Granted QE2 is sleeker, but it is the HP/wt ratio that counts here. And after re-engining QE2 ro 130,000 hp she is more powerful than when she was built-- namely 2 60,000 shp turbines = 120,000 hp.

Now, I believe the currently cited 130,000 hp includes diesels which spend most of their time supporting hotel services, and not propulsion, but they could be brought on line to assist in spinning the screws if their services were so required.

In the original steam-turbine configuration, I believe, the 120,000 hp did not include the separate hp requirements of hotel service equipment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 62france:
I don't think weight is an issue, based on their drafts, they about the same weight.

---

They are far from being about the same weight even if their draughts are about the same. QM2 is 169 feet longer and 30 feet wider than QE2 so she displaces considerably more water, over 50% more. In other words QM2 weighs over 50% more than QE2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 62france:
QM2 should weight close to QE2.

---

No, she should NOT and she DOES not.

Given QM2's significantly greater dimensions (length, beam, height from keel to top of superstructure, etc.) and her all steel superstructure (vs QE2's Aluminium alloy superstucture} QM2 should weigh significantly more than QE2.

And she DOES weigh significanlty more as is evidenced by her draught. If QM2 only weighed the same as QE2 then her displacement (submerged volume) would also be the same as QE2's (a simple application of Archimedes' Principle) and her draught would be only 21 feet because QM2 is so much longer and wider than QE2. The fact that QM2 sinks to the same depth in the water as QE2 indicates that she is more than 50 percent heavier.

Brian

[ 06-03-2004: Message edited by: Brian_O ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
{I'll leave Brian to work out the ton/tonne slight variation }.
Pam

---

No need, Pam. You have demonstrated the point: viz. QM2 weighs a heck of a lot more than QE2. 79,800 tonnes is a lot heavier than 48,900 tons even if different tonnage units are being used (which may or may not be the case).

The point of my posts was to debunk the notion that relative draughts is an indicator of the relative weights of floating objects since draught is only one dimension in a three dimensional situation.

Cheers,
Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by CGT:
Am I the only one who finds it disappointing that QM2 at top speed cannot at least match QE2 at a top speed of 32 knots?

---

QE2 was designed for a 5-day crossing, QM2 for 6. QM2 wasn't designed to be as fast as QE2 nor was there any expectation on Cunard's part that she would be. The contract called for a maximum speed of at least 29.35 knots which she exceeded by a fraction of a knot on her speed trials. If Cunard had wanter her to be faster, the contract would have called for a higher speed but she probably would have cost more to build.

Given the service for which she was designed, QM2 has plenty of reserve power, so why should anyone be disappointed?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
The blast of sea air in your face was wonderful.

---

It's not the blast of wind in your face that makes it dangerous. It's the blast of wind on your back as you try to approach and negotiate the steps going back down to the Boat Deck that can make it extremely dangerous for many people. In the former case you can lean into the wind to counter it, in the latter case you cannot unless you are adept at walking backwards. On a couple of occasions I have had to help terrified people get back down to the Boat Deck because they could not handle the strong wind on their back.