Model Boat Mayhem

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Emma Maersk  (Read 7527 times)

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,370
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Emma Maersk
« on: December 31, 2007, 08:15:08 am »

I have just been sent a few nice shots of the new Emma Maersk which I thought you might find interesting.

Any one started a model yet?
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

barryfoote

  • Guest
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2007, 08:25:25 am »

Very impressive. I wonder how many gallons of blue paint it took to cover that hull?

Barry
Logged

tigertiger

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,338
  • Location: Kunming, city of eternal springtime, SW China.
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2007, 08:32:08 am »

Very impressive. I wonder how many gallons of blue paint it took to cover that hull?

Barry

None, it is made from blue foam  {-) {-) {-) {-) {-) {-)
Logged
The only stupid question is the one I didn't ask

footskijunior

  • Guest
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2007, 10:02:10 am »

It's a floating shoe box! and box-boats never move outof the way for you...... (I'll stop noe before i get on my soap stand)
Logged

Hagar

  • Guest
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2008, 06:30:26 pm »

Maybe you all know already, but there is some one here in Denmark Building Emma from scratch. He has a very good web site with loads of photos of the real ship and a very good build history.

If any one fancies having a read the addy is http://www.robse.dk/

And dont worry it is all in English too!
Logged

Ghost in the shell

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,707
  • Go Nuclear! you'll love it
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2008, 07:21:44 pm »

wander what it does to the gallon? (or should that be Km's per tonne of fuel)
Logged
"xxxxx" the tree huggers, GO NUCLEAR

cos918

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Location: Abingdon
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2008, 07:58:45 pm »

hi all heres a link to the company that maker her engine some great photos

john
Logged

Ghost in the shell

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,707
  • Go Nuclear! you'll love it
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2008, 08:58:44 pm »

hi all heres a link to the company that maker her engine some great photos

john

where??
Logged
"xxxxx" the tree huggers, GO NUCLEAR

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2008, 06:54:13 pm »

How sad. I must have been very fortunate to spend my cadetship on ships that spent long enough in port to let the poor inmates have a "bit of a run shore". I can't see why anyone would want to screech around the world without ever seeing anything but water.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,370
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2008, 07:50:33 pm »

Bryan, you have to consider yourself lucky enough to have had a shetered life at sea!

Even in my relatively recent experiences of Box Boats, Tankers, Bulkies and Gas Carriers, time in port was always measured in hours, usually in single digits!!
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

Bryan Young

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,893
  • Location: Whitley Bay
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2008, 10:57:34 pm »

Bryan, you have to consider yourself lucky enough to have had a shetered life at sea!

Even in my relatively recent experiences of Box Boats, Tankers, Bulkies and Gas Carriers, time in port was always measured in hours, usually in single digits!!
Not "lucky"...just well chosen. Not so sheltered though as all the "work" was done at sea, so "in-port" time was for fun.
Logged
Notes from a simple seaman

cos918

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Location: Abingdon
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2008, 12:52:56 pm »

sorry all was in a rush ,must have got it wrong. well here the link to her engine.

john

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/
Logged

GaryM

  • Guest
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2008, 03:34:51 am »

Wow!!!  What a size!!!!

Gary :)
Logged

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,898
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2008, 09:58:43 am »

wander what it does to the gallon? (or should that be Km's per tonne of fuel)

I make it 480 gallons per mile, at top speed. Say 0.00208 mpg. :D

Or a third of a tonne per kilometre.

Still, that's not bad when you're moving 150000 tonnes of stuff.  O0


Boring Explanation...

I see the engine is listed as using 171 grammes of fuel per kWhr at full load. That's an output of 21050 joules per gram. The total output of the engine is a maximum 84.4MW, so it must burn 4.01 kg of fuel a second. (Making it about 50% efficient, which feels ok for a big diesel.) A UK gallon of fuel oil masses about 4.1kg.

