Italians Create A New Cruise Ship Design For 2017

OA260 · Thu May 22, 2014 11:54 am

MSC have just placed an order for two new ships. Certainly ''different''. Being built by Fincantieri.

London, May 22 - MSC Cruises has today signed a contract with Italian shipyard Fincantieri confirming the construction of two new cruise ships, with an option for one more vessel.

The new prototype project, named ‘Seaside’, will be the largest cruise ships ever built by Fincantieri and will feature a revolutionary architectural style leading the way for a new generation of cruise ships.

The two new ships will cost €700 million each, with the first scheduled for delivery in November 2017 and the second arriving in May 2018. The deal follows MSC Cruises’ letter of intent with STX France, signed in March this year for another two ships (and two optioned).

.
http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=5861

Stealthz · Thu May 22, 2014 12:01 pm

Lowered boat building(deliberate non use of words..architecture or design) to new levels of ugly!!**

**Likely lowered seaworthiness to new lows as well!

steman · Thu May 22, 2014 1:15 pm

I´ve read the article but I still don´t get what´s revolutionary about this new design.

einsteinboricua · Thu May 22, 2014 1:25 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 1):
Lowered boat building(deliberate non use of words..architecture or design) to new levels of ugly!!**

Compared to the Norwegian Epic, this design doesn't look half bad. But then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

na · Thu May 22, 2014 7:16 pm

Another thing I wont set foot on. Where are the ship designers gone who have an eye for proportions? Corrupted by big cheques handed out by the management of these floating resorts?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 3):
Compared to the Norwegian Epic, this design doesn't look half bad. But then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Both are ugly, but the Epic is really hideous. I wonder how designers and management could create such an ugly behemoth.

northstardc4m · Thu May 22, 2014 9:13 pm

Quoting steman (Reply 2):

I´ve read the article but I still don´t get what´s revolutionary about this new design.

Neither do i... it's not the biggest, in fact its quite average size wise, I don't see anything "revolutionary" in the structure either. They are cramming in alot of cabins compared to other similar sized ships (Queen Mary 2, Royal/Regal Princess Norwegian Breakaway/Getaway), and it has a fully exposed deck aft with a pool but otherwise... ?

Francoflier · Thu May 22, 2014 11:36 pm

Another 1960s low rent housing block on a floating hull, except with swimming pools and 2000 sandal-wearing fat and obnoxious tourists. My depiction of hell. Talk about a revolution.

The thing looks like it should topple over. We're far from a transatlantic liner, aren't we?...

DocLightning · Fri May 23, 2014 5:13 am

Quoting francoflier (Reply 6):
We're far from a transatlantic liner, aren't we?...

Well, it's not designed to do the same thing. A liner is meant to cross the rough North Atlantic at all times of year as quickly and comfortably as possible. For that reason, it has a deeper draught, a sturdier construction, a higher freeboard, more powerful engines, and (classically) less balcony/open deck space because the weather across the North Atlantic is usually rotten and people would rather stay indoors.

A cruise ship is meant to survive a transoceanic crossing, but not quickly and comfortably. It is designed to cruise in warm, tranquil waters where people can lounge on the deck or their balconies. For this reason, the freeboard is lower (allows for more balconies), the engines less powerful (and thus more efficient), the construction as sturdy as it needs to be for safety, and a shallower draught.

I'm interested to learn how this ship will be "revolutionary.

Kiwirob · Fri May 23, 2014 7:11 am

It should also be noted that RCCL confirmed it's option with STX Europe for the 4th Oasis Class vessel.

MSC have a pretty impressive building program, 4 confirmed and 2 options.

Kiwirob · Fri May 23, 2014 7:15 am

Quoting na (Reply 4):
Where are the ship designers gone who have an eye for proportions?

No they are designing vessels for Disney. The 4 Disney vessels are beautifully proportioned, they look like liners rather than cruise ship/apartment blocks.

teahan · Fri May 23, 2014 7:19 am

Some high resolutions graphics:
http://msc.media.mscnetwork.com//Ima...ank/201405/MSC1419584_0D8EDE56.jpg
http://msc.media.mscnetwork.com//Ima...ank/201405/MSC1419585_CF6FF729.jpg

It certainly looks to be a step up from their current ships in terms of public areas and open deck space. MSC's Fantasia Class ships are somewhat lacking in open deck space and promenades, especially for those without a Yacht Club cabin.

