Shipbucket

Dear TimothyC, this drawing was not done in shipbucket scale (the full resolution drawing is far larger) it was done in Microsoft paint. I scaled it down on DA and added a watermark so no one can copy or use my design without my permission. Also, in regards to shipbucket parts, I am inquiring into what parts you are referring to? Lifeboats were modeled after a large scale drawing of the QM2, none from shipbucket.

How would I scale the drawing down to a shipbucket scale?

Is this new SS FRANCE actually being constructed? I've seen this and many other modern designs with the same classic funnels that the original ship had

shipbucket scale would actually result in an larger image then you have posted right now that said, shipbucket is not so much a scale but a standard, following a set of drawing rules that makes parts of all drawings interchangable. that said, all shipbucket art is possible to be made in microsoft paint so it should not be too different from the way you work.

refering to the parts, there are a few I instantly recognise as being sb work, as shown in this image:

the lifeboats look to be sb parts (except the tender) due to them looking to be following sb scale quite exact, maybe the original QM2 drawing was shipbucket scale or used parts from sb? (if you link it I will look that up for you ) modelled after for the crane and lifeboats makes no sense to me, as you are implying with it that you drew them yourself, in which case it is weird to use different line widths and colours then for the rest of the ship. about the circled parts I was uncertain as I could not within 10 minutes find parts showing exactly them, but they look a bit off with the rest of the drawing and closer to sb style.

we frown upon the watermark because on sb it is common to let other people use each others work (with crediting in place) as that is the main reason why we use an common scale and standard for all drawings, to let us work together and improve and modify the drawings.

that said, I'd love to see a bigger version of this drawing to be able to comment on the details of the design, other then an overall 'looks good'

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

The QM2 drawing is here: (I believe it was used for the Revell model kit) http://www.smcars.net/attachments/zijkant-jpg.85811/

It's where I used the lifeboats and tenders (I didn't make them myself lol). I do recall using the crane from SB now that I thought about it along time ago.

I will definitely have to upload (or email) the full resolution drawing (without the watermark).
At the time, I couldn't upload the full res drawing so I sent a link to my deviantart account so people could see what it looks like while I attempted to upload the full resolution drawing itself

Now the radars are drawings my friends had found via google and they are to scale with the design itself (the final design for my ship is 1,390 ft in length)

I think the reason the lines on the lifeboats look funny is because I made them more "squat" and lengthened them and didn't go back and "thin" the lines out lol.

Nice looking ship in the oceanliner tradition. However, I think the era of the traditional oceanliner is past. Atlantic crossings in a ship is not particularly interesting to tourists. And speed is not particularly important in such crossings since anyone in a hurry will take a plane.

However, I do believe that there is a place for VERY FAST cruise ships to serve itineraries connecting San Francisco or LA with the Hawaiian islands, the Galapagos or some other faraway place. Cruiseships offer nice accommodations and good way to see places. But US law requires that US-US itineraries use US crews, so places like Hawaii need to connect to a foreign port to get away from this requirement. The problem is that Hawaii is in the middle of nowhere and connecting with a foreign port means LOTS of boring "AT SEA" days. This makes the itinerary less attractive. If you have a fast ship you can cut down on that.

Big Ships can be VERY FAST with today's propulsion. Even a Panamax ship -- one that is smaller than the one you designed will have a hull speed of 42 knots with a traditional displacement hull. With wave piercing designs you can get close to 50 knots, all without exponentially large increases in installed power per ton. That is twice as fast as the typical cruise ship. So speed exceeding the United States' is very attainable. Cruise ships however does not really need to have the bad weather, year round atlantic cross capabilities of oceanliners of yore whose major function is transportation in form of a scheduled service between two points. They move around throughout the year looking for fair weather and pleasurable seasons.

I have to disagree
plate friction of a ship is 0.5.*ρ*V^2*wet surface*Cf. the V is the speed, Cf is the form factor given by reference ships (ITTC 75, for example, is common.)
if we asume the ship stays withing hull speed, we can assume the wave resistance grows with the plate friction. it does not, it is exponential, but we can assumee it does.
the wet surface and the shape stay roughly the same (let's assume that too) and the ships stays in water, so the ρ stays the same too.

now, with the above, we can see that when we make V (speed) 2 times as big, the resistance gets 4 times as big. power is F(resistance) * V so the required engine power gets 8 times as big. I would that call an exponentially large increase in installed power per ton. added wave resistance can make matters worse even.

while modern technology allows ships to go faster then the fast liners of old, there is a cost for that, and with the aircraft as an always faster alternative, I do not know if this is worth it.

then, the wave piercing bow. the reason why people chose the ship over the plane sometimes is often comfort and luxury. as a wave piercing design decreases seakeeping and lessens usable space and weight on board, I do not see why an wave piercing bow ever being an potential on cruise liners.

I also disagree with your saying that cruise ships do not need all weather capabilities. cruise ships often sail in lines too, but with more then just 2-3-4 harbours to enter. they have a schedule too, and are expected to keep it. while modern cruise ships often do not have good bad weather characteristics, it is not a bad thing to say they should have and decreasing their seakeeping from the current designs is something that will not happen. pleasure yachts, on the other hand, stay in port when the weather is bad, and do have decreased seakeeping ability (that is, when their owners are on board, the crew is often expected to move the yacht from one place to another trough bad weather)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

In Norway when hurtigruten (coastal steamers) revives there new boats for a couple year ago, they found out that they needed to add balast. Just to keep up with the sharp waves we have in Norway.

Also, as RP1 has pointed out, the purpose of the boat is to make money - if the design compromises the carrying capability (cargo or passengers) - either by having a sharp bow you can't fit anything in or requiring larger engine spaces, for instance, though I'm sure there's other things you could point to - it may actually be more efficient to have the slower design.

Ad

_________________
Public Service Announcement: This is the preferred SB / FD font.

NSWE: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5695

I really appreciate the feedback As for the design, she is a "hybrid" of sorts. She has the hull of an oceanliner (to help on fuel costs and reduce drag on the hull) and, obviously, the superstructure of a cruise ship.

her intended top speed would be 50 knots actually I agree with your Pacific comments, that's when she would push her 50 knot top speed, while traversing the Atlantic she would probably do closer to 35-38 knots.

She will have all the modern amenities of a cruise ship inside of her, including an Oasis inspired "Central Atrium" topped off with a glass dome midships. I also moved all of the swimming pools closer down on the ship, to also save on weight for better stability (which most cruiseships have alittle trouble with).

the ship is also completely GREEN

Mike,
First, I don't think I mentioned this before, but I do like your design. Very much a cross between Big U and QM2. Second, Ace addressed my concerns about parts. If you do intend to draw a version at SB scale to SB style I look forward to seeing it here in this part of the board. If not, I look forward to seeing it in the non-shipbucket designs. Third, Ad is correct in that a ship needs to make money, and Dwight is correct that SanFran-Honolulu is about the only route that this ship makes sense on (Dwight, most of the ships that go only to Hawaii visit either a Mexican port or a Canadian port on the way out). However I don't think that a 50 knot hull is viable economically. Also, wave piercing is bad for passenger ships (I just think of all of the up-and-down motion).

Any truly fast big ship will have to take a stab at the Blue Ribband/Hales Trophy.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