Why not use diesel to run the engines directly?

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
All times are GMT -4.
The time now is 05:00 AM.
#21
Low Country, SC
4,874 Posts
Joined Dec 2005
Originally posted by SRF
What cruise ship uses gas turbines?

And US Navy gas turbine ships are typically direct drive, gas turbine, through transmission to shafts and props. Not gas turbine to electric.
RCCL Radiance class and Celebrity Millenium class use hybrid, gas turbines with steam generated from the exhaust running another turbine. The turbines all generate eectricity.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Wraithe
herbathdwatson.us

USS Henry L. Stimson-SSBN 655 Gold (4 patrols 1988-1991)
USS Daniel Webster-SSBN 626 Blue (Conversion crew 1991-1995)
USS Nebraska-SSBN 739 Blue (5 patrols 1995-1998)
USS Wyoming-SSBN 742 Blue (3 patrols 2002-2004)

Diamond RCL, Grandeur, Enchantment, Radiance, Mariner, Freedom, Liberty, Oasis and X Century
#22
Middle of the Sahara Desert
12,098 Posts
Joined Aug 2006
Turbines require good and expensive fuel to run. Diesels can run lower grade and cheaper fuel.


Sent from my iPad using Forums
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Past
#23
Suffolk Va.
159 Posts
Joined Jan 2012
Compare the price of IFO 380 ( The fuel diesel cruise ships burn) to the cost of MGO (the fuel that gas turbine ships burn ) and you will see why both Royal and Celeberty changed back to diesel power for their new ships (oasis class and solistce class ships).The website ship and bunker will tell you current prices of the 2 fuels for comparision.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
#24
Middle of the Sahara Desert
12,098 Posts
Joined Aug 2006
In some jusrisdictions it has been made compulsory that Marinediesl instead of bunker oil be used. The big one for this is Alaska.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Past
#25
cruising.cockroach {at} gmail hotmail and yahoo
1,615 Posts
Joined May 2012
Just got off the Celebrity Millennium a few days ago. Was claimed by the ship officers that the ship was quiet due to being powered by 2 gas turbines (claimed to be the marine equivalent of a 757 engine, so either a R-R or less likely, P&W engines). The other was a 16 cylinder Wartsilla diesel. All I heard for most of the cruise (a TPAC) was the rather-distinct thump of a large diesel, and this was in the top deck.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Using cruise lines as a cheap means of comfortable if not speedy intercontinental travel....

Upcoming Sep 2017 Celebrity Millennium Vancouver-Yokohama

May 2017 MS Chi-Cheemaun Tobermory - South Baymouth
Mar 2016 Star Princess San Pedro-Vancouver
Mar 2016 CMA CGM Libra HongKong - Long Beach
Jan 2016 RV Yandabo Bagan-Mandalay

Nov 2015 Tirrenia Bithia Janas Arbatax - Civitavecchia
Oct 2015 Saremar Ichnusa Bonifacio-Santa Teresa de Gallura
Oct 2015 Corsica Ferries Corsica Victoria Savona - Bastia
Oct 2014 HAL Zaandam Vancouver-Valparaiso
Mar 2014 Corsica Ferries Mega Express 3 Toulon-Ajaccio & Bastia-Nice
Oct. 2012 HAL Prinsendam Civitavecchia-Fort Lauderdale
April 2012 Island Princess San Pedro-Vancouver
Kasr Ibrim Abu Simbel-Aswan Feb. 2007

Way, way back....
P&O Cathay between Singapore and Hong Kong and back, March 1968 + August 1969
Koeln-Dusseldorfer Line Rotterdam - Bern
Thomson Ithaca Tanger to Brindisi April 1974
Chandris Bruge-Norway-Tilbury August 1974
Chandris Southampton - Canary Islands + Madeira - Southampton August 1976
#26
Middle of the Sahara Desert
12,098 Posts
Joined Aug 2006
Originally posted by cruising cockroach
Just got off the Celebrity Millennium a few days ago. Was claimed by the ship officers that the ship was quiet due to being powered by 2 gas turbines (claimed to be the marine equivalent of a 757 engine, so either a R-R or less likely, P&W engines). The other was a 16 cylinder Wartsilla diesel. All I heard for most of the cruise (a TPAC) was the rather-distinct thump of a large diesel, and this was in the top deck.
The diesels are usually down in the bowels of the ship because of the weight .
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Past
#27
Central Florida
625 Posts
Joined Feb 2006
Originally posted by wraithe
That's why you'll see airliners only use one engine to taxi now, and start the second engine just before turning onto the runway.

http://newatlas.com/go/3263/
I'm a retired pilot (B-757, B-767, B-727) and there's no way in hell I would roll onto the active for takeoff with one of my engines running for less than a minute. That is a recipe for a disaster, losing one on takeoff. We start up both engines right after pushback, dump the APU, and the pilot not taxiing keeps a close eye on the engine instruments to detect anything strange. Yes, after landing, we will occasionally shutdown one engine to save fuel.
#28
United States
1,452 Posts
Joined Jul 2014
Originally posted by TAD2005
I'm a retired pilot (B-757, B-767, B-727) and there's no way in hell I would roll onto the active for takeoff with one of my engines running for less than a minute. That is a recipe for a disaster, losing one on takeoff. We start up both engines right after pushback, dump the APU, and the pilot not taxiing keeps a close eye on the engine instruments to detect anything strange. Yes, after landing, we will occasionally shutdown one engine to save fuel.
Maybe at your airline.

But several airlines taxi on one, and start the other close to takeoff. Not one minute, but not more than maybe 5.