Kiwirob · Fri May 23, 2014 7:48 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
I'm interested to learn how this ship will be "revolutionary.

It's probably referring to the vast amount of open deck space and how the superstructure is set back from the sides of the vessel. It's certainly different looking from most other vessels, much better looking than the 2 (plus 2 options) STX France are building form them.

Max Q · Fri May 23, 2014 7:50 am

With few exceptions (QM2) they all look like floating buildings these days.

na · Fri May 23, 2014 12:37 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 11):

It looks ridiculously top-heavy. 4 decks above the bridge, awfully disproportioned. The shape of the bow is quite nice though. Those new MSC ships are exactly the size of the QM2 but carry more than twice as many passengers by being considerably shorter. No, not for me I´m afraid.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
No they are designing vessels for Disney. The 4 Disney vessels are beautifully proportioned, they look like liners rather than cruise ship/apartment blocks.

I agree the Disney ships are among the few beautiful cruiseships left if it comes to a balanced outward design. The Mickey Mouse kitsch spoils them a bit I would say though. Not as nice as the QM2 but a lot better than those MSC, RCCL and NCL behemoths.

comorin · Fri May 23, 2014 2:29 pm

OA260 - I am really WORRIED about the windage on this ship!

. CAD be danged! Hope she doesn't capsize form a little puff abeam ...

My keen engineering eye, honed by the vicissitudes of time, tells me that wrong data was entered during design and that this vessel is negatively stable. You heard it here first.

So if you do decide to cruise on her ( and write one of your unforgettable TRs) please book a cabin near the ship's center of motion. I would also advise passengers not rush to any one side to admire icebergs and such.

Doc - I've been on liners and cruise ships. The worst storm I have experienced was on a Caribbean voyage to the Bahamas. We ploughed straight into a Force Seven storm off Cape Hatteras and it was a terrifying experience. The ship's bow got badly damaged. It was straight out of 'HMS Ulysses.'

Ken777 · Fri May 23, 2014 5:43 pm

I'd book a cruise on it if the price was right. We waited far too long before going on cruises and after 2 Med cruises I'm ready for more - especially when there is a good schedule of stops at a moderate price.

In terms of being seaworthy I don't worry that much these days. There is sufficient knowledge and experience to ensure a safe ship being built. Comparing my experience in the Navy (cruiser and DDG) with the comfort of the two ships I have been on in the Med: I'm impressed with the big ships' ride. I'd prefer the 2.500 to 3,500 pax size ships but I enjoy being at sea again and would follow the best prices when it comes to the larger ships.

Quoting na (Reply 4):
Another thing I wont set foot on. Where are the ship designers gone who have an eye for proportions?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
No they are designing vessels for Disney. The 4 Disney vessels are beautifully proportioned, they look like liners rather than cruise ship/apartment blocks.

The black paint on the Disney ships is a huge help in improving the visual lines of their ships. When you get to a certain size, however, black paint won't all that much.

Kiwirob · Fri May 23, 2014 6:25 pm

Quoting na (Reply 13):
The Mickey Mouse kitsch spoils them a bit I would say though.

It is Disney after all, the Mouse made it all happen.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
The black paint on the Disney ships is a huge help in improving the visual lines of their ships. When you get to a certain size, however, black paint won't all that much.

Even if they were all white I think the Disney ships would look good, they have very fine lines. By that same token the black hull also makes the QM2 looks more attractive then she would be if all white, she's also a very blocky looking ship.

Flighty · Fri May 23, 2014 6:58 pm

IMO, the only thing better than a cruise is being on land!!

Or flying my imaginary Beech Baron down to St Barth's!!

The small ships are alluring IMO. I must say I saw a Princess boat up in Alaska at Whittier (their Grand class IIRC). It was a fine looking boat. But their 140,000 + ton new boats are somewhat hideous.

DocLightning · Fri May 23, 2014 8:24 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
No they are designing vessels for Disney. The 4 Disney vessels are beautifully proportioned, they look like liners rather than cruise ship/apartment blocks.

