The SS United States was built for speed, not comfort. She had a relative lack of amenities compared to the other transatlantic liners of the day. She was built to be pressed into service as a fast troop carrier in the event of another European war requiring American troops in a hurry.
Grand old ship...new life?
- Thread starter andrewg
- Start date
- Status
If you put a huge roof of solar panels on top and installed electric motors the enviros might overlook its gargantuan carbon footprint. Maybe they could ask for some of the federal solyndra dollars that weren't burned for the conversion? It is a beautiful ship I hope she comes back to life. Though I think there may be a problem locating enough qualified engineers to run the powerplant. Back in the day you had a bunch of highly trained navy guys to hire.
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Here she is today around 4:30pm.
Too bad my window was dirty and scratched.
Too bad my window was dirty and scratched.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
Yep the fact that she could sustain that average is impressive as [censored]. A fast cruiser of that vintage might be able to hit 35 knots for a brief period but not across an ocean.
The only large ship I can think of that compares today is a nuclear aircraft carrier. A Ford class in a rush could average that speed to Europe.
Most cruise ships I pass at sea are doing between 10-21 knots going to some port to unload the people so they can buy trinkets from the locals.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
Yep the fact that she could sustain that average is impressive as [censored]. A fast cruiser of that vintage might be able to hit 35 knots for a brief period but not across an ocean.
The only large ship I can think of that compares today is a nuclear aircraft carrier. A Ford class in a rush could average that speed to Europe.
Most cruise ships I pass at sea are doing between 10-21 knots going to some port to unload the people so they can buy trinkets from the locals.
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
+1
Our 9000-ish ton displacement Burkes do something "over 30 knots" on 134000SHP (4xLM2500). Ditto for Ticonderoga cruisers (9600-ish tons) and Spruance destroyers (8000-ish tons). All have the same plant. The Spruance and Ticos have the same hull, the Burke is a bit squatter. The Spru-can hull is "better" for speed... But that's roughly the weight to power ratio we get these days burning F-76 or DFM (the SSUS might still burn black oil, who knows).
So if you think about the SS United States doing 32 knot service duty speed, and 34-35 on a fast run, on 268000shp in a 45000-ish ton displacement ship, she was optimized indeed... 4x the displacement, doing the same or faster than our best fuel-fired gas turbine powered surface combatants, on twice the power... When speed vs power is roughly a cubic relationship... Length helps of course
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
+1
Our 9000-ish ton displacement Burkes do something "over 30 knots" on 134000SHP (4xLM2500). Ditto for Ticonderoga cruisers (9600-ish tons) and Spruance destroyers (8000-ish tons). All have the same plant. The Spruance and Ticos have the same hull, the Burke is a bit squatter. The Spru-can hull is "better" for speed... But that's roughly the weight to power ratio we get these days burning F-76 or DFM (the SSUS might still burn black oil, who knows).
So if you think about the SS United States doing 32 knot service duty speed, and 34-35 on a fast run, on 268000shp in a 45000-ish ton displacement ship, she was optimized indeed... 4x the displacement, doing the same or faster than our best fuel-fired gas turbine powered surface combatants, on twice the power... When speed vs power is roughly a cubic relationship... Length helps of course
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Ahhh, the joys of the always argumentative Bitog forum!
I enjoy history. I also see a lot of importance in saving much of our history...wether it be buildings, ships, airplanes...or whatever. It's part of who we were and are today.
Regardless of the costs (who cares...not my money or yours) or even the motivation (once again...who cares), a restored and functioning ship such as the United States, is a really good thing.
Best post in this thread
Ahhh, the joys of the always argumentative Bitog forum!
I enjoy history. I also see a lot of importance in saving much of our history...wether it be buildings, ships, airplanes...or whatever. It's part of who we were and are today.
Regardless of the costs (who cares...not my money or yours) or even the motivation (once again...who cares), a restored and functioning ship such as the United States, is a really good thing.
Best post in this thread
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
Giant Lexington (just short of 900' long, 106' wide, with 203,000SHP) managed 34.6 knots. 52,000ton Iowa would make 35 knots with 212,000HP. (And could make 27 on only half her boilers.) Several Japanese carriers could make 35 knots.
