Comparison Between Titanic And The Biggest Modern Cruise Ship 1912Humphrey Jordan's book on the Mauretania gives a wonderful insight into her conception and construction- "The subdivision of the ship's compartments was arranged to met the requirements pf an auxillary cruiser. The newest and largest ship in the Holland America Line’s fleet boasts designs based on the theme of Architecture of Music.Cruise Ship Size Comparison Dimensions Cruisemapper Titanic Vs The Oasis Class Malcolm Oliver S Waterworld File Sea Trials Of Rms Titanic 2nd Of April 1912 Jpg Wikimedia Ship Comparison. Although it is the smallest on this list, it still outclasses the Titanic in size, weighing almost double what the Titanic weighed (99,500 gross tons compared to 46,328 gross tons). Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more.Didn't seem to be a thread so let's make our ownKoningsdam. Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. A Size Comparison Between The Titanic And A Modern Cruise Ship In The Titanic Was Ridiculously Tiny Compared To Modern Cruise Ships Oasis Of The Seas Queen Mary Ii Costa Concordia And Titanic 28 Giant Ships Which Surpass Titanic For A Small Pleasure Boat Disney Dream Wikipedia Are There Any Modern Cruise Ships That Are Bigger Than The.
Turbines did not throb and pulsate as hard as reciprocating engines-vibration was a factor carefully explored as the enginerooms still had to be back aft. A wooden prototype launch which was raced up and down the dock for months, helping to formulate the calculations for hull form, rudder size, number and shape of screw-whether they should turn inward or outward- exhaustive studies. Parsons was onboard to work with the engines. She was provided with strengthened platforms where 6 inch guns could be mounted." What is fascinating though is the amount of time spent in testing designs for Lusy/ Maury -7 years- with the plan changing for length, tonnage,engines, number of screws, -and the eternal threat of the great German liners like the Kaiser Wilhelm to compete with.
It would involve too much more expensive maintenance.What this says to me is that despite all the "extensive research," these companies were guided by what looked good, and attracted people, such as speed, size or luxury.Walter Lord, too, severely criticizes these ships as a step backward in safe engineering design.AM hoping the big braintrust will start addressing these hairy technical things but I will try to labor on here until it does! The great worry was the jump from the small Turbinia to the 68,000 hp needed for Mauretania- a lightyear jump for the times and one which had the execs losing sleep at night. So it seems kind of strange that the builders would spend so much time with testing, and then be so off that they had to do an extensive refitting, and rebracing of crossmembers to eliminate the vibration.Another thing to consider: if you read Edward Wilding's testimony at the post-Titanic disaster British Board of Inquiry hearings, he complains about "costs," and figures that the civilian steamers can't afford all the features of naval ships, such as double hull construction, etc. Vibration was a factor carefully explored as the enginerooms still had to be back aft." Well, I read where the Lusitania had a lot of problems with vibration, which required an extensive (and expensive) refitting. Another good reference is An Unsinkable Titanic which I will go dig out now.It says: ". She was magnificent to look at and built to last. It is very reassuring to read the chapters on the extensive research and testing which went into these two ships- no wonder Mauretania held the record for 22 years.
The reduction in height was of great importance, it rendered increased watertight subdivisions possible and so enlarged the margin of safety in case of collision or other accident. Amongst the arguments in favour of installing turbines was that of saving space the engine rooms could be smaller and lower. It was absurd to imagine that the turbine, still in its infancy, could be expected to develop without trouble.
Eventually, new propellers had to be designed and fitted to these ships. We dare not assume that the shipwrights of the day knew everything we know now.Jan is quite right about the vibration problems with the Lusitania and the expensive refit needed to correct it. Am digging out more books till the posse comes over the hill! Fascinating stuff.Befor we go on any further, let me caution that we risk doing quite a bit of Monday Morning Quarterbacking in this discussion. The Carmania got the turbines and shipping took a great leap forward. Lord Inverclyde - Cunard's venerable champion, died just at the crucial decision-making time. Turbines operating four screws would lower the power to be transmitted through each shaft and so lessen the chance of shaft failure, which had not been infrequent in high speed ships on the Atlantic." It was a consideration of passenger comfort being considered too- the small turbine -driven cross channel vessels were wildly popular due to low vibration.
When I was onboard the USS George Washington for her post overhaul trials, we did a speed run and the cavitation produced vibration and noise so severe that we had to wear hearing protection in the after part of the ship.Ship design is nothing if not an artform and there are a lot of variables that have to be considered. Believe me, I know this from first hand experience. We've come a long way since then, but it's still a major headach.
Flooding confined to one side, as happened on the Lusitania, caused an immidiate list which made launching the lifeboats on the portside impossible. You're not likely to get much advance warning of an accident about to happen and in wartime, the enemy isn't going to give you any warning at all! (Why should he?)Wilding had strong reservations about the value of longitudinal sectioning as well, which seems to have been vindicated in actual practice. If the compartment is actually ripped (Or blown!) open, there will be no time to clean up the mess.
The fouled doors, the fact that they have to be open most all of the time, and one has to wonder how quickly they could have been closed if at all if the compartment(s) were opened suddennly to the sea. A torpedo makes a pretty large hole, but if the flooding can be confined to two or three compartments, then she would remain afloat.The problem with the Lusitania's side protection was that these were coal bunkers, and that brings with it the problems I mentioned. It would depend on how many compartments were damaged by the explosion. Bear in mind also that the Titanic took two hours and forty minutes to sink, while the Lucy went down in only eighteen minutes in spite of all the extra protection.It's hard to say, although I suspect she would have survived it.
His consultants were distinguished naval architects and engineers of the time. Bernard Walker wrote for Scientific American, and published in 1912, a book called An Unsinkable Titanic. I don't believe they would have ruptured the watertight bulkheads,(They were pretty well built.) but the live steam would have killed anybody in the boiler rooms.J.
Longitudinal bulkheads and double hull and other structural elements. Most of the book is an examination of the transverse vs. I will scan and post these next week.
The 2 skins were placed 2 feet 10 inches apart and tied together by 34 longitudinal web-members all along the hull thus making separate watertight compartments.
0 kommentar(er)
