QE2 Story Forum

The QE2's Story (in-service) => The QE2 herself => Features of the QE2 => Topic started by: KEV on Apr 26, 2009, 10:02 AM

Title: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: KEV on Apr 26, 2009, 10:02 AM
Are there portholes/aquarium views! on decks 6 and 7?

That propeller view window would be amazing-wonder if there is any footage of it somewhere?
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: KEV on Apr 26, 2009, 02:53 PM
Amazing thanks Louis-wonder why viewer only one propellor side

muito obrigado!

Moderator comment : This refers to the large picture posted by Louis below
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: cunardqueen on Apr 26, 2009, 05:45 PM
Wasnt this window installed in connection with the Grimm vane wheels, added in the 86/87 conversion sadly they didnt last long and what remained of the ones that didnt break off were removed a few months later.
 Louis keep on with your information, its always interesting to read from someone from crew country.
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: Rob Lightbody on Apr 26, 2009, 06:45 PM
That i know off theres no portholes on 6 or 7 deck.

There's definitely a fair few portholes on deck 6, but none on 7.  Warwick's book shows the hospital ward with a porthole, plus you can count them from the outside yourself.  Even on 11-11-09, final departure, with all portholes lit, you can count down the rows of portholes to deck 6 ones illuminated.  They must have been amazing when underway!


s for aquarium views i am not 100% sure but i think theres a hole where you can overlook the propellers.Ill try and confirm this.On the photo i have circled it out.

As Myles says, these were put in specifically in relation to the Grimm wheels in 1987, to investigate/observ how they worked or didn't.  My father got to look out of them in April 87, before she arrived back in Southampton - but I think by that point they'd already gone wrong!  I remember, aged 14, being freaked out at the idea of an underwater window!

Fascinating topic Louis, thank so much!!
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: Isabelle Prondzynski on Apr 26, 2009, 07:47 PM
I seem to remember, when walking along QE2 in Zeebrugge (where the ship considerably rises as the tide comes in) being able to look into the crew cabins on Six Deck. As the crew soon noticed curious passenger feet walking past, curtains were drawn!

I did not take any photos... so I dare not swear! But this is my memory anyway, for what it's worth (which may not be much)...
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: Pat Curry on Oct 02, 2009, 07:59 PM
 Wow Louis, I'm sincerely impressed.  You have photos of everything.  I've never seen her in dry-dock.  But why only one port hole?  You just might be able to see the starboard screw from it, but how about the port side screw? And wouldn't it be really dark when she was in the water? 
You can see the six deck portholes and you can work out the whereabouts seven deck.  As you know, a few crew were authorised  to access eight deck for their duties, one of which was for waste disposal if I remember correctly,  but not  for most crew.  But this 'porthole' may even be on the ballast decks below that even below that?    A real mystery.

Best wishes

pat
____________
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: Andrew Collier on Oct 05, 2009, 12:52 PM
Fear not Bob, you're question is in the right place as these portholes were not cut until 1987 to view the Grimm Wheels fitted to the new propellers installed as part of the rebuild....
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: CasinoChris on Oct 19, 2009, 03:48 AM
Hi Folks,
the mystery porthole above the prop was cut in during a drydock in 1988. The purpose was to use a strobe lamp and camera to observe the cavitation being generated to assist in designing a propeller that would generate less vibration.
When I joined the QE2 in May 1988 they had not yet replaced the props and he stern of the ship at 28 knots was un-tenable, I pity any crewmembers assigned to cabins in that area of the ship. The vibration did not improve much after the new screws were fitted.
Cheers
Casinochris
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: Louis De Sousa on Oct 19, 2009, 09:48 AM

Quote
I pity any crewmembers assigned to cabins in that area of the ship. The vibration did not improve much after the new screws were fitted.

The conditions in those very aft cabins never improved over the years.Amazing that some crew had to live in those cabins.They were by far the worse cabins on board.

Louis
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: Rob Lightbody on Oct 19, 2009, 10:00 AM
Fascinating.

I would be interested to know if the vibration would have been less with the intended Grim Wheels fitted... or more!

And I would be interested to know if the Steam props were smoother - they were smaller I believe?

I wonder if there's a technical explanation about why they "had" to vibrate more - as a side-effect of the new CP blades, or a different RPM or whatever...

The diesel conversion was intended to have no increase in vibration... but i think they were mainly worried about the powerplant itself...

