Topic: Queen Victoria has arrived at Southampton (Read 4993 times)

Shipaddict · « **on:** December 07, 2007, 19:48:45 »

Well, she is here now.

Quite a nice ship

Captain Davies · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2007, 20:35:26 »

Sister ship to the QM2, yes?

Shipaddict · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2007, 20:46:17 »

Yes, "replacing" QE2

Bottman · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2007, 21:44:04 »

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

RJK · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2007, 00:35:33 »

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?

LucAtC · « **Reply #5 on:** December 08, 2007, 01:33:43 »

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

RJK · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2007, 02:58:21 »

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

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2007, 09:47:25 »

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

LucAtC · « **Reply #8 on:** December 08, 2007, 12:57:58 »

Hello Stu

,
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,

Luc

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2007, 04:22:28 »

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

JHB · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2007, 11:36:06 »

Nice ship!

Captain Davies · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2007, 14:10:17 »

Quote from: Stuart2007 on December 09, 2007, 04:22:28

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.

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2007, 15:55:13 »

Are you sure the A380 is slower? Really really sure?

Captain Davies · « **Reply #13 on:** December 10, 2007, 20:05:53 »

Umm...well that is a Jeremy Clarkson fact but I suppose it would make sense.

Shipaddict · « **Reply #14 on:** December 10, 2007, 20:09:19 »

The bottle didn't smash on the side today

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 11, 2007, 00:00:12 »

Quote from: Shipaddict on December 10, 2007, 20:09:19

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

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 11, 2007, 00:02:29 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on December 10, 2007, 20:05:53

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

beechjetkid17 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 11, 2007, 02:01:08 »

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

dharl · « **Reply #18 on:** December 11, 2007, 09:45:38 »

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

Happy Sailing!

Captain Davies · « **Reply #19 on:** December 11, 2007, 17:47:37 »

Quote from: beechjetkid17 on December 11, 2007, 02:01:08

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.

Shipaddict · « **Reply #20 on:** December 11, 2007, 18:18:31 »

Quote from: dharl on December 11, 2007, 09:45:38

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

Happy Sailing!

P&O Arcadia was supposed to be QV. But Cunard "gave" it to them.

LucAtC · « **Reply #21 on:** December 11, 2007, 18:26:36 »

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

beechjetkid17 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 11, 2007, 21:37:54 »

Quote from: Captain Davies on December 11, 2007, 17:47:37

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

Stuart2007 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 12, 2007, 00:34:35 »

Quote from: beechjetkid17 on December 11, 2007, 02:01:08

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

titigti · « **Reply #24 on:** December 12, 2007, 13:49:47 »

and now she is in Rotterdam

I went there and took some video's
http://nl.youtube.com/profile?user=titigti

Etienne

Author Topic: Queen Victoria has arrived at Southampton (Read 4993 times)