47,000-ton Hood could make 32 knots in 1920.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
Giant Lexington (just short of 900' long, 106' wide, with 203,000SHP) managed 34.6 knots. 52,000ton Iowa would make 35 knots with 212,000HP. (And could make 27 on only half her boilers.) Several Japanese carriers could make 35 knots.
47,000-ton Hood could make 32 knots in 1920.
Originally Posted By: Danh
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Ok, it was quick for the 50s, thst was what, 20kt? Today theyre doing 30knots or more.
Her record speed for the Atlantic crossing was 35 kts and her lifetime average was 30 kts. Won't find any large passenger liner today that's faster.
Quick, but how about fuel efficiency? Ive read that it takes like 20 gallons to run the rear to the front bumper diesel equivalent. And that is a horror.
Originally Posted By: Pontual
Ok, it was quick for the 50s, thst was what, 20kt? Today theyre doing 30knots or more.
Her record speed for the Atlantic crossing was 35 kts and her lifetime average was 30 kts. Won't find any large passenger liner today that's faster.
Quick, but how about fuel efficiency? Ive read that it takes like 20 gallons to run the rear to the front bumper diesel equivalent. And that is a horror.
Last edited:
The last, best chance to save this ship was when NCL owned it and looked seriously at putting her back to use.
An earlier NCL actually under Norwegian ownership did the same with the France, although the France had not been laid up for decades as the SS United States has been and the France had had steam run up every so often and was also drydocked at least once after her exit from TATL service.
The France/Norway was doomed when a boiler explosion in Miami made her too expensive to repair. This also cost the lives of eight crewman. She was scrapped in India after being towed there.
This ship in this thread is doomed and that is a pity.
She is a piece of history and it would be wonderful to see her back in use, but it's not in the cards.
Incidentally, anyone who things that cruise ships are patronized primarily by fat drunks has probably only cruised one line and everyone who cruises knows the line I'm thinking of.
Either that, or they're talking through their hats, as the old saying goes.
I regret that we never cruised on SS Norway when we might have and I'd love to be able to board SS United States for a cruise.
A shame it won't happen.
An earlier NCL actually under Norwegian ownership did the same with the France, although the France had not been laid up for decades as the SS United States has been and the France had had steam run up every so often and was also drydocked at least once after her exit from TATL service.
The France/Norway was doomed when a boiler explosion in Miami made her too expensive to repair. This also cost the lives of eight crewman. She was scrapped in India after being towed there.
This ship in this thread is doomed and that is a pity.
She is a piece of history and it would be wonderful to see her back in use, but it's not in the cards.
Incidentally, anyone who things that cruise ships are patronized primarily by fat drunks has probably only cruised one line and everyone who cruises knows the line I'm thinking of.
Either that, or they're talking through their hats, as the old saying goes.
I regret that we never cruised on SS Norway when we might have and I'd love to be able to board SS United States for a cruise.
A shame it won't happen.
Originally Posted By: Kawiguy454
If you put a huge roof of solar panels on top and installed electric motors the enviros might overlook its gargantuan carbon footprint. Maybe they could ask for some of the federal solyndra dollars that weren't burned for the conversion? It is a beautiful ship I hope she comes back to life. Though I think there may be a problem locating enough qualified engineers to run the powerplant. Back in the day you had a bunch of highly trained navy guys to hire.
I was thinking two Westinghouse AW4 reactors. Carbon footprint = 0.
She's been gutted anyways. Turbines are gone, boilers and interior have been gutted.
They'd be starting from scratch. She's just an empty shell right now.
If you put a huge roof of solar panels on top and installed electric motors the enviros might overlook its gargantuan carbon footprint. Maybe they could ask for some of the federal solyndra dollars that weren't burned for the conversion? It is a beautiful ship I hope she comes back to life. Though I think there may be a problem locating enough qualified engineers to run the powerplant. Back in the day you had a bunch of highly trained navy guys to hire.
I was thinking two Westinghouse AW4 reactors. Carbon footprint = 0.
She's been gutted anyways. Turbines are gone, boilers and interior have been gutted.
