[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 3  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 »
Author Message
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: January 8th, 2018, 6:39 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
Splitting off from this thread in the General Discussion subforum. I've mostly completed an AU design I've had in the works for a few months for a nuclear-powered Ultra-Large Container Vessel (ULCV). The class depicted here is to be part of a fleet of nuclear-powered merchant vessels in different TEU classes, and I started with a "megaship" design in the 20,000+ TEU class as it seemed the most straightforward to nuclearize. The ships in this series are produced by the shipbuilder Reznor Heavy Engineering with backing from the Wikipedian Federal Government as part of a program aimed at decarbonizing merchant shipping while transporting goods faster and farther. The specifications, which are not yet final, are as follows:

History and Basic Information

Name: IRL Gentle Mistress
Owner: International Revenue Lines
Operator: Strickland-Ichinose Group
Port of registry: Port Vivian, Avogadro, Wikipedia and Universe
Builder: Reznor Heavy Engineering
Laid down: 2015
Launched: 2017
Acquired: April 2017
Maiden voyage: 4 May 2017
In service: April 2017
Status: In service

General characteristics

Class and type: IRL Mistress-Class container ship (Reznor 20K Series)
Tonnage:
~215,000 GT
~200,000 DWT
Length: 400 m (1,312.34 ft)
Beam: 60 m (196.85 ft)
Draught: 17.68 m (58 ft)
Depth: 34.44 m (113 ft) (deck edge to keel)
Installed power: 1 × 100 MW nuclear reactor based on the KAERI SMART integrated SMR
Propulsion: Nuclear turbo-electric (IFEP)
Speed: TBD upon consultation with the forum. I'd like to achieve speeds north of 30 knots if possible.
Capacity: 20,000+ TEU

These specs are subject to change if anyone sees serious problems with them, but they appear to be consistent with the trends in 2010s-era ULCVs.

The current drawing is below. A number of parts I've drawn from scratch. I gave a lot of attention to detail on all parts of the drawing, though the superstructure needs work and was a bit of a headache to design. (Oddly, many source images did not have the clear deck-level profile shots of superstructures I was seeking.)

[ img ]

I will address the main body of critiques in the post below.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: January 8th, 2018, 6:42 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
erik_t wrote: *
This is a beautiful drawing. I particularly like how the superstructure fits within a single container-length block - this wouldn't be critical from a design perspective, but I can totally imagine it shaking out this way in real life for ease of design and construction.
That was the idea, haha.
Quote:
A few thoughts...
.
  • Perhaps most importantly, it's impossible to imagine such a ship would go to sea without an auxiliary power unit, probably (IMHO) a 1000kW-class diesel. A small exhaust high on the superstructure would be appropriate, perhaps 6px in diameter. An alternative might be to move the superstructure aft 6-8 compartments, locating the reactor perhaps a compartment forward of it (I'd maintain one full compartment between crewed spaces and the reactor room, but no more). The motor room (be it electrical or turbine) might then sit below the superstructure, which is currently dead volume. The auxiliary diesel could then be a direct-drive unit (if your main shaft is steam turbine driven).
I'll install an exhaust there. I noticed one on the old Thirty-Three Original drawing (a similar concept of a nuclear ULCV), but I drew this without an exhaust to see what exactly people would suggest. I don't really want to move the superstructure, which sits forward to give a favorable line of sight over the forward containers (as is the trend in modern ULCVs). Likewise, I'd like to keep the reactor roughly amidships around the 200-meter mark, as this was suggested in the Thirty-Three Original thread. This WIP should give you an idea of where the spaces are.
Quote:
  • I think in practice the navigation light would be located on (or perhaps above) the bridge wing, rather than the main block.
The starboard running light, you mean? I derived its location from Lazer_one's Arktika drawing, but that was an IB without a bridge wing, so I suppose this is different.
Quote:
  • I'm not actually sure if such ships carry both lifeboats and life rafts (I don't think they do).
The rafts are there for backup. I included redundant safety features intentionally. See also this on Marstal Maersk:
[ img ]
Quote:
  • She probably needs a SOLAS boat, although it might be on the port side.
I think I drew one for my IB drawing. I'll either include that or explain it as being on the port side, depending on what happens with the superstructure. Would this middle drawing be what you're talking about?
[ img ]
Quote:
  • The superstructure radars are dubious, I think (they're sort of generic parts-sheet drawings, rather than representative of real navigation sets). I've got some real S- and X-band navigation radars drawn, if you're interested. I guess to some extent that depends on the era you have in mind for this ship (it looks like it belongs in the present day).
It does belong in the present, and you're right that I probably got those radars from a generic part sheet. Feel free to submit your drawings. The comms, on the other hand, I drew from scratch based on high-res source images.
Quote:
  • There's no reason for 01 to have deck-edge chocks like it does right now - a structural designer would do everything he or she could to not involve the superstructure in ship-wide loads.
You're right. I probably put them there because I saw some sort of protrusion in a source image that I couldn't identify and sort of guessed what it was.
Quote:
  • I don't really like how 01 and 02 are 18' rather than 12' as the decks above them; I'd insert a deck here and have three 12' decks.
  • It's sort of odd, I think, that there are no superstructure doors below 06. Why have external walkways and ladders below this if no access is required? Either the crew needs to access those important spaces, or the spaces are not important and so the companionways might as well be internal.
  • From an artistic perspective, I'd prefer to show deck demarcations on the superstructure at every level or not at all (this is just personal preference).
  • The crane on 04 floats oddly; I'm not sure what it's for in any case.
These may all be explained by the fact that part of the superstructure is actually sloped - a design choice I may ultimately scrap. (I thought I saw a partially sloped superstructure elsewhere, but I might have been mistaken. :oops: ) I wasn't sure exactly what to put there, as none of the source images of ULCVs I could find (which were all extremely large, I might add - well over 1,000 × 1,000 px) gave me the vantage point I wanted. Either the details were blurry, or the shot was taken from waterline-level while the ship was moored, or the view was partially obscured by containers. I'd say the superstructure was the most difficult part of the project, and the one I'm least sure about.

