quote:

---

Originally posted by DAMBROSI:
Oh my...does that mean we won't see 3 QUEENS Sunday??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DAMBROSI:
A little late, but she'll be there??? I'm hoping so, I've got my cameras ready for the show that night.

---

Queen Victoria 2008-Jan-10 0900 N 43°12', W 038°06' GBQV
Queen Elizabeth 2 2008-Jan-10 0600 N 43°06', W 036°30'

In that report, QE2 3 hrs earlier than QV reported a position 1 1/2' behind, which at that latitude is just less than 60nm, hence a bit under 20knts.

Together at least for now I think?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:
Well, QV is slower than QE2 - we knew that before.

Again, by far not all liners were fast - it is not at all justified to differentiate between liners or cruise ships based on technical features.

---

I know Ernst, you are right.

But the result is that people really think she's an Trans Atlantic Liner as QE2 and QM2 and she's not. My reaction is purely based on all the crap Cunard PR told us, and the reaction of people who not know more then Cunard told theme.......

quote:

---

Originally posted by viking109:
[...]If QV does turn out to be very late then I would expect passengers to be slightly dissappointed question why the latest Cunarder could not keep up with the 40 year old QE2 going at 2/3rds speed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ernst:

has all modern cruise ships QV is BTW a fine ship from a technical point of view - she is just not built to be a fast ship - and it actually would be very stupid to build a faster ship for what QV is going to do.

---

QV has a top end of 24 knots. Mille class cruises 24 but can exceed.

To my knowledge the Aurora and Oriana get north of 25 knots.

Perhaps this will put to rest any argument that all ships are created equal ..... you know, the "ocean liner" vs "cruise ship" debate. I certainly never considered QV an "ocean liner", regardless of the PR babble coming from Cunard. Of course the media is another story. They do print what Cunard tells them and no doubt consider QV an ocean liner just like QE2. How will Cunard explain that QE2 was able to arrive on time, but not QV? I can't wait to see the PR spin on that one. Remember those special modifications that Cunard insists make QV different than other cruise ship? The strengthened bow and the fact that QV is "longer"? Well they don't seem to be helping her now. QE2 was already operating at a reduced speed and I imagine QV was operating at normal cruising speed, not quite her full potential. Possibly both ships were going at 18-19 knots? Now it appears that QV must slow down even further, maybe to 9 or 10 knots as I assume she is taking a pounding. Isn't this where that "strengthened bow" should come into play? Apparently QE2 can continue on at 18-19 knots or even faster in the same seas. Why can't QV? She is an "ocean liner" after all and I thought her "modifications" prepared her for Atlantic crossings?

I would have much rather seen QM2 and QE2 sail side by side on this crossing. It would have been interesting to see the comparison on two ships truly designed for these sea conditions. Perhaps QM2 might have provided the smoother ride?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DAMBROSI:
Let's hope they both remain along side each other. I'd love to see all 3 on Sunday night...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:
Seems to me the issue is not how fast the ship is, but the fact that QV had to slow down where as QE2 does not. Both ships were traveling at the same speed (reduced already in the case of QE2) and apparantely QV had to slow down even more. This seems to indicate that QE2's hull can handle rough seas far better than QV.[...]

---

You confuse here two things - slowing down and being slowed down.
QV certainly does not have to slow down because her hull can not take it but is slowed down by the waves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eroller:
[...]Perhaps this will put to rest any argument that all ships are created equal[...]

---

I do not remember that this has ever been said here in this forum. There are of course differences - good and bad ships, fast and slow ships - it's only that it does not make sense at all to categorize passenger ships as 'liners' or cruise ship.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pascal:
For thoses who doubted, all this proves QV is not a liner.

---

Again, there were many liners that were not fast. To differentiate between liners and cruise ships based on technical features or whether it is a good or bad, fast or slow ship does not at all make sense - form a technical point of view they are all passenger ships.

Beside that - this recent discussion is based on three photos - two of QE2 and one of QV. Sorry, but that's more than ridiculous. People who do not like QV, and mind you she is certainly not one of my favorit ships - interpret the spray as being bad whereas QE2 actually being heftily inclined is doing very well in their opinion - come on, how stupid is that? Why on earth is the absolutely amazing picture of QE2 looking better if one bashes QV? Personally I do not understand that.

Before you all continue making comments on the seakeeping abilites of the Vista class or modern passenger ships in general you might want to consider to educate yourself. You will be surprised that many modern ships are actually not doing that bad at all - they 'move' in a different manner in bad weather - and this has advantages and disadvantages - but they certainly can handle severe weather - in fact, they have to - and their seakeeping abilities is in a way superior to many older ships.

I do not want to fall in the trap to make bad comments about QE2 in response to the rather incompetent comments made here about modern ships and QV - QE2 is a fine ship - but trust me, you can also get seriously seasick aboard QE2 going trough waves at high speed.

[ 01-10-2008: Message edited by: Ernst ]