They'd be starting from scratch. She's just an empty shell right now.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
Giant Lexington (just short of 900' long, 106' wide, with 203,000SHP) managed 34.6 knots. 52,000ton Iowa would make 35 knots with 212,000HP. (And could make 27 on only half her boilers.) Several Japanese carriers could make 35 knots.
47,000-ton Hood could make 32 knots in 1920.
And? You still seem to be missing it. This ship could, to use your terminology "manage" north of FOURTY knots, >40, she AVERAGED roughly 36knots crossing the Atlantic.
Not sure why you fail to see why this is impressive
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
Giant Lexington (just short of 900' long, 106' wide, with 203,000SHP) managed 34.6 knots. 52,000ton Iowa would make 35 knots with 212,000HP. (And could make 27 on only half her boilers.) Several Japanese carriers could make 35 knots.
47,000-ton Hood could make 32 knots in 1920.
And? You still seem to be missing it. This ship could, to use your terminology "manage" north of FOURTY knots, >40, she AVERAGED roughly 36knots crossing the Atlantic.
Not sure why you fail to see why this is impressive
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Incidentally, anyone who things that cruise ships are patronized primarily by fat drunks has probably only cruised one line and everyone who cruises knows the line I'm thinking of.
Not sure what everyone seems to have against cruises. My wife and I decided to try going on a cruise for our vacation last year and we loved it. I'll admit I was skeptical, but I was pleasantly surprised. Our next vacation will probably be another cruise.
Incidentally, anyone who things that cruise ships are patronized primarily by fat drunks has probably only cruised one line and everyone who cruises knows the line I'm thinking of.
Not sure what everyone seems to have against cruises. My wife and I decided to try going on a cruise for our vacation last year and we loved it. I'll admit I was skeptical, but I was pleasantly surprised. Our next vacation will probably be another cruise.
The big fast liners were subsidized because they could be easily converted to fast transports. The Queen Mary made several crossings carrying 10,000 troops at a time. My Dad was one of them. A 65 yr old ship. Steam turbines, and worse, single hull construction. First money I would spend would be to survey the hull in a dry dock. 65 yrs is a long time for a commercial vessel.
A cruise is the easiest way in which to escape the cold dark northern winter.
The scenery changes and you get to decide where you might like to fly to spend a week or weekend at some future date.
It's also relaxing to sit on the balcony in the morning while having a light breakfast and watch the sea go by while spotting for flying fish, which are pretty abundant.
The scenery changes and you get to decide where you might like to fly to spend a week or weekend at some future date.
It's also relaxing to sit on the balcony in the morning while having a light breakfast and watch the sea go by while spotting for flying fish, which are pretty abundant.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
A cruise is the easiest way in which to escape the cold dark northern winter.
The scenery changes and you get to decide where you might like to fly to spend a week or weekend at some future date.
It's also relaxing to sit on the balcony in the morning while having a light breakfast and watch the sea go by while spotting for flying fish, which are pretty abundant.
Assuming she is used for a scenic trip to warm places... Not across the dark, cold, North Atlantic.
A cruise is the easiest way in which to escape the cold dark northern winter.
The scenery changes and you get to decide where you might like to fly to spend a week or weekend at some future date.
It's also relaxing to sit on the balcony in the morning while having a light breakfast and watch the sea go by while spotting for flying fish, which are pretty abundant.
Assuming she is used for a scenic trip to warm places... Not across the dark, cold, North Atlantic.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I eat lunch across from this ship now and again. Pretty, too bad it's peeling. I think the QEII only cost around $1.2B new, as comparison for a high end cruise ship.
It's a neat concept, and I'd consider a cross-ocean trip. The problem is that it IS 10 days at sea. But outfit it so you can stay connected, have fun, and enjoy nice amenities, and the "upscale retiree" market may make it work.
One would think that the cost efficacy of the concept has been thought through. Sea keeping may be an issue and that hull may be rather thin.
Are you referring to the trans Atlantic crossing? If so, I think you're a bit off on your time.
From the article, it said "three days, 10 hours, 42 minutes"
I eat lunch across from this ship now and again. Pretty, too bad it's peeling. I think the QEII only cost around $1.2B new, as comparison for a high end cruise ship.
