Adverts only show for non-members



Author Topic: Elizabeth - General Discussion  (Read 66215 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

richc1977

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #260 on: Jun 21, 2010, 08:34 PM »
Where is the link to the deckplans?  Sorry but I couldn't find it.  Thanks in advance.

For those of you who can't access the Cunard website, here is an accurate rendering of QE3, most definitely the ugly sister.  Say goodbye to the "liner" like stern profile.  :o 
(Image removed from quote.)

Offline luzparis

Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #261 on: Jun 21, 2010, 09:52 PM »
i can't to see the link here in france it's impossible !! grrr everytime when i click the virtual visit i finnish at frenchwebsite cunard !!but i don't like the look of this ship!!ugly

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Total likes: 2209
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #262 on: Jun 21, 2010, 10:28 PM »
Is that pod the wrong way round in that illustration?  Or do they have their propellors at the front?
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Twynkle

Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #263 on: Jun 21, 2010, 11:40 PM »
Peter
You might find this interesting  :)
These are QM2's azipods
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf6.htm
QE2 had been waiting alongside in Dubai for nearly 12 years.  Please restore her Lifeboats and Tenders to where they truly belong - she looks naked without them - please spare her this ignominy.

Offline Jeff Taylor

Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #264 on: Jun 22, 2010, 12:26 AM »
The props on pods face forward so they can bite better on undisturbed water.  Seems counterintuitive, but it works.

Offline highlander0108

Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #265 on: Jun 22, 2010, 12:27 AM »
Is that pod the wrong way round in that illustration?  Or do they have their propellors at the front?

The illustration is correct, with the props at the front for better efficiency in uninterupted water.  Also, these pods are "Azipods", manufacturered by ABB Azipod, if they use the same ones as were installed on QV.  QM2's problematic pods are from a different manufacturer, which is now Rolls-Royce, who probably are regretting buying the company with all the problems they have had.
"There will never be another one like her" QE2's last Master Ian McNaught
My Blog:  http://qe2-prideoftheclyde.blogspot.com/

Offline skilly56

Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #266 on: Jun 22, 2010, 05:50 AM »
Thrust Efficiency - that is why prop-driven aircraft also have the propeller at the front. It gives an uninterrupted airflow in to the  blades. I shudder to think what a pusher-prop Spitfire or Lancaster would have looked like. However, having the propeller on the front does interfere with airflow over the wings.

Post WWII the Americans built a large bomber with pusher props-the B36. It's performance was so poor they then added jet engines to it as well. Even then it wasn't a big hit!

By the way, the concept of having electric motors mounted underwater (but outside of the hull) is very old technology. Bow thrusters are normally diesel engine or electric motor powered, but the prime mover is mounted INSIDE the hull.

The NZ gov't had a research ship (it was the old German 'Meteor') which had an active rudder unit - ie, underwater electric motor driving a propeller, with the complete system mounted inside the rudder.

One ship that I was C/E on for many years actually had an electric motor mounted inside a steel tube that ran fore & aft through the rudder casing, with a nozzle on the aft end to aid the 4-bladed propeller efficiency and also protect the blades. The rudder can swing 82 degrees to Port or Stbd, so the 'active rudder' was the ship's stern thruster as well. With no main engines running, the ship could do 5 - 6 knots on the rudder motor alone, powered by 2 of the generators in parallel.

Once over 5 knots, the 'active rudder' motor is stopped, whereapon the 4 blades then rotate through 90 degrees from the Zero pitch position to the fully feathered position, so they create no drag. It pays NOT to initiate the start procedure when above 8 - 10 knots. Unfeathering the stowed blades tends to have a very expensive result, but this can only happen when the interlocks fail.

The motor, propeller and nozzle unit are made in Europe (by Pleuger) and, when mounted in a tube, were frequently dropped from a Hercules aircraft into the flooded lowlands of Holland, where they were aimed over the dykes into the sea, then started up (with portable generators driving them). This is a very effective way of pumping out the flooded lowlands. We call it the "Unterwasserpushenpullinpumpen"

Having the main propeller wake passing through the nozzle also made it a very nice steering ship.

Skilly
« Last Edit: Jun 22, 2010, 06:32 AM by skilly56 »

richc1977

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #267 on: Jun 22, 2010, 09:29 PM »
http://www.cunard.com/en-gb/Ships/Queen-Elizabeth/Deck-Plans/

It is a clever Virtual Tour.

But I hope you all visit my QE2 Virtual Tour and not this one!!!!

Offline Chris Frame

« Last Edit: Jan 20, 2011, 09:14 PM by Isabelle Prondzynski »

RMS Queen Elizabeth 2

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #269 on: Jun 29, 2010, 01:47 PM »
I think this Queen Elizabeth should have been made into a express ocean liner out of tribute to the previous Queen Elizabeth's. A modified QM2 or a newer rendition of QE2?