Disney's ships are meant to evoke liner lines. But still, they are cruise ship. Look at QM2 and then look at a Disney ship. QM2 for example, has a forward superstructure that flares outward to protect the balconies behind it from spray. She is really meant for a rough North Atlantic crossing. Her freeboard is also much higher so that waves don't wash over the promenade deck. She has two sets of sabilizers and four propellers.

I know that Fincantieri doesn't build ships with vectored propulsors ("AZIPOD"). I wonder if this new class will finally incorporate that system.

As far as seaworthiness and stability, the ships are heavily bottom-weighted. Not only is all the heavy machinery below the waterline, but they are heavily ballasted, as well. Even if cruise lines were run by heartless bean counters, passengers would not enjoy being on an unstable ship that rocks around and no bean counter wants to risk losing a ship and all aboard to a capsizing event. The costs after liability can soar into the billions.

Quoting comorin (Reply 14):

My keen engineering eye, honed by the vicissitudes of time, tells me that wrong data was entered during design and that this vessel is negatively stable. You heard it here first.

Now you sound like the people who claimed that the 787 wings bend so much that they are sure to break at the slightest gust of wind.

Max Q · Sat May 24, 2014 6:01 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 18):
QM2 for example, has a forward superstructure that flares outward to protect the balconies behind it from spray. She is really meant for a rough North Atlantic crossing. Her freeboard is also much higher so that waves don't wash over the promenade deck. She has two sets of sabilizers and four propellers.

Doc I think the QM2 has Azipods.

DocLightning · Sat May 24, 2014 6:29 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 19):
Doc I think the QM2 has Azipods.

Yup. They're actually not Azipods, but RR/Alstom Mermaid azimuthing thrusters. Azipod is a tradmark of ABB. Four of them with rated power of 21.5 MW each. The two outboard pods rotate, the two inboards are "fixipods" that face forward at all times (on azimuthing thrusters, the propeller usually pulls, rather than pushes).

bohica · Sat May 24, 2014 4:31 pm

OMG!!! These ships are FUGLY. It looks like a housing project on a barge. I thought the new Royal Caribbean ships looked awful but these ships have just won the race to the bottom. Hopefully that means the bottom of the ocean. That's where they belong.

Kiwirob · Sat May 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 20):
They're actually not Azipods

It's become the generic term for them Doc, like Hoover for vacuum.

bananaboy · Sat May 24, 2014 9:10 pm

Couldn't really care less what it looks like from the outside. Much more interested in accommodations, entertainment, dining options, activities and, most importantly, where it's going to take me.

Whilst I find the discussion interesting, I've never quite understood the obsession with what the ship looks like. Sailed on the "distinctive" Norwegian Epic (inaugural transatlantic crossing, no less) and had one of the best 7 days of fun & relaxation that I've ever had. What it looked like made no difference and I would love to do it all again.

I don't look at a hotel and decide on booking based on the exterior.. at least I don't consciously.

Mark

DocLightning · Sat May 24, 2014 9:17 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 22):
It's become the generic term for them Doc, like Hoover for vacuum.

Appreciated, but technically "Azipod" is a trademark of ABB. Much like "Kleenex."

One thing I have been looking for for a long time is a video of an azipod (lower-case) rotating. I wonder how fast they can be turned. I can't seem to find data on this. Anyone know? I can find RPM data for the props (they tend between 80 and 120 RPM) but not rotation data for vectoring the pods.

Podded vs. Fixed has been interesting. For a while it looked as if pods were the way of the future, but some recent classes have had fixed props with stern thrusters. There certainly have been issues with pods. Many of them have had major issues with their thrust bearings while fixed propellers are a mature technology. I do wonder what operators consider in the decision to go with one system vs. the other.

Quoting na (Reply 4):
Another thing I wont set foot on. Where are the ship designers gone who have an eye for proportions? Corrupted by big cheques handed out by the management of these floating resorts?

The ship designers are doing a job. They are designing a ship to make the most money for its operator, ultimately. Are Boeing's and Airbus's designers "corrupt" because their modern aircraft don't look like the L-1049 or L-1011? No, they are doing a job. Quite simply, a cruise line is not going to hire (or pay) a ship designer who designs a ship that won't meet their requirements. These machines are not monuments; they are a business product designed to turn a profit for their operators. That is not "corruption," that is "business."

