Discussion in 'Merchant Marine Academy - USMMA' started by noworries, Jul 20, 2011.
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.
Oh Baby- Speak to me!!
I am in the business of manufacturing abrasives- which are integral in engine manufacturing- this thing is like a grinding wheel manufacturer's dream come true! Bearings, pistons, valves, cams & cranks-oh my
This was really interesting- thanks!
Here's the motor all put together..
The article also overstated the EMMA MAERSK's service speed at 31 knots. It's more like 25 knots. I had a chance to see the EMMA's sister ship the ELEONORA as my ship was leaving Ningbo PRC a few years back. She was heading in to the berth and getting our tugs.. She was in a light condition which made her size all the more impressive.
Yup. New materials can now handle the injection pressure. 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. No cam at all on these new engines. Pretty amazing.
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.
I couldn't agree with you more. I haven't sailed on my license since 1988, but even back then, I would respond to the alarm and check the condition first (to be prudent, of course), but often the problem was in the sensor/electronics.
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.
I was the 4 to 8 2nd Mate on the SEALAND FINANCE.. Those were some fast ships. They had a 33 knot top speed. We would routinely shut down one boiler for the trans Pacific crossing too and we still would average over 26 knots. They were fuel hogs though. We would burn 5.2 barrels per mile at full speed with both boilers on line and 3.5 barrels per mile on one boiler.
http://www.photoship.co.uk/JAlbum Ships/Old Ships Sa/slides/Sealand Market-02.html
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.
As far as the plant, there are all kids of rumours. I heard that the initial design was for nuclear power. Another one is that to get the power, the aft house had to be turned around to accommodate the intake and stacks. When one looks at the original design, it looks like the aft house is on there backwards. Another one that I heard is that the plant is based on a conventional aircraft carrier design.
It is pretty amazing. Before I signed on, the most powerful plant that I had seen was 37,000 (MAINE Class RO/RO). Each shaft of an SL-7 has 60K HP.
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.
That was the same reason we made the runs on both boilers. We made up time on both legs. I found out why there were tunnels in the box girders between the houses, too.
Well, you took the elevator if you were lazy. I guess I would be taking the elevator now. . . .
Since we spent so much time with one boiler down, we did a lot of work inside them. If I thought that I knew how to read a boiler chart before I sailed on the MCLEAN, I can tell you that I really knew how to read one by the time I signed off. Being inside the furnace had the feel of being inside a cathedral.
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]
As a Day Third, I, too remember bunkering on both side of the Atlantic. 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). And the rooster tail. Yeah, I had to go out and look at that, too.
One of my favorite pictures of an SL-7 is the one that I think that you shot of the FINANCE near Hong Kong.
I 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..
Oh, man, how come I didn't see that. Geez, and I am supposed to be a Surveyor. . . . .
Sailed on the Maersk Montana, it had the 8cyl version of this engine. If there are any current engine mids who see this and sail on the Montana or any of the sister ships then I hope you pay attention to the engine and learn all you can about it b/c it is an AWESOME piece of machinery
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]
I stand corrected, then. That is what I get for listening to the 2nd. Or should I say, one of the 2nds.
Separate names with a comma.