Adriatic woes...

ADeblois

Member
Mar 18, 2012
51
1
38
What is going on here? When I posted the message right above this one, ADeblois' message above it contained two photos of Celtic; the email version of that message is the same. Now those pictures are gone and there are four different ones there. How did that happen?

In addition, there's an icon on the thread title which says that three messages have been deleted from this thread. Three?
Let me explain the dilemma. First off, I intended this thread to be based solely on Adriatic, not her sisters, so the Celtic response shouldn't have been there anyway -- I think this is where the deleted post confusion came about. (I diverted my question from Adriatic completely, which I shouldn't have, and it brought much confusion) Sorry about that...I didn't mean to make you guys confused. :( Second of all, the three messages you see deleted were these (in order): one was the the four pictures that refused to work (invalid links), the second one was the Celtic images which I deleted b/c I figured they differed from the first question I posted, and the third one I think was a picture response that glitched and got deleted somehow (I don't know were that went either...) Again, I'm sorry about that -- I should have left the posts up until someone asnwered...but I instead deleted them...with you guys wondering were the posts went.

Again, I am really SORRY and I apologize for the confusion... :(
Let's hope future posts are not so confusing on my part.
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,103
174
223
Second of all, the three messages you see deleted were these (in order): one was the the four pictures that refused to work (invalid links)
No. I saw those pictures; they weren't links, they were images that appeared in the message, the same as the two Adriatic pictures in the first message. That's why I answered it, in a message that now makes no sense because it responds to nothing.
I should have left the posts up until someone asnwered
Deleting a message or editing it in a material fashion after someone has answered is worse.
 

ADeblois

Member
Mar 18, 2012
51
1
38
Well I'm glad the confusion bit is over...to ease back gradually, here are some beautiful pics of my favorite gal, the Adriatic. May she rest in peace.

sm_pv_Adriatic.jpg

Adriatric%20flying%20colors2.jpg

SSAdriatic.jpg

Adriatic leaving port.jpg

sm_pv_Adriatic.jpg


Adriatric%20flying%20colors2.jpg


SSAdriatic.jpg


Adriatic leaving port.jpg
 

Philip Hind

Staff member
Sep 1, 1996
1,743
9
168
48
England
Still working out permissions for different users. I think Mark can see when posts are deleted because he is a moderator but others will not, they will just disappear. Also I hadn't quite got images showing right ... there are so many settings on this thing it's like driving the TARDIS!
 

ADeblois

Member
Mar 18, 2012
51
1
38
Here's something related to Adriatic -- the unbuilt Germanic of 1916.

"Your Directors have authorized the construction of a steamer of about 33,600 tons and 19 knots speed for the New York-Liverpool service of the White Star Line, to be named "Germanic," and to be of the "Adriatic" type, with such alterations and improvements as experience has suggested and as are made possible by her greater size. It is expected that the "Germanic" will be completed in time to enter the service in 1916, and that she will be an exceedingly attractive steamer."

Further, I wanted to see if I could derive the calculated tonnage of Germanic (33,600 tons). I started by examining Baltic's specs (Adriatic's specs didn't include under deck tonnage, so I used Baltic, the next closest ship). Baltic's under deck tonnage is 21,693 tons and gross tonnage 23,876 tons. Baltic's dimensions were: 729 feet length overall x 75.5 ft beam x 52.8 ft depth. You need to convert to metric before doing the calculations. Now onto the formulas:

K is an percentage of an entire ships's volume. Using the formula where K = 0.2+0.02 * log10 (volume in cubic meters), the output will range from about 0.22-0.30, depending on the volume. Now, using the GT formula where K * V, where K is a mutliplier based on the ship's volume. Basically, you derive K from the ship's volume and then multiply with the ship's volume to obtain the GT figure.

Using the above formulas for Baltic, I came out with a calculated figure of 24,567 tons; multiplying this by 88% (to account for the hull form) gives you the 21,693 under-deck tonnage figure. Now that I have derived the under-deck tonnage figure, you can add 10% to that (for the superstructure), which will give you the gross tonnage figure of Baltic, 23,876 tons.

Still with me so far?

If we apply the above logic for Germanic, here is what the figures would show:

Germanic's supposed dimensions: 746 ft length overall x 88 ft beam * 61.6 ft depth (depth is about 0.7 times the beam)

If we plug in Germanic's dimensions (in metric) into K = 0.2 + 0.02 x log10 (114,598.96 cubic meters), this equals about 0.3011. Now multiply K (0.3011) times the ship's volume of 114,598.96 cubic meters gives you a figure of 34,515.32 tons. Multiplying this by Baltic's 88% form factor, this adjusted figure for Germanic's under-deck tonnage comes out to 30,373.49 tons. Now, further multiplying this times 10 percent (0.1) yields a final gross tonnage figure of 33,410 gross tons. Not bad for an estimation, isn't it? I figure the 200-ton underestimation is from not knowing the exact hull depth of Germanic.

I want to hear your comments on this. I find this a rather intriguing subject. I kinda answered my questions from the old ET board :)
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
1
48
Iowa, USA
Further, I wanted to see if I could derive the calculated tonnage of Germanic (33,600 tons). I started by examining Baltic's specs (Adriatic's specs didn't include under deck tonnage, so I used Baltic, the next closest ship). Baltic's under deck tonnage is 21,693 tons and gross tonnage 23,876 tons. Baltic's dimensions were: 729 feet length overall x 75.5 ft beam x 52.8 ft depth. You need to convert to metric before doing the calculations. Now onto the formulas:

K is an percentage of an entire ship's volume. Using the formula where K = 0.2+0.02 * log10 (volume in cubic meters), the output will range from about 0.22-0.30, depending on the volume. Now, using the GT formula where K * V, where K is a multiplier based on the ship's volume. Basically, you derive K from the ship's volume and then multiply with the ship's volume to obtain the GT figure.

