Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could A 100000+ Ton Catamaran Work?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3616 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3688 times:

I was just looking at the history of the Blue Riband, and I saw that the last three ship to win the Hales Trophy, was Catamarans.
Now, all three of these catamarans, was much smaller than the last three single hulls ships to win the Blue Riband, the Normandie, Queen Mary and United States.
The cruise industry is still doing pretty good, and I believe the economy will get better in this decade, so the cruise market should say in good shape for some time, so new ideals in cruise industry, makes since.
I think that a 100000+ ton or even one bigger than RCCL Oasis of the Sea, ocean going catamaran, powered by eight giant water jets, could work as a ocean liners, that dose transatlantic and world cruises. Her hull design and size, could get a ship like this a cruising speed of up to 50 knots, which means more port visit.
I understand, that this ship could not fit though the Panama canal, but the Queen Mary 2 can not though the Panama Canal, and she still did world cruise until lately. After going though the Suez Canal 4 times on an USN carrier, ( the widest ships in the world) I believe that this ship, could easily fit though this Canal. So could a ship like this work?

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3611 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
and I believe the economy will get better in this decade

You're quite the optimist...

Other than that, as with air travel, speed is expensive. The formula for drag always carries a v² somewhere and that means you need a lot more power and energy to cruise at higher speeds. I doubt the average cruise passenger will want to pay more just to be on a ship that goes faster. Port visits are only a fraction of what tourists want, otherwise they'd fly there. They want to cruise the sea and enjoy the on board amenities and entertainment. And going 50 kts anywhere isn't going to help those fat old couples enjoy the buffet and cocktail bar much.
Transatlantic liners were built for speed because their passengers needed to actually go somewhere fast, and crossing the north Atlantic at 30 kts was sometimes harrowing. It was not unusual that the inboard swimming pools overflowed and that passengers remained confined to their quarters because the ride was so rough...

So, as always, there's little economic prospect, therefore no one will want to invest in such a ship.
But is it doable? Yes, most likely.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
After going though the Suez Canal 4 times on an USN carrier, ( the widest ships in the world)

Nimitz class and newer aren't Panamax. And while they're very wide ships overall due to their flight decks, aircraft carriers do not have the largest waterline beam.
They're fast though. If anybody using big boats is going to invest in speed, it's going to be the military.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3544 times:

Imagine 50 knots winds on the bridge !


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6449 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3522 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I think that a 100000+ ton or even one bigger than RCCL Oasis of the Sea, ocean going catamaran, powered by eight giant water jets, could work as a ocean liners, that dose transatlantic and world cruises. Her hull design and size, could get a ship like this a cruising speed of up to 50 knots, which means more port visit.

I agree with everything which francoflier told above. But anyway, let's just play with the idea.

The last three Blue Riband winners (eastbound) are rather identical ships, mid sized car ferries. I will take the current record holder Cat Link V (later renamed Fjord Cat) as reference, mainly because since its record voyage in 1998 - part of delivery voyage from Australia to Denmark - it has always been operated around here.

100,000 tonnes, that would mean an upscale factor of well over 20. Cat Link V has 36,000 HP installed, your monster would need 20 times more = 720,000 HP to match Cat Link V speed. It doesn't quite make 50 knots, so little more than factor 20 plus the added speed would call for something near a million horsepower.

Going at full speed this monster would consume between 60,000 and 70,000 gallons of marine diesel fuel per hour. At a cost of roughly $200,000. Per Hour! Per 50 nautical miles!

Per hour that's roughly 20 times more than a Boeing 747 going at 10 times higher speed. So per mile consumption is 200 times higher. Okay, it will take much more than the 400 passengers on the 747, but anyway....

Cat Link V has always been in sevice on routes varying between 45 minutes and two hours. There it cuts travel time for up to 240 cars and 900 passengers into way less than half or even one third. It makes sense. Part of the reason it makes sense is that Cat Link V wasn't made for comfort, it is very cramped for pasengers, but for an hour or two it is bearable. Weight is saved where weight can be saved. And the hull is made of alluminum.

But a large, luxury cruise ship spending between one and two million dollars on fuel during one overnight city-to-city voyage, it doesn't make sense.

