Podded Propulsion on QM2

PeterG
25th October 2005, 14:03
Never knew that QM2 runs on Podded Propulsion - saves Cunard millions in fuel costs, reduces pollution, vibration levels, and gives much better manouverability.

Mark Taxis
25th October 2005, 15:38
I believe that each pod weighs in at 250 tonnes
Rgds
Mark

Paul UK
25th October 2005, 16:33
According to the designer they are like each one is like a 737 hanging underneath.

Paul

R58484956
25th October 2005, 17:13
4 pods 250 tons each two forward ones fixed for/aft, after two 360 degree turn. power = 21.5 mw each. individually & hydrodynamically shaped for speed. Stainless steel props highly screwed fixed pitch.

newda898
25th October 2005, 20:17
And easier to replace should there be motor problems!

PeterG
25th October 2005, 23:23
Thanks for all of that info - I only found out about the QM2's propulsion at a University Open Day for Naval Architecture. Really impressive those statistics!

Tom Haywood
26th October 2005, 00:31
The discovery cable channel had a great doc on the propulsion system on the QM2.
Very interesting and it did lean a bit to the technical side of things. Worth looking at if (and it will) it comes around again.

PeterG
26th October 2005, 15:29
Sadly we don't get discovery, but thanks for that.

Finnjet
14th December 2005, 08:23
i get discovery channel and its a good thing note is that there a programme called building QM2 on there

moaf
14th December 2005, 23:48
The good thing about podded propulsion is there is no shaft alignment , therefore engines can be laid out better. The QM2 has gas turbines on the funnel deck, coupled to alternators, for booster engines. These are simply wired into the pods. You can also get 360 degree propulsion from them. The fixed pods are aft, but the propeller faces into the water. This gives much more efficiency, as the full face of the prop is presented to the water

terence
15th December 2005, 00:13
14 nights queens grill 26.839 or a bit cheeper 11 nights 24.049 tell

fred henderson
15th December 2005, 18:49
A slight clarification to your post Moaf. QM 2 has four Wärtsilä 16V46C diesel engines, each driving an ABB alternator with an output of 16,800 kW and two General Electric (USA) LM25000+ gas turbines each driving a Brush alternator with an output of 25,000 kW. The total 117,200 kW power capacity is connected to the main switchboard and alternators are brought on line as required to meet variations in the combined propulsion and hotel demand.
This power station concept has been used in the design of new cruise ships for more than 15 years. The major advantage is that the engines in use at any one time are operating within their optimum power range. There is also greater flexibility in the location of the machinery spaces. As you state Moaf, in the QM 2 the gas turbines are located in the base of the funnel housing.
The QM 2 has four Alstom/Kamawa Mermaid propulsion pods, each having an output of 21,500 kW. The arrangement is that the forward pair are outboard and fixed each side of the central skeg. The after pair are inboard, astern of the skeg and capable of azimuthing through 360 degrees. All face forward to enable the propellers to bite into clear undisturbed water. The propellers are about 20 feet in diameter with bolt-on, fixed, stainless steel blades. There are no rudders or stern thrusters, but she has three Rolls-Royce Kamawa bow thrusters, each of 1,500 kW output.
The attached pic and those that I have placed in the Machinery gallery are from the Cunard commemorative book and the special RINA book on the building of the QM 2.

Fred

newda898
15th December 2005, 21:06
There's nothing under there?!?!?? She's going to sink!! (EEK) :p

william dillon
15th December 2005, 22:51
Never knew that QM2 runs on Podded Propulsion - saves Cunard millions in fuel costs, reduces pollution, vibration levels, and gives much better manouverability.

So where do the paddle wheels come into this propulsion system ???? lol.
Billy

Derek Roger
16th December 2005, 00:10
Only paddles would be the swizzle sticks.

moaf
16th December 2005, 00:17
Fred, I did mean that, but you are better at writting it down than me!! Had just finished a 16 hour shift too, so couldn't stretch my little mind to go into too much detail!