At 25.5 knots, she takes 123 seconds to do a mile - that's around 492 kg of oil, or 480 gallons.

Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

cos918

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Location: Abingdon
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2008, 11:42:02 am »

hi all thats only the 14 cylinder i think the emma masersk has the 16 cylinder version.

john
Logged

Bunkerbarge

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,370
  • Location: Halifax, UK
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2008, 01:33:33 pm »

As a comparrison for a modern 83,000 grt cruise ship an average monthly fuel consumption works out to about 220 gm/Kwhr.  That equates to about 50 foot/gallon!

Also bear in mind that fuel is now about $750.00/ton and a typical consumption for the ship above would be around 100 tons/day, i.e. $75,000.00 per day!! :o
Logged
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack, Butting through the Channel in the mad March days"

Ghost in the shell

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,707
  • Go Nuclear! you'll love it
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2008, 04:45:50 pm »

at those prices, someone was on the right track with the NS savannah.
Logged
"xxxxx" the tree huggers, GO NUCLEAR

dreadnought72

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1,898
  • Wood butcher with ten thumbs
  • Location: Airdrie, Scotland
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2008, 09:37:01 am »

...and these weren't a bad idea, either!

  {-)

Andy
Logged
Enjoying every minute sailing W9465 Mertensia

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,946
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2008, 09:43:06 am »

Yes, thousands of miles to the galleon....
Logged

Roger in France

  • Guest
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2008, 12:13:15 pm »

Oh, Colin !

I'd schooner you hadn't written that. You'r barque-ing up the wrong tree and are clearly on a slippery sloop.

Roger in France.
Logged

Colin Bishop

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10,946
  • Location: SW Surrey, UK
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2008, 02:49:56 pm »

What was that wine you mentioned the other day Roger, I'd like to order some?  ;)
Logged

Gavin

  • Guest
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2008, 07:12:02 pm »

is it true the emma maersk went on fire?
Logged

cos918

  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2,200
  • Location: Abingdon
Re: Emma Maersk
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2008, 07:17:22 pm »

yes she did catch fire when she was almost finished. I delayed her hand over to her owners for a bit.

john
Logged

Peter Fitness

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Mayhemer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7,012
  • Location: Wyrallah, near Lismore NSW Australia
A really BIG Engine
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2009, 05:03:35 am »

One of our members, Damien, has asked me to post these photos of a huge marine engine, the Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel. This engine produces 108,920 hp at 102 rpm, and 5,608,312 lb/ft torque at 102rpm. I have resized the pictures, and copied most of the information from the email Damien sent me.

Some more details-

The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. The Aioi Works of Japan 's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken. It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines. These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them. The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.
Some facts on the 14 cylinder version:

Total engine weight:
2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons.)

Length:
89 feet

Height:
44 feet

Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion.
For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.

The internals of this engine are a bit different than most automotive engines.
The top of the connecting rod is not attached directly to the piston. The top of the connecting rod attaches to a "crosshead" which rides in guide channels. A long piston rod then connects the crosshead to the piston..
I assume this is done so the the sideways forces produced by the connecting rod are absorbed by the crosshead and not by the piston. Those sideways forces are what makes the cylinders in an auto engine get oval-shaped over time.

The "spikes" on the piston rods are hollow tubes that go into the holes you can see on the bottom of the pistons (picture 5) and inject oil into the inside of the piston which keeps the top of the piston from overheating. Some high-performance auto engines have a similar feature where an oil squirter nozzle squirts oil onto the bottom of the piston.
The cylinder deck (10 cylinder version). Cylinder liners are die-cast ductile cast iron. Look at the size of those head studs!

This is one BIG engine.

Peter.  
Logged

Damien

  • Guest
Re: A really BIG Engine
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2009, 11:32:20 pm »

Thanks Peter.

The stats for this engine are staggering, just the thought of the machinery required to make and balance engines this size boggle the mind.
Damien.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up