On longer ferry routes around here, like Copenhagen-Oslo, across the North Sea to Britain, from Sweden to Finland or Baltic states etc., such routes are normally overnight routes lasting 15 to 18 hours on single hull ships going 16-17-18 knots. They go with comfort, and their fuel consumption is a fraction of the high speed ferries.

It is my guess that the Cat Link V Blue Riband record of 1998 will stand forever. With present day fuel costs it is simply too costly to try to break that record. If Cat Link V hadn't gone for the record, then it would have spent two days more on crossing the Atlantic at slow speed like it had already crossed the Pacific and the Panama Canal at slow speed. At present day fuel prices it would have saved about a quarter million dollars. Back in 1998 it was maybe more like $50,000 - and the shipping company considered that a fair cost for what it was - a publicity stunt. It made good headlines in the news at that time, I remember it very well.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2701 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3474 times:

I have been on a boat at 50 knots. It's very windy. Why would I want to pay to go on a cruise where I am stuck inside because it is so windy? No thanks.

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Cats suck at carrying heavy loads which limits it's usefulness. And as mentioned, it would be way too windy.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10025 posts, RR: 96
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 3):
100,000 tonnes, that would mean an upscale factor of well over 20. Cat Link V has 36,000 HP installed, your monster would need 20 times more = 720,000 HP to match Cat Link V speed

The scaling isn't linear. A ship 20x the size will need a lot less than 20x the power to go the same speed (won't it Mr Froude?   )

Quoting bohica (Reply 4):
I have been on a boat at 50 knots. It's very windy. Why would I want to pay to go on a cruise where I am stuck inside because it is so windy? No thanks.

bottom line   

Rgds


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7372 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

Yes and there is one under construction at the moment, Pieter Schelte is being built by Daewoo Shipbuilding in Korea. Pieter Schelte will be 382m long and 117m wide, she'll make a Nimitz look like a bath toy.



User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3616 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 7):
Yes and there is one under construction at the moment, Pieter Schelte is being built by Daewoo Shipbuilding in Korea. Pieter Schelte will be 382m long and 117m wide, she'll make a Nimitz look like a bath toy.



Wow, thank you for the information, and the photo.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7372 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
Cats suck at carrying heavy loads which limits it's usefulness. And as mentioned, it would be way too windy.

See my photo above, Pieter Schelte will be able to carry deck cargo, i.e. a platform topside on the bows and the jacket on the stern at a weight of up to 73,000 tons.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3205 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 1):
And going 50 kts anywhere isn't going to help those fat old couples enjoy the buffet and cocktail bar much.

Will ruin the lounging on deck, too. A 50kt wind makes it awfully hard to enjoy a fruity drink with a cocktail umbrella in it. The umbrellas tend to fly off.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 1):
If anybody using big boats is going to invest in speed, it's going to be the military.

Pet peeve   : A "boat" is a vessel that can be hauled aboard a ship (submarines are excepted; they are "boats" no matter how big they are). We are discussing ships, not boats.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3147 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Pet peeve : A "boat" is a vessel that can be hauled aboard a ship

Actually, I kind of did that on purpose.

Just trollin' the nautical maniacs on here...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 923 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3140 times:

Everything on the Great Lakes are "boats".

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 9):
See my photo above, Pieter Schelte will be able to carry deck cargo, i.e. a platform topside on the bows and the jacket on the stern at a weight of up to 73,000 tons.

Still trying to process what exactly that thing is, but it isn't a fully proper cat. . . maybe those fat ass hulls have something to do with it.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3616 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3085 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Pet peeve : A "boat" is a vessel that can be hauled aboard a ship (submarines are excepted; they are "boats" no matter how big they are). We are discussing ships, not boats.




I agree, people have die building ships, and it take years of hard work to build a ship. So I feel it is an insults, to the men and women, who have built ships over the years, to call their product a boat.
Now THE LOVE BOAT, was a good show, but even though the Pacific Princess, was a small ship, she was not a boat, she was a ship.
A boat is something that I would take out on the water for day, then hook it up to a pick up truck, or in my case, a SUV, ( class 2 truck type with 5 liters or more engine) add pull it out of the water.
A boat, is a craft that you can take harbor cruise or Dinner cruises on, but they are not not bigger then 1000 tons.

Quoting johns624 (Reply 12):
Everything on the Great Lakes are "boats".