Do you think they used strobe lights or something to catch photos of the cavitation?  Can't imagine you'd see much otherwise!
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: CasinoChris on Oct 21, 2009, 04:14 AM
Hi Rob,
I joined the ship shortly after the re-engine refit. I was reliably informed by the engineers that the grimm wheels worked
like a dream. The ship had no noticeable vibration throughout the trials following the refit....until they went full astern!!!!
At which point they got chewed up by the props!!! Apparently some of the remains of the wheels later fell off during an atlantic crossing. There was a drydock in 1988 when the last remains were removed and the porthole was installed. This by the way was in a sealed watertight compartment with a watertight hatch, as informed by the engineering staff it contained a strobe light and camera. Vibration from the actual engines was only noticeable in the midships area around the funnel uptakes, certainly a lot smoother than on the other cunard vessels I worked on. But if you went down to the stern...oh boy did she shake rattle and roll!!!!! I was always impressed by the power of the ship, pulling away from port they would up the shaft speed from 70 rpm to 140 rpm, this would be accompanied by a whining noise akin to star treks warp drive! I remember one occasion when on a New York party cruise when captain Warwick put his foot down and shortly left all vessels in our wake except for the cigarette boats!!
If I am incorrect on tech info I hope one of the engineering staff will respond in correction....
most technical conversations occurring after hours over a few adult beverages......
Cheers
CasinoChris
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: Rob Lightbody on Oct 25, 2009, 02:39 PM
I was reliably informed by the engineers that the grimm wheels worked
like a dream. The ship had no noticeable vibration throughout the trials following the refit....until they went full astern!!!!

Its so, so sad.  These were a delightful concept, and would have improved the efficiency, speed (wow!) and smoothness of the ship.  I was told by Stephen Payne that the full astern command came from the Cunard boss at the time, and was to allow them to make the claim about the ship "going faster backwards than most ships...." - what a shame.  The engineers, or the people from LIPS, should have refused!

In real-life, would the ship ever have needed to go full astern (i.e. ship moving backwards at speed) ever?  I'd imagine it would be used more to stop the ship, wouldn't it?
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: Jem on Oct 25, 2009, 05:44 PM
I was reliably informed by the engineers that the grimm wheels worked
like a dream. The ship had no noticeable vibration throughout the trials following the refit....until they went full astern!!!!

Its so, so sad.  These were a delightful concept, and would have improved the efficiency, speed (wow!) and smoothness of the ship.  I was told by Stephen Payne that the full astern command came from the Cunard boss at the time, and was to allow them to make the claim about the ship "going faster backwards than most ships...." - what a shame.  The engineers, or the people from LIPS, should have refused!

In real-life, would the ship ever have needed to go full astern (i.e. ship moving backwards at speed) ever?  I'd imagine it would be used more to stop the ship, wouldn't it?
Hello Rob,
Just wondered whether the order for speed going full astern could have come from the MOD Ministry of Defence? As she was used as a troop ship in the Falklands. Then again as a troop ship you'd think they would want her to travel forward as fast as she can.
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes
Post by: jdl on Oct 25, 2009, 08:56 PM
I was reliably informed by the engineers that the grimm wheels worked
like a dream. The ship had no noticeable vibration throughout the trials following the refit....until they went full astern!!!!

Its so, so sad.  These were a delightful concept, and would have improved the efficiency, speed (wow!) and smoothness of the ship.  I was told by Stephen Payne that the full astern command came from the Cunard boss at the time, and was to allow them to make the claim about the ship "going faster backwards than most ships...." - what a shame.  The engineers, or the people from LIPS, should have refused!

In real-life, would the ship ever have needed to go full astern (i.e. ship moving backwards at speed) ever?  I'd imagine it would be used more to stop the ship, wouldn't it?

It's also odd that they never replaced them post their demise - I can only assume more cost cutting ?

jdl
Title: Re: Shore mains supplies
Post by: highlander0108 on Jan 24, 2010, 01:05 AM
Holynougat, this picture was taken by Ashley Allan, who was an officer onboard in 2003 and posted these pictures somewhere regarding the 2003 drydock.  I absolutely love this shot of the hull form.
(http://highlander0108.smugmug.com/photos/771683075_gxend-L.jpg) 
Do you have any knowledge what that large hole in the hull is for over the starboard propeller?  It looks like it is discharging water while underway from the pattern of the hull slime/growth.  Perhaps it is cooling water from the AC system.  Thanks.

Ken
Title: Re: Shore mains supplies
Post by: Jem on Jan 24, 2010, 07:29 AM
Quote from: ken
Do you have any knowledge what that large hole in the hull is for over the starboard propeller?  It looks like it is discharging water while underway from the pattern of the hull slime/growth.  Perhaps it is cooling water from the AC system.  Thanks.

Ken
Cannot be sure but I think what your seeing there is her underwater porthole used to observe her screw.
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Peter Mugridge on Jan 24, 2010, 01:09 PM
I think that is the observation porthole; interesting that it is not flush to the hull as I had been expecting.

The lack of growth behind it would be explained by it not being flush; that would generate drag ( = turbulence which would act to clean the area ).
Title: Re: Shore mains supplies
Post by: Bob C. on Jan 24, 2010, 01:51 PM
Holynougat, this picture was taken by Ashley Allan, who was an officer onboard in 2003 and posted these pictures somewhere regarding the 2003 drydock.  I absolutely love this shot of the hull form.