Offline highlander0108

Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #270 on: Jul 08, 2010, 12:15 AM »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/hampshire/10540189.stm
I like how the name QE2 so easily rolls off the tongue in the video.  I cannot get tired of hearing it mentioned, especially with a British accent.  Obviously she's still dear to the hearts of many in the UK.  Looks like Hamish Sunter is trying at least to put a positive spin on the new ship.  How long will he last?
"There will never be another one like her" QE2's last Master Ian McNaught
My Blog:  http://qe2-prideoftheclyde.blogspot.com/

richc1977

  • Guest
Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #271 on: Jul 08, 2010, 09:47 PM »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/england/hampshire/10540189.stm

I like (not) how the article says "the black and white hull marks out this ship as a cut above the typical white floating block of flats that so many of the current cruise ships resemble".

Extraordinary statement, given the way the new QE looks.  Even more "blocky" than the Queen Victoria.  And also given that she is another Vista-class off-the-shelf cruise ship.

Online Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 10954
  • Total likes: 11150
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #272 on: Jul 08, 2010, 10:24 PM »
I like (not) how the article says "the black and white hull marks out this ship as a cut above the typical white floating block of flats that so many of the current cruise ships resemble".

Extraordinary statement, given the way the new QE looks.  Even more "blocky" than the Queen Victoria.  And also given that she is another Vista-class off-the-shelf cruise ship.
I agree!  I've emailed Paul Clifton because it reads like a Cunard advert and twice refers to it as a replacement for QE2 which it patently is not!  QM2 is absolutely QE2s replacement - and if you're only talking about her 2000s med cruises perhaps you could argue that QV replaces them, but I dont see how qE can be called QE2s replacement - it really annoys me.
Passionate about QE2's service life for 35 years and creator of this website.

Offline Scott Ebersold

Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #273 on: Jul 11, 2010, 05:00 AM »
I saw that today and thought the same thing, Rob and Richard.  I really bothered me too.  She is clearly not a replacement to QE2, QM2 (sorry "Queen Mary 2") was/is that.  I'm glad you wrote to them Rob.  I'd be curious to hear if they reply.

Offline Chris Frame

Re: Queen Elizabeth (2010)
« Reply #274 on: Jul 12, 2010, 11:25 AM »
With a tiny bit of Photoshop Work and now QV looks like QE...

http://www.chriscunard.com/queen_elizabeth.php


Offline Stowaway2k

Re: QE (2010) Topic 1 of 2 - General Discussion
« Reply #275 on: Aug 03, 2010, 05:16 PM »
While Cunard is second-to-none in their use of marketing hyperbole, this "The World Awaits" slogan they've adopted for QE has me wondering if the next time I see it, I'll need a doctor to pry my eyes back into position after they roll back into my head again...   ;)

Cruise_Princess

  • Guest
Re: QE (2010) Topic 1 of 2 - General Discussion
« Reply #276 on: Aug 05, 2010, 10:27 AM »
Its that old chestnut again Myles....

MONEY!

Online cunardqueen

Re: QE (2010) Topic 1 of 2 - General Discussion
« Reply #277 on: Aug 05, 2010, 06:35 PM »
Quote
....been waitlisted but thats a waste of time

I have no faith in the waitlist system. Friends were waitlisted via Cunard for a QE2 voyage. But thanks to a travel agent who somehow got in there very quick with their system got them a cabin they wanted and before they knew it there were confirmed as passengers. The waitlist just carried on,and l fear like many folks people just assume when your on it thats the only way!! If only indeed ::) Now is it fair or not? Im inclined to say No that isnt fair, But in saying that l would have no problem in trying any method to get on a special sailing.
 Rather like booking with an agent who promises you the lowest fare ::) Its all very well till you show them  a lower fare.
From the moment you first glimpsed the Queen,
 you just knew you were in for a very special time ahead.!

Offline highlander0108

Re: QE (2010) Topic 1 of 2 - General Discussion
« Reply #278 on: Aug 06, 2010, 10:54 PM »
Check out what ship is illustrated in this Fox News article on QE(3).  Mind you, it is the only picture in the story.   ;D 
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/08/05/queen-elizabeth-makes-debut/
"There will never be another one like her" QE2's last Master Ian McNaught
My Blog:  http://qe2-prideoftheclyde.blogspot.com/

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3142
  • Total likes: 2209
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: QE (2010) Topic 1 of 2 - General Discussion
« Reply #279 on: Aug 06, 2010, 10:59 PM »
That's not the only blunder they've made; look at the file name in "properties"... ;D ;D ;D
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"