Ships Nostalgia banner
ZHEN HUA 13

ZHEN HUA 13

ZHEN HUA 13 arriving at Port San Antonio on Oct. 30 on a foggy morning, these are the new 2 acquisitions for the port (the dark blue) and blue is for the port of Valparaiso
These pictures are thanks to my friend Eric, thank you very much Eric

·
Banned
Joined
·
48 Posts
Whilst at first glance it appears a little unbalanced, the realities are slightly different… On the basis that she was once the 81,279 deadweight tanker Marine Renaissance, with a beam of 39.35 metres, we are left with a fairly broad waterline, a very large amount of ballast (80,000 tons), a reasonably low freeboard and a relatively light deck cargo (they may look huge, but the actual weight is not so great), then the whole set-up is not quite as scary as it looks at first glance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
your probably right tonga , but still i bet the whole crew were glad to see them taken off. i wouldnt have fancied sailing with that lot on deck plenty of ballast or not.
don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,666 Posts
Hi Tonga
Thanks for the explanation is very constructive for me, it is not unusual to see such ships by these shores, probably spend a couple of years to return to see one of these monsters......

Juan Carlos
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
I still don't fancy it!
Are these vessels stabilised? Even a small roll would surely shift the CofG considerably with the jibs being so high and so far out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
48 Posts
Whilst I accept that it is a difficult subject to embrace, when one sees the set-up initially and it does require some research; but there is a fundamental misunderstanding if one suggests the Centre of Gravity ‘shifts’….
The only thing that will cause the Centre of Gravity to move (if the ship is at sea), is the removal of the Cargo or the Ballast. As one can be relatively confident that the Master will not choose to pump out the ballast, and the cranes are welded to the deck, so any changes to the Centre of Gravity from those two causes is not that likely… OK, I accept that the consumption of fuel oil during the voyage will have a tiny effect on the Centre of Gravity (unless water ballast is added), so we should make passing note of that to satisfy the technically minded and avoid a dispute on that part of the saga.
One of the major reasons that ZPMC bought a ship with a beam of 39.35 metres was to ensure that she was stable; and without being unseemingly supportive of them, the company has not established itself at the top of the tree in their chosen field by operating unsuitable, unsafe and unstable craft… Yes, they may look odd, but I can assure you that with 80,000 of weight below the waterline and 1,000 tons way above, the apparent lack of stability is the stuff of News of the World, rather than fact.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
48 Posts
It is a little unkind I agree, but if one wants to see a really scary ship in terms of being top heavy, take a look at this one…. A similar beam (at 40.0 metres) but look at all that extra weight above the waterline, and no 80,000 of water ballast to keep the little darlings in their bunks… I know which one I would prefer to sail on, and it is the one with less passengers... (Jester)

The chances of ZHEN HUA 13 rolling excessively or giving her crew a poor ride are a great deal less than the so called luxury liner... (EEK) What you thin you see is not what you get; in either case.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,620 Posts
Ship stability is dependent upon the interaction of the centre of gravity (which is fixed) and the centre of bouyancy (which moves as the ship rolls and counteracts the roll). The bouyancy of QM2 is greatly in excess of a loaded tanker, which is why she can support the weight of her upper decks. In fact cruise ships tend to have a problem of excess stability, giving an uncomfortable quick roll.
I am sure that the container crane carrier will roll in a seaway, but in a safe manner. Ice on the cranes would be best avoided.(*))

Fred
 

Media information

Category
Cargo vessels
Added by
kpitan69
Date added
View count
283
Comment count
13
Rating
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings

Share this media

Top