Well, I can not really respect a Great lakes vessel, a true vessel, rides the seas.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3078 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 14):
Well, I can not really respect a Great lakes vessel, a true vessel, rides the seas.

They're called "boats" inappropriately. They are designed for a different operating environment, but they are often 800+ feet long. They are narrow because of the locks. They aren't designed to handle the swells of the ocean.

But they are working cargo ships. Men have died on them. Men work like crazy on them today in conditions that would make most men working on "salties" cringe.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3062 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):
Still trying to process what exactly that thing is, but it isn't a fully proper cat. . . maybe those fat ass hulls have something to do with it.

Looks like two tanker hulls linked together. I imagine the linking structure has to be massive.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6449 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3057 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
The scaling isn't linear. A ship 20x the size will need a lot less than 20x the power to go the same speed (won't it Mr Froude? )

No, that's not so.

The power needed is fairly liniar with displacement when basic shape and speed is identical. In that respect ships are no different from aircrafts.

Current Blue Riband record holder Cat Link V did it at average speed 41.3 kts. Top speed on calm water is 48 kts. The difference was mainly due to waves on the Atlantic, something which is hard to avoid. Even if they did it in unusually calm weather. Not because they waited for exceptional weather. They simply went for the record since the weather happened to be nice. Had the weather been more rough, then they had taken a few days more, saved a lot of fuel, and maybe gone for the record when a sister ship was delivered.

The thread starter is talking about 100,000 tonnes and 50 kts, presumably also when the sea isn't totally calm. 50 kts is 21% faster than 41.3 kts. That alone means 46.5% more power needed, so best rule of thumb calculation says a million horsepower.

It compares well to other big and fast ships. Take for instance the German WWII battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz: 41,000 tonnes, 150,170 HP, top speed 30.01 kts. When we scale the displacement to 100,000, and speed squared to 50, then result is 1,016,734 HP needed. That's almost exactly 750 Megawatt - almost a minor nuclear powerplant.

I would recommend installation of 16 Rolls Royce Trent Marine engines. For a Blue Riband record attempt my oil company will be happy to sell the roughly 12,000 tonnes fuel needed. You will get a rebate for that quantity, shall we say $10 million, OK?

(Bismarck and Tirpitz couldn't make an unrefueled transatlantic crossing at full speed 30 kts. They did, however, have a range of 8,800 nautical miles at 19 kts, but that's an entirely different story. Part of that story is that they were not powered by modern gas turbines, but oil fired steam turbines with considerably lower fuel efficiency).



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinejohns624 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 923 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 14):
Well, I can not really respect a Great lakes vessel, a true vessel, rides the seas

I didn't know that ships required respect? The steel that your bus is made out of probably was shipped as taconite from Minnesota in a Great Lakes boat.
PS- Just for your info, the Great Lakes can have storms that would scare you.


User currently onlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5659 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 17):
No, that's not so.

Brave man! (Unless you are also a naval architect?)

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3002 times:

I also thought the scaling was not linear, but I knew it had something to do with the shape. The idea being that you needed a long and narrow ship. Military ships are indeed quite narrow, as are ocean liners.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3616 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
They're called "boats" inappropriately. They are designed for a different operating environment, but they are often 800+ feet long. They are narrow because of the locks. They aren't designed to handle the swells of the ocean.

But they are working cargo ships. Men have died on them. Men work like crazy on them today in conditions that would make most men working on "salties" cringe.
Quoting johns624 (Reply 18):
I didn't know that ships required respect? The steel that your bus is made out of probably was shipped as taconite from Minnesota in a Great Lakes boat.
PS- Just for your info, the Great Lakes can have storms that would scare you.




I may have been out of line with my statement, but being an ex sailor, and a lover of sea going vessel, I tend to discount vessel that travel the lakes, so please forgive me for my rude comment?


Now about my bus, it is a Blue Bird All American FE, that was built in Georgia, so I think it's steel was deliver via NS or CSX.  


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10025 posts, RR: 96
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2904 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 17):
No, that's not so.

The power needed is fairly liniar with displacement when basic shape and speed is identical. In that respect ships are no different from aircrafts.

So much for my degree in Naval Architecture I guess........

At high speeds, wave-making resistance is WAY the highest drag component, and if you don't trust me, then trust Mr. froude, that wavemaking resistance sclaes inversely to the square root of the length..

