The picture doesn't match the story BTW ... It is only a 6 cylinder engine in the picture so imagine one twice as long.
It is amazing how much HP they are packing into such a small space. I sailed on a Sulzer RND-90 that was about the same physical size but was only about 22,000 HP. Interesting too that they are going to a common rail fuel system. That is what is on my little 1500HP Caterpillars.
The picture doesn't match the story BTW ... It is only a 6 cylinder engine in the picture so imagine one twice as long.
I just went from a 1968 boat to a 2007 boat. Same model engine, but almost double the HP from the computers and 50% more RPM. The computers make some things easy, but soooo many sensors to go bad which causes an error/alarm in itself. I've already noticed how easy it is to rely on them maybe too much.Computers and electronics can make the fuel valves (solenoids) fire with better accuracy than a cam driven fuel pump. The valves are also actuated in a similar manner.
I just went from a 1968 boat to a 2007 boat. Same model engine, but almost double the HP from the computers and 50% more RPM. The computers make some things easy, but soooo many sensors to go bad which causes an error/alarm in itself. I've already noticed how easy it is to rely on them maybe too much.
The first ship that I sailed on out of school was an SL-7 when Sealand still operated them. THAT is a plant. 120,000 HP of steam power in a non-automated system. Too bad we made our Atlantic crossings on just one boiler to save fuel.
The first ship that I sailed on out of school was an SL-7 when Sealand still operated them. THAT is a plant. 120,000 HP of steam power in a non-automated system. Too bad we made our Atlantic crossings on just one boiler to save fuel.
I would have loved to make that trip at full sea speed. We stayed on one of the ROS FSSes in NOLA during our baseball spring break trip. Even just standing in a cold E/R you could sense the power of those things.
My ME I professor told us he was one of the design engineers on them. He said that Malcom McLean wasn't satisfied with 30 knots and was so insistent on the 33 knots that that is what killed them in the end. When they did the calcs on the speed/power (for the non-engineers reading this it is an exponential relationship, not linear) they ended up just moving the plant over and dropping a second whole one in ... all for 3 knots.
We made two short runs on both boilers while I was on the MACLEAN. Once from Port Elizabeth down to Portsmouth; and another from Bremerhaven to Rotterdam. It IS pretty cool.
Those Foster-Wheeler boilers were HUGE.. A classmate of mine who was First on the SEALAND EXCHANGE told me that you had to take the elevator up three levels just to check the boiler gauge glasses.Even just standing in a cold E/R you could sense the power of those things.
We got behind schedule by three days in Hong Kong my first trip on the FINANCE. We cranked it up to ‘warp speed’ from there and after three breathtakingly fast legs we arrived in Yokohama and were actually AHEAD of schedule.
Of course, as luck would have it, on the leg between Kobe and Yokohama I found myself on watch in heavy traffic at 33 knots making a nighttime approach to the turn at Mikimoto Jima..That was one of my more exciting watches. This was in the days before ARPA too!
Those Foster-Wheeler boilers were HUGE.. A classmate of mine who was First on the SEALAND EXCHANGE told me that you had to take the elevator up three levels just to check the boiler gauge glasses.
Yeah, there were days due to the weather and relative wind you couldn’t even go outside on deck. We were always using the tunnels. A guy I sailed with was on the TRADE when she had most of her bridge windows punched out in a storm.. I guess they didn’t slow down fast enough. The FINANCE also suffered damaged to her bridge in a storm although it happened at reduced speed. My first watch on there was outbound from San Francisco knifing into a heavy NW’ly swell. As we came up to full sea speed (26 knots on one boiler) the ship started to dive into the trough. The little ‘alarm bell’ in my head went off recalling the stories of bridge damage and fears that I might bury the bow in green water. I quickly got on the phone to the skipper, who came up surveyed the situation. He told me that we would be fine, but if the swell got any bigger call the engineroom immediately to slow her down then give him a call.cmakin said:I found out why there were tunnels in the box girders between the houses, too.
Yeah, there were days due to the weather and relative wind you couldn’t even go outside on deck. We were always using the tunnels. A guy I sailed with was on the TRADE when she had most of her bridge windows punched out in a storm.. I guess they didn’t slow down fast enough. The FINANCE also suffered damaged to her bridge in a storm although it happened at reduced speed. My first watch on there was outbound from San Francisco knifing into a heavy NW’ly swell. As we came up to full sea speed (26 knots on one boiler) the ship started to dive into the trough. The little ‘alarm bell’ in my head went off recalling the stories of bridge damage and fears that I might bury the bow in green water. I quickly got on the phone to the skipper, who came up surveyed the situation. He told me that we would be fine, but if the swell got any bigger call the engineroom immediately to slow her down then give him a call.
The other thing I remember was we were CONSTANTLY bunkering. We fueled in Long Beach, Oakland, Yokohama (inbound and outbound), Hong Kong, and Seattle.. Every time I turned around I was hoisting that damned Bravo flag.. Oh yeah, and I also remember the 'rooster tail' at 33 knots..
[FONT="]The 7’s were flat out amazing ships. [/FONT]
One of my favorite pictures of an SL-7 is the one that I think that you shot of the FINANCE near Hong Kong.
Me tooI am just glad that I got the opportunity to sail on one while it was still a containership.
Check my avatar.. It's the FINANCE at full sea speed passing Wang Lan Island inbound to the Hong Kong pilot boarding grounds at Green Island. I didn't shoot it.. The 'old man' gave me a copy before I signed off. A copy was also displayed in the license rack. The picture really shows you the power of those ships..
Me too
I believe that we carried roughly the same amount of fuel as the capacity of a T2, but I could be wrong about that (but not by much).
[FONT="]
You are wrong; and by more than just a little.. I was cleaning out some old files of mine this morning and I happened to find an old stability calculation 'short form' for the SEALAND COMMERCE. It lists the bunker capacity (including full settlers) as 5,240 long tons (33,700 barrels). A standard T-2 tanker had a capacity of roughly 22,000 long tons (141,000 barrels).
With amount of bunkers those ships burned through, I can see where you might think they had a greater fuel capacity than they actually did.[/FONT]