I believe that the QE1 was better that the QM1 in appearance and the QE2 is far more attractive than the QM2. Both the QE1 and QE2 are the sleeker and more pleasing for the eye to look at.

vs.

&

vs.

Waiting now for the firestorm to hit...

[ 02-10-2004: Message edited by: Marlowe ]

I do consider QM2 attractive..... *for a modern liner*. She is as good as we are getting in this day and age.

I think she does quite well up until her superstructure. From there up she looks like a very large livestock carrier with all those balcony compartments.

In person she actually looked a little short to me. Hard to imagine a 1000+ foot liner looking short. This of course is because of her exaggerated height.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barryboat:
Wait till you see QM2 up close....all I can say is Spectacular! Photos do not do justice. Up close...she has all the appeal of an ocean liner on steroids.

---

I have. It did not change my opinion that I wrote just above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marlowe:
While I would not go so far as to call the QM2 ugly, I would say that her lines lack grace and form. To me she appears much too tall (both the hull & superstructure), the forecastle is too short and the stern is just plain weird looking!

---

I agree, her lines are not as graceful as older liners, but she was designed for a purpose.

Here is what two naval architects had to say about their creation:

quote:

---

“She is a ship for the sea,” said Stephen Payne, director of project management at Carnival Corporate Shipbuilding, designer and naval architect for QM2. “The QM2 is designed specifically to go transatlantic at speed any time of the year. She has the necessary reserve power to go through a storm or to divert and go around," Payne continued. “We could have opted to build a cruise ship that looked like a liner and would probably be fast enough in August. My concern is that the liner service would be popular, then would stretch into the autumn (fall) months, when the Atlantic can turn bad. A cruise ship is only second best in the Atlantic,” he added.

Payne also explained that rather being box-shaped like modern cruise ships, the QM2 is pyramid-shaped, placing its weight in the middle where the structure is strongest.

Jean-Jacques Gatepaille, naval architect at Chantiers de l’Atlantique said that during the design stage, extensive model tests were carried out, testing as many variables as possible, focusing on the ship’s sea-keeping abilities, including a range of swells, strong winds, and several configurations of stabilizers. “We did perfect in the tests. There was no green water on the ship – only spray in the worst condition,” Gatepaille pointed out.

He said that tests included three wave heights – 14, 8, and 4 metres – and that even in the worst condition more than one third of the ship was beneath the vertical acceleration curve when people tend to get seasick.

When crossing the Atlantic, the QM2 will travel at a very respectable 25 knots, but only use 60 percent of her available engine power. Her engines generate enough power for the entire city of Southampton, according to Payne.

Smooth sailing is also ensured by her block coefficient which is 0.61 compared to 0.73 for most cruise ships. (The closer the block coefficient is to one, the more the hull resembles the shape of a brick moving through the water.)

---

All this points to a liner, however she is a hybrid in one area...

quote:

---

The stern is a hybrid between liners and cruise ships. Payne explained that liners have cruisers’ sterns, which look nice and have good seakeeping characteristics, while transom sterns are good for more efficient propulsion, but often cause slamming whereby waves will literally “slam” up underneath. Hybrid sterns have previously been used on the Oceanic and the Eugenio C.

The QM2 was also built for strength and durability. She has the structural integrity to go through storms, and has a specified fatigue life of 40 years. That means that this ship shall be able to sail for 40 years without any undue structural degradation.

---

How many cruise ships built today can boast this?

Anyway... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheers

[ 02-11-2004: Message edited by: bulbousbow ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bulbousbow:

Smooth sailing is also ensured by her block coefficient which is 0.61 compared to 0.73 for most cruise ships. (The closer the block coefficient is to one, the more the hull resembles the shape of a brick moving through the water.)

---

"This may well sound sacrilegious, but I have never liked the Queen Mary 1 - even when new I think she was a conservative throwback to Aquitania, a trait made only more unfortunate when compared to the dazzling elegance of her contemporary, Normandie."

I agree 100%. I have always maintained that, between Lusitania and QE2, Cunard didn't build a modern liner (with the possible exception of the first Queen Elizabeth).

Don't get me wrong - Queen Mary was wonderful...but her appeal, for me anyway, is the incredible career she had. Appearance-wise, she could never hold a candle to Normandie. Just my opinion.