I actually think that it's a nice-looking ship, personally. If you want to see a true monstrosity, see M/V Norwegian Breakaway. Now there's a floating tenement. This ship actually has curves and a tapered superstructure.

OA260 · Sat May 24, 2014 9:31 pm

Quoting comorin (Reply 14):
So if you do decide to cruise on her ( and write one of your unforgettable TRs) please book a cabin near the ship's center of motion. I would also advise passengers not rush to any one side to admire icebergs and such.

LOL... thanks for the advice.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
I actually think that it's a nice-looking ship, personally. If you want to see a true monstrosity, see M/V Norwegian Breakaway. Now there's a floating tenement. This ship actually has curves and a tapered superstructure.

I have to disagree there the Breakaway is not bad looking at all. I was on it and loved it. Now in terms of interior and just some picky personal likes and dislikes it didn't tick all boxes but Id give it 8/10 in terms of exterior and interior as cruise ships go.

The Epic I would concede to as it certainly doesn't look fab from the outside and many experienced professional members of the travel trade seemed to label it ''Epic Fail''. They complained about layouts of the staterooms etc... Still I can't judge as I have not been on it and not rushing to go on it either. Then again its a very popular ship with guests so horses for courses etc...

For me the NCL Jade will always have a place in my top 10 . I had a wonderful cruise on it and I love the exterior and interior and it ticked all boxes with regards to dining.

DocLightning · Sat May 24, 2014 11:12 pm

Quoting OA260 (Reply 25):
For me the NCL Jade will always have a place in my top 10 .

That's interesting. I'd never heard of her. She's of an older philosophy that placed lower-tier cabins down in the hull, then a couple of layers of public spaces, then a few decks of balcony cabins, and then more public spaces.

Most modern ships (and she was built in 2006) place public spaces down on the lowest decks, then several decks of uninterrupted balcony cabins, and then a few more decks of public spaces. This allows for most of the cabins to have balconies. And a balcony on a cruise ship is a very nice thing; it's basically a second room. My husband can take a nap and I can read. The trouble with balconies is that there's no way to hide them well.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
With few exceptions (QM2) they all look like floating buildings these days.

QM2 has some design sacrifices from a pure cruise design. The forward and aft balconies have partially obstructed views from the protective bow and stern "endcaps." The central superstructure is set back from the hull, reducing interior space, some of the balconies are actually cut out of the hull itself, and then her construction is heavier and less efficient than a standard cruise ship. That's why there's only one of her.

Stealthz · Sun May 25, 2014 12:48 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
I wonder how fast they can be turned. I can't seem to find data on this. Anyone know?

Try here.. http://www.abb.com/industries/db0003...571f4002ab83dc1256fdf003b2929.aspx

The ABB XO & VI range can turn at 2.5 or 5 deg/sec and the CO range at up to 12 deg sec

Cheers

Max Q · Sun May 25, 2014 8:18 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
QM2 has some design sacrifices from a pure cruise design. The forward and aft balconies have partially obstructed views from the protective bow and stern "endcaps." The central superstructure is set back from the hull, reducing interior space, some of the balconies are actually cut out of the hull itself, and then her construction is heavier and less efficient than a standard cruise ship. That's why there's only one of her.

Yes I think she would look better with a hull that is one and a half times as long, that would 'proportion' her just right.

Kiwirob · Sun May 25, 2014 9:57 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
That's why there's only one of her.

There's only one of her Doc because they don't have a market for two. I'm sure if there was a market large enough there would have been a sister ship.

DocLightning · Sun May 25, 2014 2:02 pm

Quoting stealthz (Reply 27):
The ABB XO & VI range can turn at 2.5 or 5 deg/sec

So about a half minute to turn 180 degrees. Slower than I thought. Thank you for this. I've wondered for a long time.

na · Sun May 25, 2014 2:32 pm

Quoting bananaboy (Reply 23):
Whilst I find the discussion interesting, I've never quite understood the obsession with what the ship looks like. Sailed on the "distinctive" Norwegian Epic (inaugural transatlantic crossing, no less) and had one of the best 7 days of fun & relaxation that I've ever had. What it looked like made no difference and I would love to do it all again.