Using the above formulas for Baltic, I came out with a calculated figure of 24,567 tons; multiplying this by 88% (to account for the hull form) gives you the 21,693 under-deck tonnage figure. Now that I have derived the under-deck tonnage figure, you can add 10% to that (for the superstructure), which will give you the gross tonnage figure of Baltic, 23,876 tons.

Still with me so far?

If we apply the above logic for Germanic, here is what the figures would show:

Germanic's supposed dimensions: 746 ft length overall x 88 ft beam * 61.6 ft depth (depth is about 0.7 times the beam)

If we plug in Germanic's dimensions (in metric) into K = 0.2 + 0.02 x log10 (114,598.96 cubic meters), this equals about 0.3011. Now multiply K (0.3011) times the ship's volume of 114,598.96 cubic meters gives you a figure of 34,515.32 tons. Multiplying this by Baltic's 88% form factor, this adjusted figure for Germanic's under-deck tonnage comes out to 30,373.49 tons. Now, further multiplying this times 10 percent (0.1) yields a final gross tonnage figure of 33,410 gross tons. Not bad for an estimation, isn't it? I figure the 200-ton underestimation is from not knowing the exact hull depth of Germanic.

I want to hear your comments on this. I find this a rather intriguing subject. I kinda answered my questions from the old ET board :)
Now I see where high school algebra comes in. LOL. In K*V, what does the V stand for?
 

ADeblois

Member
Mar 18, 2012
51
1
38
Now I see where high school algebra comes in. LOL. In K*V, what does the V stand for?
V stands for volume (in cubic meters), I should have explained that in the post. My derived figure of 33,410 tons for Germanic is pretty close to the publicized figure of 33,600 tons. I'm only about 190 tons off, which isn't bad at all considering I guessed the hull depth based on the beam of the ship and looking at the trend of other ships (0.7 x the beam is a good approximation of the required depth). Yeah, maybe it's too technical for you guys, put you see my point, right?
 

Jake Peterson

Member
Mar 11, 2012
329
1
48
Iowa, USA
Well, I never took algebra, but I still enjoy reading technical aspects about the Titanic.

33, 410 tons, huh? It still isn't as big as the Titanic. Do you have some drawing to show how the liner might look today, if built? Would the ship have 1, 2, 3, or 4 funnels?
 

ADeblois

Member
Mar 18, 2012
51
1
38
Here is a drawing (showing all four ships), and I do know that the ship would have been an enlarged version of Adriatic (1907) -- the bottom ship on the drawing below, along with Baltic. Germanic would have the same two funnels and four masts as the Big Four. However, she would have had a smaller version of the combination machinery (two reciprocating engines and central turbine) and triple screws of the Olympics instead of the reciprocating engines and twin screws of the Big Four.

Here is the photobucket drawing: credits to CanisD for posting.

Big_Four.jpg

33, 410 tons, huh? It still isn't as big as the Titanic.
Well, she may not have been Titanic's size, but she would have been about 8,870 tons larger than Adriatic. Also, to put Germanic's size into perspective, she would have been about 2,000 tons larger than Cunard's Mauretania (31,938 tons) and about 750 tons smaller than Homeric (1922). So Germanic would have been between those two ships, as far as size is concerned.

I only wish she would have been built -- but WW1 scrapped plans to build her. She would have been a good larger running mate to the already popular Big Four on the Liverpool-New York service. Also, looking ahead, she could have been a replacement for Celtic which ran aground in 1928 and declared a loss.

Big_Four.jpg
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,103
174
223
ADeblois said:
Here is the photobucket drawing: credits to CanisD for posting.
Actually, shouldn't the credit should go to Duncan Haws? Aren't these his drawings from Merchant Fleets?
 

ADeblois

Member
Mar 18, 2012
51
1
38
Actually, shouldn't the credit should go to Duncan Haws? Aren't these his drawings from Merchant Fleets?
Oh, my bad. I was looking at the previous post when I put down the name. I guess I should reword this: credit goes to Duncan Haws.

I'll try not to do that again.

Hey, Mark, you should check out the calculations I did for Germanic above. They're quite interesting -- leave me some comments.
 

ADeblois

Member
Mar 18, 2012
51
1
38
New Ships

Hey guys,

I have completed a rough design outline for two new ships based on the Big Four. I have named them Tectonic and Jurassic. They are of 28,000 grt with a higher service speed of 20 1/2 knots compared to Baltic's 23,876 grt and 16 knots. Not as big as RMS Germanic (1916) of 33,600 tons and 19 knots, but still big ships.

rmsbaltic-2.jpg

What the ships would look like: essentially enlarged Baltics.

Specs:

Tonnage: 28,000 grt (est.)
Length Overall: 740 feet
Length between Perpendiculars: 715 feet
Beam: 82 feet
Depth: 56 feet
Draft: 30 ft normal, 31.94 ft maximum
Displacement: 33,070 tons normal load, 35,581 tons maximum
Engines: geared steam turbines
Propulsion: twin screw
Speed: 20 1/2 knots; 22 knots max.
Passengers: say 1200
Crew: unknown

Hope u guys like these ships as much as I do -- I intend to build these for real. Not a passing whim...