I'm not sure what the crane is for, either. I saw it on this image of OOCL Hong Kong and assumed it was important. A theme here is that I'm unsure of a lot of details, so I go to the high-res images of other ships and try to interpret those as best I can.

The editing itself will have to commence tomorrow night if not later, as I have to be getting to bed at this moment. This is the superstructure in false color if anyone would like to take a crack at it:
[ img ]
Quote:
  • I'd bump the bow navigation radar up a deck level; it's super light, and I can't imagine a reason for it to be shielded from aft views by the aerodynamic breakwater behind it.
That's an easy enough fix. :)
Quote:
Anyway, this is really attractive and interesting! I am glad you finally put it all together.
Thanks! I'm hoping I can use this as the basis for the other designs I have planned, and perhaps even a jumping-off point to drawing real designs such as OOCL Hong Kong once I have practice.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
matedow
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: January 9th, 2018, 10:11 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 28
Joined: October 23rd, 2017, 11:38 am
Wikipedia & Universe wrote: *


I'm not sure what the crane is for, either. I saw it on this image of OOCL Hong Kong and assumed it was important. A theme here is that I'm unsure of a lot of details, so I go to the high-res images of other ships and try to interpret those as best I can.
That is probably the stores crane. It is usually positioned where it can bring aboard food, engineering stores, and assist with the movement of hoses too and from the vessel.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: January 9th, 2018, 1:22 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8141
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
As matedow said. Some cargo ships have a hatch down to the engine room in that location. Other have access trough cargo-hold (depending on ship)


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: February 3rd, 2018, 10:47 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
I apologize for my activity; life has gotten in the way. I'm hoping do do some editing either tomorrow or this upcoming week. I'm officially declaring the superstructure a Hot Mess, and I welcome anyone to edit the midsection and details (within its current dimensions) of the false color I posted, provided they feel like doing so in their spare time.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Thiel
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: February 4th, 2018, 7:55 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 5375
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark
Container ships usually carry their side lights forward since the superstructure is narrower than the container load.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: February 4th, 2018, 9:30 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
Thiel wrote: *
Container ships usually carry their side lights forward since the superstructure is narrower than the container load.
As in the port and starboard running lights? Where are they typically mounted? Hull? Bridge wings?

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: February 4th, 2018, 11:02 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8141
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Wikipedia & Universe wrote: *
Thiel wrote: *
Container ships usually carry their side lights forward since the superstructure is narrower than the container load.
As in the port and starboard running lights? Where are they typically mounted? Hull? Bridge wings?
since he said forward... bow


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: February 4th, 2018, 11:04 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 8141
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Wikipedia & Universe wrote: *
Thiel wrote: *
Container ships usually carry their side lights forward since the superstructure is narrower than the container load.
As in the port and starboard running lights? Where are they typically mounted? Hull? Bridge wings?
since he said forward... bow.

But as I belive they should be mounted on the bridge wing, some are the normal on most ship. Bridge wing are going all the way out...


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: IRL Mistress-Class Nuclear ULCVPosted: February 4th, 2018, 11:36 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7127
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
Bridge wings on ships like these are too high up though, to fit these lights. They can also be blocked by their containers if the ship is moving. Important is that the lights are placed on maximum width and be visible from bow and sides, so placing them on the bow, just in front of the first row of containers works just as well, if not better.

_________________
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.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 3  [ 26 posts ]  Return to “Personal Designs” | Go to page 1 2 3 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


Contact us | The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]