I never understood people who say "I dont care how something looks like from the outside". Odd thinking as the world would be ugly with such opinion. For me the outside look of a ship is one of the deciding factors. Its part of the fun, or better said part of the experience. Just like with cars. A car could have 500 hp and look like shit I couldnt enjoy it as much as one that looks great and has only 150.

Quoting bananaboy (Reply 23):
I don't look at a hotel and decide on booking based on the exterior.. at least I don't consciously.

Do you look at cars and ships the same way? Eyes closed until you´ve entered the door?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26):
QM2 has some design sacrifices from a pure cruise design. The forward and aft balconies have partially obstructed views from the protective bow and stern "endcaps." The central superstructure is set back from the hull, reducing interior space, some of the balconies are actually cut out of the hull itself, and then her construction is heavier and less efficient than a standard cruise ship. That's why there's only one of her.

Every big project has design sacrifices, even one with the top priority "beauty". Granted, the first Queen Mary was bit prettier than QM2. She had an unbeatably beautiful silhouette. Back then beauty was more important than today, even for the bean counters. And it was technically not possible to make a highsided ship stable enough.
In my eyes QM2 is one deck too high, but the funnel should be 5 m higher. The stern near the waterline looks odd but is very efficient. The huge turbine house aft of the funnel isnt adding to the ships beauty as well. But overall, QM2 is, and that by far, the most beautiful passenger ship that is fully active today. The obstructed view of some cabins fore and aft is no issue at all, and the inside hull balconies make the ship actually prettier than if it would be full-view glass balconies. Its anyway nice in the public areas than staying in your cabin. I dont care for a private balcony on a ship. After booking a balcony cabin on my first QM2 cruise I decided that I dont need that again. We hardly used it. Sitting on the beautiful tiered rear decks (also unique to QM2) is much nicer, or sitting on the promenade deck.

DocLightning · Mon May 26, 2014 5:00 am

Quoting na (Reply 31):
Granted, the first Queen Mary was bit prettier than QM2.

You know, I disagree. I think they're actually very different, but equally beautiful. QM2 is a very beautiful ship and she does look like the modern evolution of a transatlantic liner. I think that Cunard did a very good job recalling those classic lines while blending them with the modern. Now, she's no Normandie, but she's very pretty.

This is not to diminish RMS Queen Mary. She is truly a thing of beauty. Her engine room is one of my favorite places in the whole world.

Kiwirob · Mon May 26, 2014 7:10 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32):
I think that Cunard did a very good job recalling those classic lines while blending them with the modern.

You mean Carnival, Stephen Payne was a Carnival employee. I don't know if you've read this interview with him. Towards the end he talks about the evolution of the cruise ship using liner like design featurers.

bananaboy · Mon May 26, 2014 12:07 pm

Quoting na (Reply 31):
Its part of the fun, or better said part of the experience.

But how does it improve your experience? Does it simply give you pleasure to know you're sailing on something you consider beautiful? Does it have equal or greater importance to the actual experience you'll have on board?

Quoting na (Reply 31):
Do you look at cars and ships the same way? Eyes closed until you´ve entered the door?

I'm not buying the cruise ship cabin to keep for several years like I am a car.

I'm not a philistine who has no appreciation for beauty in the natural or man-made world. I've just never seen the connection between the exterior aesthetics of a cruise ship and the holiday experience. In fact, I'd be more interested in the interior design... I'm rarely going to be looking at the outside of it anyway.

Mark

Ken777 · Mon May 26, 2014 7:00 pm

Quoting na (Reply 31):
Do you look at cars and ships the same way? Eyes closed until you´ve entered the door?

When I look at a car I tend to go with a simple design and a light color. The most beautiful car painted black would turn me of because it makes the car so much hotter in the summer. And now, at my age and health history, I look at easy entry and exit - which means a higher seat. More sacrifices to beauty in the name of pragmatic.

