But I was wondering if it is necessary anymore, since 1) most passenger ships sail in calm waters, where pitching is at a minimum or 2) the bulbous bows and bow thrusters reduce/eliminate pitching. I love ships, but my knowledge of their mechanicals is a bit lacking...who can answer this?

And will this QM2 Project have any sheer?

As far as I know, Sheer disappeared around the late fifities, early sixties. Certainly on passenger ships. I think the upsweep on the bows given by sheer on say the NORMANDIE certainly improves the impressiveness of the vessel.

Sheer would be very awkward in modern ships which are fitted with standard modules and need constant dimensions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barryboat:
From what I heard, QM2 will have sheer. That's what some of the delay is from, because shipyards just don't build ships like that anymore. It takes true craftsmanship to build a ship with sheer, not that ships today are not built with craftsmanship....it's just that ships today are built mostly by computers which cut and bend the steel with the most efficient hydrodynamics in mind. To be the most efficient economically, the ships must use every square-foot possible to generate revenue, which is why the squared, boxy ship designs have been so popular. They're good seaboats, and very efficient hydrodynamically and economically, but they may not have the look that is as appealing as the ships of the past which were designed like huge sculptures.

---

Barryboat...

I have visited the Viking Serenade pre-RCCL and after RCCL did their BIG refit. Did you know that after RCCL bought the ship, they cut off the original bow and added more of a clipper bow?

I think that most of the new cruise ships built today are good seaboats for what they are used for....shuttling passengers around in a big circle in fairly tame waters. They wouldn't hold up for long, however if they were on a regular trans-Atlantic intinerary. On most of the modern cruise ships, the draft is too shallow, the superstructure is too high, the bow is too short and stubby, the bulbous bows are too big...but we haven't had too many cruise ships today tip over, so the designers must be doing something right. These modern cruise ships, I feel are designed to the limits (mathematically) to be stable, but the priority is to be the most economical in design, rather than building into the hull over-the-top stability, which many of the liners use to have. I think one reason why we are seeing cruise lines build such enormous ships, is for economics, but also because they are more comfortable as far as stability.

There is a lot that goes into a vessel which makes it a good seaboat...more than just great stability...for example, hydrodynamic efficiency, (fuel efficiency) speed, does the ship react well to the wind, the safety equipment onboard, fire safety, low vibrations, low noise, hull breach safety, ventilation, maneuverability, lower maintenance requirements, and finally, how well does the ship react to different sea conditions. Most cruise ships today would pass with flying colors.

I would like to see a return to a more traditional profile, with concessions to modernity, I think it can be done.

Size, at least to me, also seems to be a factor. Small to midsized ships tend to be better-looking in my eye. You can argue that the CROWN DYNASTY has a profile similar to several of the megaships, but looks inherently more graceful.

One of the things we can all be thankful for is that in the modern world there is no need for troopships. Think of the Persian Gulf, it was all done by air.

A war much bigger probably wouldn't need soldiers at all as they'd just annihilate everyone with the big stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jmperry1:
One of the things we can all be thankful for is that in the modern world there is no need for troopships.
James

---

James we only have to look back to the‘Falkland Island’ crisis of 1982 to see recent examples of troop ships. Cunard's QE2 delivered troops to South Georgia, a safe port. The troops were then transported by P&O's 'Canberra' to Port Stanley - the war zone.

The British Government dare not subject a ship that bore the name of the current Sovereign, to enemy fire – the risk of losing the ship was just too much to bear.

Although the ‘Canberra’ WAS exposed to enemy fire, Admiral Lord Lewin said in a very British voice “the fact that the Canberra was
exposed did not really matter, after all she was only the capital of Australia”.

When I first heard about the QM2 concept,I started to wonder if the thinking behind the QM2 was a dual purpose cruise ship/troop carrier? However, I suppose this can't be so, as British Government money is NOT involved. Yet such a ship can still be requisitioned in times of war.

He said that a modern ships super structure was very light, with all the weigh (engines, generators, fuel etc) being at the bottom of the hull, making them stable. They just looked top heavy!

Aurora was in fact designed to transport British passengers quickly from rain in Southampton , across the sometime hazardous Bay of Biscay, to the sunshine of the Mediterranean. She had already proved to be very stable in difficult sea conditions.

But in Bill Miller's FIFTY FAMOUS LINERS, VOL. 2., the states that the CRISTOBAL's sheer was "artificially" eliminated, which to me sounds as if the sheer remained but Raymond Loewy, the ship's designer, eliminated it in some other way? Did I misunderstand him, maybe?