societies, and then there organizations masquerading as such.  And registries that do not insist on keeping ships up to class. But don't let me get started! ;)  For fun, look at  http://www.parismou.org/
 (http://www.parismou.org/) They used to have a feature called "rustbucket of the month".

And even the best societies are reviewing their requirements in the wake of some widely-publicized disasters -- ships that (at least on paper) fulfilled all requirements. There is always someone who wants to do it cheaper, alas.

I'd be interested in the link, but it doesn'twork (French is not a problem).
EDIT -- it does now  ;D ;D

Best,
Michael




Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: mporter on June 20, 2007, 12:42:20
So tell me, these links explain explain this spring system you mention? I am wondering, however, when I was on the Carnival Pride how I saw shifting in the superstructure if for lack of expansion joints. I just find it hard to imagine some of these long, tall, and quite hollow vessels would be without them . . .

The steel simply flexes, and the interior work (cabins, etc) cannot be too rigid to flex with it. -- I think I mentioned somewhere on the same subject but a different thread (incipient Alzheimer's -- and short-term memory is the first thing that goes) the flexing of flat-bed trailers as they go down the highway with heavy loads, but you can see this any day on any interstate.

The design of newer cruise ferries with their open central atria is quite a problem.  Maintaining the required degree of stiffness without most of the central structure is indeed challenging!

Cheers,
Michael
Title: Re: HMHS Britannic
Post by: AriesDW on June 21, 2007, 02:57:06
Michael;

   Yes, thank you very much for your explanation. I do remember you mentioning the load on the trailer thing, which is something I have seen a lot in my life. However, a trailer with a heavy load seems like it would be on similar principles to the ship flexing, however, I would think that the ship would be a whole different ball game in how to maintain structural integrety, especially over a long service life. A trailer I do not mind seeing flex, because relatively speaking it is cheap and will often make so much money in it's service life for the owner that in the end it is a small deal. Hopwever, a 280 million $ cruise ship I would think there would be a lot more technology in place to take the slack of the flexing, thereby keeping the structure more "secure" and letting these, springs, expansion joints, or whatever do all the bending and groaning . . .

   Again, thanks for the information. I would love to find out more . . .  Being you are a maritime designer, I am sure you have a lot more facts to share.