It's a neat concept, and I'd consider a cross-ocean trip. The problem is that it IS 10 days at sea. But outfit it so you can stay connected, have fun, and enjoy nice amenities, and the "upscale retiree" market may make it work.
One would think that the cost efficacy of the concept has been thought through. Sea keeping may be an issue and that hull may be rather thin.
Are you referring to the trans Atlantic crossing? If so, I think you're a bit off on your time.
From the article, it said "three days, 10 hours, 42 minutes"
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
Giant Lexington (just short of 900' long, 106' wide, with 203,000SHP) managed 34.6 knots. 52,000ton Iowa would make 35 knots with 212,000HP. (And could make 27 on only half her boilers.) Several Japanese carriers could make 35 knots.
47,000-ton Hood could make 32 knots in 1920.
For brief periods of time, those were not ocean crossing speeds, that's max turn's on the shafts right out of the yard with a clean bottom.
Most ships during that period cruised in the high teens around 20ish knots.
The SS United States averaged what 35 knots crossing the Atlantic...averaged that includes steaming in and out of the harbor...fighting current, fighting wind...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That speed isn't all that impressive. Heck...a WW2 (even giant Saratoga) carrier would touch 15 knots.
???
Where are you getting your numbers?
An average speed of over 35 knots, sustained all the way across the Atlantic, is far faster than anything in World War Two. Or anything today, for that matter.
It's top speed was over 40. That's truly a ship built for speed.
Giant Lexington (just short of 900' long, 106' wide, with 203,000SHP) managed 34.6 knots. 52,000ton Iowa would make 35 knots with 212,000HP. (And could make 27 on only half her boilers.) Several Japanese carriers could make 35 knots.
47,000-ton Hood could make 32 knots in 1920.
For brief periods of time, those were not ocean crossing speeds, that's max turn's on the shafts right out of the yard with a clean bottom.
Most ships during that period cruised in the high teens around 20ish knots.
The SS United States averaged what 35 knots crossing the Atlantic...averaged that includes steaming in and out of the harbor...fighting current, fighting wind...
Last edited:
Which is the reason that ships like the United States didn't have balcony cabins, aside from the fact that the wind would have been strong at the cruising speeds that ships built for TATL transportation traveled. The United States may have been the fastest, but a number of other ships weren't too far behind.
Many cruise ship crossings are sold each year as ships migrate from the Caribbean to Europe for the summer and then back again in the early fall.
The QM2 is also operated on many crossings.
None of these ships offer the speed of the liners built for transportation and not leisure vacations, but if one planned to be in Europe for at least a couple of weeks, a cruise ship would be a nice way to get there as compared to seven hours in a jet.
Many cruise ship crossings are sold each year as ships migrate from the Caribbean to Europe for the summer and then back again in the early fall.
The QM2 is also operated on many crossings.
None of these ships offer the speed of the liners built for transportation and not leisure vacations, but if one planned to be in Europe for at least a couple of weeks, a cruise ship would be a nice way to get there as compared to seven hours in a jet.
That's why this ship won't be refurbished.
People used to go on vacations for months, and air travel was sketchy at best. So you took a ship like this to get somewhere, the journey was important but these were transport ships first and foremost. A 3-4 day crossing was great when you considered the "holiday" was going to be 3 months...
The cruise ship market has changed, now they float around and are vacations in themselves, speed is irrelevant.
Heck I have pass a number off shore idling at 5 knots trying to time their arrival in port with the sunrise. What good does a quarter million shaft HP do at 5 knots? Nothing it just burns fuel.
People used to go on vacations for months, and air travel was sketchy at best. So you took a ship like this to get somewhere, the journey was important but these were transport ships first and foremost. A 3-4 day crossing was great when you considered the "holiday" was going to be 3 months...
The cruise ship market has changed, now they float around and are vacations in themselves, speed is irrelevant.
Heck I have pass a number off shore idling at 5 knots trying to time their arrival in port with the sunrise. What good does a quarter million shaft HP do at 5 knots? Nothing it just burns fuel.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
