Ship Simulator
English forum => Small talk => Topic started by: Shipaddict on December 07, 2007, 19:48:45
-
Well, she is here now.
Quite a nice ship :)
-
Sister ship to the QM2, yes?
-
Yes, "replacing" QE2 ;)
-
Well, the good old "QE2" is heading for Hamburg this night for her final visit here, at the secret home port of the "QM2"! And no, the "QV" isn't a sister ship to any other Cunard Liner. She is more a mixture made from a little bit of Costa and a bit more of HAL Lines latest Fincantieri newbuildings.. ;)
Cheers
-
I got an e-mail today with a number of random facts. One of them said it takes a gallon of diesel fuel to move the QE2 six inches. Anyone know how factual that is?
-
Hello,
I read in this Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Elizabeth_2) that QE2 has a maximum power of 130000 hp and a top speed of 32.5 kts (16.72 m/s).
In the hypothesis that the power serves to propel the ship, and that these 9 engines are rated at 125 g/hp per hour, that means 16250 kg FOD per hour, 4.51 kg/s and a distance of 16.72m during the same second.
4.51 kg are 4.83 liter (dty 0.935?) for a distance of 16.72 m, instead of 15.24 cm..
I can be wrong, but there seems to be a difference of a factor 100.
Regards,
Luc
-
SNOPES agrees with you so whoever sent me the e-mail this morning didn't have the facts correct.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/trivia/qe2.asp
-
These stories about fuel consumption, I do not claim to remember the actual facts, but I once asked an engineer on the Pride of Bruges (the 'proper' one, not the current one) and he said that it was an urban myth and worked on the basis of the fuel needed to move the ship from stationary when moving off. The fuel consumption per yard is much higher of course than when moving along.
So both of you are probably right- in different ways.
Stu
-
Hello Stu :D,
Well, that is something like a truism (right word?) "engineeringly speaking".
He was right, of course, and if the ship remains moored, full power on, the fuel consumption per yard will be infinite.
Good one, ;D
Luc
-
Hi Luc
Statistically speaking, both viewpoints are true. We see the same thing when the environmentalists go on (and on. and on) about the environmental damage from aircraft and ships etc. They take the highest fuel consumption and quote that, oblivious to the fact that they are picking only a small percentage of the time.
For example, Greenpeace quoted the fuel consumption of the airbus 380 and how bad it would affect the environment... but the fuel consumption quoted was full power takeoff and ascent- its cruising figure was much, much lower.
Stu
-
Nice ship! ;)
-
Hi Luc
Statistically speaking, both viewpoints are true. We see the same thing when the environmentalists go on (and on. and on) about the environmental damage from aircraft and ships etc. They take the highest fuel consumption and quote that, oblivious to the fact that they are picking only a small percentage of the time.
For example, Greenpeace quoted the fuel consumption of the airbus 380 and how bad it would affect the environment... but the fuel consumption quoted was full power takeoff and ascent- its cruising figure was much, much lower.
Stu
The enviromentalists should be happy about the A380. It will reduce emissions as more people will be carried on one flight at less fuel consumption per head than previous high capacity aircraft. The passengers certainly won't be, there's no way airlines are going to fill their extra floor space with shops (excluding Singapore Airlines) and instead will only put in more seats.
That means a similar service for the passengers as they would have had on a 747 except check in will be longer and so will the flight as the A380 is slower than the 747.
-
Are you sure the A380 is slower? Really really sure?
-
Umm...well that is a Jeremy Clarkson fact but I suppose it would make sense.
-
The bottle didn't smash on the side today :(
-
The bottle didn't smash on the side today :(
Oh dear- so it will be confined to going round and round the IOW, just like PO Aurora!
Stu
-
Umm...well that is a Jeremy Clarkson fact but I suppose it would make sense.
B747 586.9 MPH
A380 590.6 MPH
But, in any case I agree with you that the A380 has *potential* to be a 'greener' aircraft.
But just like the original ship fuel consumption comments, statistics can be manipulated all too easily.
Stu
-
my dads a pilot and he says that the fast the plane goes, the more fuel it burns....if the A380 goes faster than the 747, than it burns more fuel and thus, the A380 isnt much of a "green" aircraft, compared to the 747....