Comparing cars to ships is also (for me) a matter of what is inside. We rented a Ford last year and it took a user manual to do something as simple as using the radio. I'll take the KISS principle for cars and comfort, decent food and interesting places at a good price when it comes to ships.

Dano1977 · Mon May 26, 2014 7:34 pm

Quoting comorin (Reply 14):
I am really WORRIED about the windage on this ship! . CAD be danged! Hope she doesn't capsize form a little puff abeam ...

I remember a Princess Cruises captain talking to me about (at the time) the new Grand Class ships being built by Fincanteiri (sp?)

According to him, when the first of the class ship was put into the water for the first time, it had a listing problem, which took some time to sort out.

DocLightning · Tue May 27, 2014 1:56 am

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
You mean Carnival, Stephen Payne was a Carnival employee.

Cunard, as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Carnival. Carnival makes all such decisions and certainly designs all the ships. But if Carnival was going to make a true liner, then it would have to be in the Cunard brand.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
I don't know if you've read this interview with him.

I haven't, but have now. Thanks!

It's interesting. Carnival now owns most of the still-functioning old lines. Cunard (and thereby White Star, which still makes the occasional cameo in Cunard branding), P&O (Cruises), Holland America. That's very interesting.

The other thing that is interesting is how little the overall Cunard brand has changed over the years. There have been minor updates to the font used on the bow and the placement of the "CUNARD" logo, but otherwise, RMS Queen Mary 2 wears the same livery as RMS Lusitania. But this makes sense, given their market. The entire product is about tradition.

Kiwirob · Tue May 27, 2014 8:39 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
The other thing that is interesting is how little the overall Cunard brand has changed over the years.

Cunard tried to makes changes to the livery, after the Falklands they painted her hull a light grey, it wasn't liked, within months it was back to black, in the 90's they ran a gold cheatline/pinstrip around the ship, it was universally disliked so they removed it pretty quickly.

na · Tue May 27, 2014 2:54 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
The other thing that is interesting is how little the overall Cunard brand has changed over the years. There have been minor updates to the font used on the bow and the placement of the "CUNARD" logo, but otherwise, RMS Queen Mary 2 wears the same livery as RMS Lusitania. But this makes sense, given their market. The entire product is about tradition.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
Cunard tried to makes changes to the livery, after the Falklands they painted her hull a light grey, it wasn't liked, within months it was back to black, in the 90's they ran a gold cheatline/pinstrip around the ship, it was universally disliked so they removed it pretty quickly.

Rightfully so. In the 50s Cunard painted some of their smaller passenger ships in different shades of green. An interesting looking eye turner for sure, a very bold move later abandoned. Cunard tried to "modernise" its livery again with QE2 which originally had a white and black funnel (with a bit of red). Thankfully they found out that it was a mistake. In the early 80s they tried a grey hull which proved to be very impractical. I was in Hamburg during her refit around 1994 when they painted the cheatline on QE2. I took a harbour cruise back then and we circled QE2 which was just out of the dock in gleaming fresh paint. Although looking smart, the cheatline was just the answer to a question nobody had asked.
Cunards classic colours from the 19th century (much older than Lusitania, even the first Cunarder Britannia - which sailed when Victoria was a young Queen- was in this livery) are perfect for a ship, you cant do any better than a red and black funnel, white superstructure, black (or extremely dark blue) hull, red bottom with white boot topping.

DocLightning · Thu May 29, 2014 3:12 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 38):
Cunard tried to makes changes to the livery, after the Falklands they painted her hull a light grey, it wasn't liked, within months it was back to black, in the 90's they ran a gold cheatline/pinstrip around the ship, it was universally disliked so they removed it pretty quickly.

I knew about the white/grey but not about the gold cheatline. Do you have any pics of that?

Kiwirob · Thu May 29, 2014 5:36 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 40):
Do you have any pics of that?

Sorry my memory was incorrect it was a blue and red cheatline, it looked horrible.

in light grey

OA260 · Thu May 29, 2014 5:47 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 41):
n light grey

OMG thats looks terrible !

DocLightning · Fri May 30, 2014 6:37 pm

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 41):
Sorry my memory was incorrect it was a blue and red cheatline, it looked horrible.

We can agree to disagree. I find it unnecessary, but inoffensive.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net