Are there more of the 2003 drydock photos?  I'd love to see them and most likely everyone else would too.  Post a link if one exists - thanks!
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Rob Lightbody on Jan 24, 2010, 02:23 PM
I dont think drag from the porthole would matter there - would it?  there must be a huge amount of turbulence near those giant propellors!
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: pete cain on Jan 24, 2010, 05:25 PM
There's a picture of the underwater porthole being cut ( QE2 -a ship for all seasons. David F h Hutchings ) p66.     p65, '  a maximum speed achieved 33.8 knots.Testing the (then) new powerplant had taken the ship, travelling at full speed. 3m 38s  to come to a halt in just over a mile! A further 12m and she was going astern at 19 knots!
Vibration, too , was measurably down in the public rooms. Although it remained at similar level as before in the aft sections of the ship'. P66, ' The liner had performed well whilst transitting the North Sea....... no one suspected that anything was amiss untill a diver was inspecting the underwater hull during a security probe before thr Princess of Wales' visit, found that each Grimm wheel had lost five consecutive vanes, leaving two remaining blades on each wheel'.
Qe2 was hurredly put into drydock overnight & the remaining blades removed.
  
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Twynkle on Jan 24, 2010, 06:00 PM
If the 'hole' on the starboard side was for viewing the props, cavitation and their condition etc - wouldn't there be one on both sides of the hull?

Bruce Peter et al's QE2 - Britain's Greatest Liner - under Power and propulsion - p65, foot of first column,
'Sea water was taken in through two raked 900mm (3ft) diameter intake pipes, passing through the ships double bottom, beneath the engine room....'
There's no picture of these 'inlet' pipes, I wonder where they might be situated?

Rob - do you know whether there's a cutaway diagram of the lower half of QE2's hull from bow to stern?
Title: Re: Shore mains supplies
Post by: highlander0108 on Jan 24, 2010, 06:11 PM
Are there more of the 2003 drydock photos?  I'd love to see them and most likely everyone else would too.  Post a link if one exists - thanks!

I have a couple saved, but I apparently did not save the link.  It was on a site that had crew members posting their stories and photos.  I have an interesting one of the props I'll post separately.

Ken
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Peter Mugridge on Jan 24, 2010, 08:49 PM
No, they only put a viewing porthole on the one side.
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: cunardqueen on Jan 25, 2010, 09:00 AM
Forgive me, But with the viewing porthole, would you actually be able to see anything worth while?
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Beardy Rich on Jan 25, 2010, 10:37 AM
I can't be certain, but looking at the photo of the underwater 'porthole' it looks as though you would have viewed the propellor from the steering gear compartment. From memory, this was on 7 deck as far aft as you could get. I seem to remember gaining access from 6 deck aft, up the crew stair to 5 deck then along and down to 7 deck.
As with the bow thruster compartment, this compartment was kept locked.
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: highlander0108 on Jan 30, 2010, 07:48 PM
While not a washing machine view, here's some video of our 5 deck porthole view on a calm day; one of the few days the deadlight was allowed to be opened, on the Farewell to the UK cruise.  You really get the sense of speed at this level and we were making 22 knots at best.  I can't tell you how long I just sat there staring out the porthole!
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Cunarder Man on Feb 20, 2010, 08:51 AM
Taken on the World Cruise 2002 somewhere in the Indian Ocean - the side of the ship became so warm in such waters that individual air conditioners had been fitted in the cabins. They made such a noise, but that didn't matter - we were on the QE2!
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: jdl on Feb 21, 2010, 08:17 AM
While not a washing machine view, here's some video of our 5 deck porthole view on a calm day; one of the few days the deadlight was allowed to be opened, on the Farewell to the UK cruise.  You really get the sense of speed at this level and we were making 22 knots at best.  I can't tell you how long I just sat there staring out the porthole!

Thanks for posting, what a relaxing, beautiful view - looks like you had at least one day of decent (or acceptable!) weather!

jdl
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Rod on Aug 07, 2011, 08:32 PM
The first set of Grimm wheels worked well they say. We broke at least 2 blades off in NY harbor. They extended way past the bottom of the hull.
What most people do not realize is that the Grimm wheels are not powered. They are just free to rotate with the the movement of the water around them.

As far as the full speed backwards business, this is a requirement from the DoT. They time the length of time it takes to go from MAX full ahead.....to the vessel actually moving astern. Then they keep it going to see how fast it will actually go and see if the vessel will sink or fall apart. This is all in the name of safety. Same as the hard left hard right etc etc...all done on sea trials for a "new" vessel...After re-engining QE2 was considered a new vessel.
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Stephen Ballantine on Apr 24, 2019, 10:42 PM
Likewise, I can’t imagine the “porthole” above the starboard prop would allow any useful observations. At sea, it would be pitch black down there and a propellor moving at those speeds wouldn’t be observable, surely?
Looks more like a discharge or intake to me. And why only on one side?
Question,. What’s a Grimm Wheel and it’s use, please?
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Peter Mugridge on Apr 24, 2019, 10:47 PM
Grimm Wheel = a kind of experimental high-efficiency propellor system, but it didn't really work.  There's a topic on here somewhere about them.  I'll have a look later and link it, unless someone else beats me to it.
Title: Re: QE2 Portholes - low down/underwater
Post by: Rod on Apr 25, 2019, 02:38 PM
http://marinewiki.org/index.php/Vane_Wheels

And what does Wiki give us?????
 A Rob Lightbody picture. Way to go Rob!!