Dan
-
I must admit I am not a fan of modern cruise liners...looks like a block of flats! I did hear that the QV was orginally built for P&O Cruises but was taken over by Cunard. Both owned now by Carnival Cruises..I think!!!
With reagard to Fuel consumption one of my old ships burned aprox 105ltrs of Fuel Oil to move 1 nautical mile while traveling at 14kts, fully loaded with 45000mts of cargo on board. That is slightly better consumption then a 747...though a lot slower :D
Happy Sailing!
-
my dads a pilot and he says that the fast the plane goes, the more fuel it burns....if the A380 goes faster than the 747, than it burns more fuel and thus, the A380 isnt much of a "green" aircraft, compared to the 747....
Dan
I think the point Airbus is making is that the A380 burns less fuel per passenger than other aircraft. Don't know if you know or not (no offence if you already know ;)) but the A380 is a new high capacity aiircraft capable of carrying around...500 passengers i think.
-
I must admit I am not a fan of modern cruise liners...looks like a block of flats! I did hear that the QV was orginally built for P&O Cruises but was taken over by Cunard. Both owned now by Carnival Cruises..I think!!!
With reagard to Fuel consumption one of my old ships burned aprox 105ltrs of Fuel Oil to move 1 nautical mile while traveling at 14kts, fully loaded with 45000mts of cargo on board. That is slightly better consumption then a 747...though a lot slower :D
Happy Sailing!
P&O Arcadia was supposed to be QV. But Cunard "gave" it to them.
-
Hello,
The question of comparing fuel consumptions is an uneasy one.
For modern aircraft, I think it becomes easier, as for each generation or version of engines and aircraft, the fuel consumption per passenger/distance is (slightly) reduced. Not a big deal, as there is no infinite number of manufacturers. In comparable circumstances (full passenger load, same altitudes, same distance...), the fuel consumption per passenger of the A380 will be better than of the 747-400, but worse than that of the 747-8, etc... and will amount to some 14 nautical miles per passenger and per liter. Also 30 liter per nautical mile, for less than 400mt total, more than 100 times less than the dharl's ship, at only 3 times the fuel rate.
So, the color of turbine fuel is in no circumstance "green"! (but light yellow), and heavy fuel oil is "greener" (almost...) thanks to maritime transport.
Regards,
Luc
-
I think the point Airbus is making is that the A380 burns less fuel per passenger than other aircraft. Don't know if you know or not (no offence if you already know ;)) but the A380 is a new high capacity aiircraft capable of carrying around...500 passengers i think.
Yea i know alot of stuff about the A380....i think the passenger capacity is actually almost 600 pasengers
Dan
-
my dads a pilot and he says that the fast the plane goes, the more fuel it burns....if the A380 goes faster than the 747, than it burns more fuel and thus, the A380 isnt much of a "green" aircraft, compared to the 747....
Dan
With respect, that is a little over simplified, but yes, you are right in principal. Height (and therefore air density) has a lot to do with it. LucAT is the science expert... I'm sure he will work out the % efficiency better than the rest of us :)
-
and now she is in Rotterdam :) I went there and took some video's
http://nl.youtube.com/profile?user=titigti
Etienne
-
P&O Arcadia was supposed to be QV. But Cunard "gave" it to them.
Knew it was one of them!!! ;D
-
I got an e-mail today with a number of random facts. One of them said it takes a gallon of diesel fuel to move the QE2 six inches. Anyone know how factual that is?
I did a whole webpage to answer this, because it annoyed me so much!
http://www.roblightbody.com/liners/qe-2/QE2_fuel_economy.htm
I calculated that she can travel 125 feet per Gallon at 20 knots.
Would love to see QE2 on the Ship Simulater.
QM2 is the replacement for QE2, not QV (or QE).
-
?
When QM2 was put in service, I don't think any one knew when QE2 would go. So I don't think QM2 is the replacment ??? ::)
-
Interesting page and information Rob.
I wonder how long it takes to get stopped from 20 knots.
-
?
When QM2 was put in service, I don't think any one knew when QE2 would go. So I don't think QM2 is the replacment ??? ::)
I suspect the board of directors of Carnival UK t/a Cunard might have had an idea. Cruise/liner itineries are often planned 2 years in advance. They will have been planning to sell QE2 for some time now. Large decisions like this are not made on the spur of the moment!
Stu
-
Yes, you are right. i exopect they did have an idea.