Concept and Design
QE2’s funnel was probably the most technically advanced funnel ever fitted to a passenger ship and perhaps the most controversial! The design and position of the single funnel added to the graceful appearance of the ship but it was not merely a design feature. The funnel was as functional and efficient in disposing of smoke and boiler gases as science and a long and exhaustive series of tests could make it.
The actual design was not finalised until fairly late in the design stage – the builder’s model had no funnel at all at the pre-tender stage – and responsibility for the funnel design fell to James Gardner, the man responsible for styling the exterior appearance of the ship. Gardner would develop the funnel in conjunction with Cunard’s technical department after months of testing in the wind tunnel at the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington in Middlesex.
It seemed at first that the task of adapting Gardner’s original tall slender stack from the Q3 Project would be simple enough. There was still some resistance to such a design from the more conservative factions within Cunard, but this was no real threat. The greatest difficulty was that none of the various model funnels tested in the National Physical Laboratory’s wind tunnel seemed to overcome the old problem of keeping soot and smuts away from the shelter decks.
James Gardner:
“A traditional smokestack proved out of the question after the first wind tunnel test. In a functional stack, performance had to take complete priority, and the final structure comprises (a) a relatively small diameter smokestack, (b) a large air outlet vent and (c) a wind scoop mounted on the fan house which covers the air intake”.
Various types were tried – in all 20 different funnel designs were produced and tested before the final design was approved – including thin mast-stacks, fat ovoid forms, some with air vents, others without, and so on. The aerofoil-shaped Strombos type, adopted for Holland America’s Maasdam and Ryndam, as well as the French ships El Djezair and Lyautey, were also tried. It all really did not seem to make much difference. Under the worst wind conditions the smoke always ran down the back of the funnel and onto the open decks. “What about ‘those ungainly projections on the funnels of the France and the flat mortar-board topes on the Michelangelo”, asked Gardner? Nobody seemed to know or care; they were foreign anyway.
The real cause of the problem was that smoke had a tendency to flow down the leeward side of the funnel to fill in an area of low pressure there. If the prevailing winds were blowing from either side of the ship, and were strong enough, then a greater low pressure area would occur around the opposite aft quarter of the funnel. Under these conditions, when the winds did not reinforce the ship’s own enveloping airstream, the smoke may well lack the velocity to get full clear of the decks. This was observed by one of the shipyard’s research people, who then worked with Gardner to find a funnel design that would work properly under such circumstances.
The eventual solution that evolved was based on three elements. The funnel itself was made as tall and thin as possible, somewhat resembling Gardner’s original visualisation of it for Q3. The trick was to fill its relatively small low pressure void with used air from the accommodation ventilating and air-conditioning systems. This was done by enclosing the aft half of the stack within a cowling through which the return air was pushed by powerful exhaust fans, where this forced airflow was vented just below the top of the working funnel, it would give the engine exhaust smoke and gases the needed push to carry them away from the ship.
However, further wind tunnel tests of this arrangement showed that under somewhat unfavourable wind conditions the outer cowling created its own low pressure area. At first the two men experimented with various arrangements of windscreens on deck to overcome this. What finally emerged was wide wind scoop on top of the deckhouse. This solved the problem using the Venturi-effect, with the narrowing form of its curved lines increasing the airflow from the deck level and forcing it up around the back of the whole funnel structure, cowl and all.
It was a combination of old and new ideas. The stack itself embodied the old idea of a tall think funnel which would discharge steam, smoke and soot well above the ship, rather like those of, perhaps, Campania more than half a century earlier. The outer cowling and wind scoop were modern refinements which made it work more effectively.
Having produced the shape to give the best overall efficiency for differing ship speeds and wind directions, the design shape was then slightly adapted for aesthetic appeal.
In the Cunard Boardroom there were still those who needed convincing and some Cunard directors still had doubts about ditching the old notion of that big red funnel, “the insignia of the line, you know, Cunard red”. Sir Basil Smallpeice asked that a conventional funnel also be made to show on the model for comparison, and to pacify traditionalists.
Having given Gardner’s design work unqualified support up to this point, Sir Basil Smallpeice decided that, on this controversial issue, diplomacy was required and so he decided to pass the buck. In an unexpected bout of conservatism, he elected to ask for The Queen's opinion when showing a model of the Q4 to her at Buckingham Palace at a special private audience, arranged in relation to Her Majesty's invitation to launch the ship in September 1967.
Gardner later recalled how the matter was irrevocably resolved once and for all:
“A week later he (Sir Basil) rang. Apparently he was a buddy of the Queen and wanted to show her the model (to ask if she would acquiesce to her name being linked with it, I guessed). I was to meet him with it at the side door of the Palace, and, ‘oh bring both funnels, please, your first one and the one in Cunard house colours’. So, he would ask the Queen, and my guess was she would plump for the red one; after all to anyone not practised at the objective visual design it would look more like a Cunard funnel is expected to look. At the appointed hour my model maker and I were gingerly steering the fragile model into the hands of a flunky, when Smallpeice asked: ‘Where’s the red funnel/’ ‘Awfully sorry’, I said, ‘it fell off this morning and someone trod on it. Absolutely useless, I’m afraid’. Smallpeice just gave me one look”.
Months were spent refining the lines of the structure to achieve the perfect relationship of the various parts – and the John Brown engineers had to get an awful lot of ducting and fans into the base of such a slim funnel as well as be sure that it would stand erect, poised off-centre, over a great rectangular hole in the deck (which they eventually did without recourse to staywires). The result was the black and white funnel with a touch of Cunard red in the wind scoop. The two white masses – the funnel and the mast – were the key elements which gave the ship her scale and dignity. The unusual mast was not needed as such but had a purely functional purpose as it served as an exhaust for the kitchens.
There was some lamentation at its distinctive black and white colour scheme which had replaced the traditional Cunard red and black. Gardner had considered the Cunard colours “too heavy” and not in keeping with the overall approach he had taken with the external design of the ship.
So for the first time in Cunard history – although it was then current airline practice – the side of the ship would carry the name of the company below and aft of the bridge. The word Cunard was in red on the white superstructure in the distinctive letterform recently adopted by the company for its name. The wording was aluminum plate of about .35” thick and was manufactured and fitted at a cost of £924 at November 1964 prices.
The ‘midships location of the funnel was conventional Cunard practice and the position was dictated by the disposition of the boilers, which for convenience was located next to the main machinery and this was sited amidships in order to achieve maximum strength and stability. Another advantage in positioning the funnel amidships was that the maximum shelter deck accommodation in a fast ship would be achieved.
When the veil of secrecy which had shrouded the design of the liner was lifted in April 1967, the Daily telegraph wrote:
“She is mainly a traditional ship with an extremely unusual funnel. This stands amidships like a piece of modern metallic sculpture”.
QE2’s funnel was Gardner’s greatest triumph – an inspired combination of old and new ideas resulting in a form that was sophisticated, highly effective and also iconic.
Topic: The original pencil thin funnel (Read 13286 times)
Similar topics (5)
Feb 21, 2012, 01:01 AM