When the UK MOD increased the length of the type 42 destroyers from 400ft to 470ft, and their displacement from 4000 tonnes to 4 700 tonnes, their top speed went UP from 28 kts to 32 kts on the same 56 000 shp......
Because their wavemaking resistance reduced considerably

Rgds


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10025 posts, RR: 96
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2893 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
At high speeds, wave-making resistance is WAY the highest drag component, and if you don't trust me, then trust Mr. froude, that wavemaking resistance sclaes inversely to the square root of the length..

These pages refer  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_making_resistance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number

Rgds


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6654 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2864 times:

So, what about a catamaran, and the wave between the hulls ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
25 MD11Engineer : "Länge läuft" (Length runs), an old proverb among shipbuilders in Germany. Jan
26 kiwirob : It is a cat, I've seen the model.
27 johns624 : The finished steel, maybe, but not the raw taconite. Also, since you consider lake boats secondary, you might not want to know what semi driver CDL's
28 Post contains images SmittyOne : Haha, many before you have been punished for thinking they are "just lakes"...the problem is that while the waves may 'only' reach half the height of
29 DocLightning : Admittedly not a completely insurmountable problem. The thing is that a vessel like this might very well have a practical application as an aircraft
30 SmittyOne : Yeah - quick disconnect was the best option I was thinking of. Having drydocked four ships the thought of trying to coordinate two floating drydocks
31 prebennorholm : Dear astuteman, we are getting into details now. But when talking about a 50 knots ship, then it is going fast. To have any favorable "froude effect"
32 Post contains links and images Devilfish : More amazing is how adding a hull reduces drag and increases speed as demonstrated by the Triton which at around 6,000 tonnes had a cruise speed of 25
33 Post contains images DocLightning : Eh, what's a few decimal points among friends? Yes, I meant 1GW. I didn't say it would be easy, but using a dedicated (expensive) facility with GPS a
34 Post contains images astuteman : Er, no. We won't be agreeing on that any time soon. Where did you come up with these numbers? Wavemaking resistance is inversely proportional to the
35 geezer : It's almost impossible to compare the effect that big storms have on shipping in the Great Lakes with shipping on the high seas; as someone already m
36 geezer : Just as I was posting that, I happened to take another look at the OP's original "question"..............."Could a 100,000 ton catamaran "work" ? ( No
37 rwessel : Not really true. The amount of power the reactors on Enterprise (280,000shp), a Nimitz (260,000shp), or a Ford (~310,000shp*) puts out is quite simil
38 astuteman : It's my understanding rwessel, that the actual propulsion set on the nuclear carriers is in fact essentially the same as that on the Forrestal's and
39 rwessel : I don't know enough about steam turbines used in large ships, but in power plants, the use of nuclear reactors as boilers has a significant impact on
40 Aesma : About catamarans, the hulls usually have a high aspect ratio, that has to play a role, too. About big "ships", I don't know if a 1Km long ship will ex
41 kiwirob : It's already under construction, see my posts above.
42 Post contains images astuteman : You'd think I would have thought of that one, wouldn't you?...... you're right. I'm guessing the carry-over was from the battleships to the conventio
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Could A Light Freight Rail System Work? posted Sat May 15 2010 08:44:03 by 747400sp
Could A New Railroad Work? posted Sun Aug 23 2009 09:30:22 by ERJ170
How One Accident Could Not Ruin My Day At Work posted Fri Jan 18 2008 20:05:24 by MCOflyer
Three-Party System In US: Could It Work? posted Thu Jan 10 2008 12:11:48 by LH423
If You Could Work For Anyone , Who Would It Be? posted Wed Nov 30 2005 23:01:56 by Garri767
Things You Wish You Could Say At Work posted Thu Aug 21 2003 23:13:59 by Canadi>nBoy
Could You Work In An Emergency Room? posted Wed Dec 13 2000 02:53:54 by Ctbarnes
Does Amazon Still Work For IE 7? posted Wed Jul 4 2012 23:16:28 by Airstud
Could GM Merge Holden With Chevrolet Brand? posted Sun Jun 17 2012 20:10:51 by stasisLAX
Hit It! Work It! posted Thu Dec 23 2010 19:28:27 by F9Animal