I am former AF, and alert birds can be in the air within 5 minutes of the call out. In the old days, I remember SAC aircraft were running down the runway within a minute or two of crew boarding.
#29
Central Florida
625 Posts
Joined Feb 2006
Originally posted by SRF
Maybe at your airline.

But several airlines taxi on one, and start the other close to takeoff. Not one minute, but not more than maybe 5.

I am former AF, and alert birds can be in the air within 5 minutes of the call out. In the old days, I remember SAC aircraft were running down the runway within a minute or two of crew boarding.
That single-engine taxi policy started with my carrier when the price of Jet-A went through the roof. Some carriers were also saving money by allowing reverse-thrust pushback from the gate. No tugs needed. That also stopped when the prices increased. Maintenance was not happy about full thrust TO's with a partially warmed engine. So, when the fuel cost dropped, the brass cancelled the single engine taxi policy. 5 minutes is a sufficient time for application of TO power, but unless there were very long delays getting to the business end of the active, we usually started both after tug release.
#30
United States
1,452 Posts
Joined Jul 2014
Like I said, different policies for different airlines.

I fly a lot for business, and a number of carriers, they obviously start another one on the taxi out. Yes, if there are no delays, they might start after push back.

AFAIK, power backs were only used on aircraft with tail mounted engines.

I just ride on a lot of airlines. I never wanted to be a bus driver.
#31
Central Florida
625 Posts
Joined Feb 2006
Originally posted by SRF
Like I said, different policies for different airlines.

I fly a lot for business, and a number of carriers, they obviously start another one on the taxi out. Yes, if there are no delays, they might start after push back.

AFAIK, power backs were only used on aircraft with tail mounted engines.

I just ride on a lot of airlines. I never wanted to be a bus driver.
Yes, we did reverse thrust push-backs only with the "3 holer" (B-727). The wing mounted engines would throw too much crud at the terminal due to their low mounting. Some airports squashed it in the notams for certain gates or terminals due to large glass windows. And I considered my 81,000 hours flying my passengers with zero incidents as much more than a "bus driver" and I'm damn proud of it. Some guys I flew with felt that way, and their attitude on the flight deck was definitely depressing. I bid different routes when I knew my FO had a "bus driver" attitude. But many times I had no choice. .
#32
United States
1,452 Posts
Joined Jul 2014
I did not mean bus driver as demeaning, but as a job satisfaction issue. Like an F1 driver switching to driving a Greyhound.

And too many hours on United, listing to the cockpit radios with HOURS of nothing but "is there a smoother altitude" calls.

81,000 hours? Wow, at an FAA max of 1,000 hours per year, you flew for 81 years. Not bad with a mandatory retirement at 65.

I have about 1,800 hours. But less than 1 hour total time on autopilot. All the rest hand flown. From a Super Cub to jets.
#33
Middle of the Sahara Desert
12,098 Posts
Joined Aug 2006
Originally posted by SRF
I did not mean bus driver as demeaning, but as a job satisfaction issue. Like an F1 driver switching to driving a Greyhound.

And too many hours on United, listing to the cockpit radios with HOURS of nothing but "is there a smoother altitude" calls.

81,000 hours? Wow, at an FAA max of 1,000 hours per year, you flew for 81 years. Not bad with a mandatory retirement at 65.

I have about 1,800 hours. But less than 1 hour total time on autopilot. All the rest hand flown. From a Super Cub to jets.
The FAA max is probably closer to 4000 miles per year . A 1000 hours is about 90 hours a month. Probably should be 90 hours every two weeks.
Expand Signature
Collapse Signature
Past
#34
Central Florida
625 Posts
Joined Feb 2006
Originally posted by SRF
I did not mean bus driver as demeaning, but as a job satisfaction issue. Like an F1 driver switching to driving a Greyhound.

And too many hours on United, listing to the cockpit radios with HOURS of nothing but "is there a smoother altitude" calls.

81,000 hours? Wow, at an FAA max of 1,000 hours per year, you flew for 81 years. Not bad with a mandatory retirement at 65.

I have about 1,800 hours. But less than 1 hour total time on autopilot. All the rest hand flown. From a Super Cub to jets.
I was speaking of DUTY HOURS, not flight hours. In my 31 years of airline flight, I averaged about 35 hours per week But before my airline career started, I flew privately starting at age 19, then commercially, towing banners along the FL beaches. Then thousands of hours of private and instrument instructor time, and business flying. I retired at 60, and I'm still flying today, an Aerostar 601P.
And I'm done with this thread, because there always seems to be a snarky comment. Let's let this thread get back to the OP's topic of ships, engines and fuel.
#35
United States
1,452 Posts
Joined Jul 2014
Originally posted by TAD2005
I was speaking of DUTY HOURS, not flight hours. In my 31 years of airline flight, I averaged about 35 hours per week But before my airline career started, I flew privately starting at age 19, then commercially, towing banners along the FL beaches. Then thousands of hours of private and instrument instructor time, and business flying. I retired at 60, and I'm still flying today, an Aerostar 601P.
And I'm done with this thread, because there always seems to be a snarky comment. Let's let this thread get back to the OP's topic of ships, engines and fuel.
Not trying to be snarky. Just wondering, as I have many active and retired airline friends. Never had one count duty hours. And they are mostly somewhere in the 20K hours.

I just knew that airline flying was not for ME. As I said, may friends who did it, and loved it. Including one, who has probably the most PIC 747 time ever. He started as PIC on 747 about age 30 and flew it as Captain for 30 years.

I am jealous, Aerostar is a sweet airplane.
#36
United States
1,452 Posts
Joined Jul 2014
Originally posted by Kamloops50
The FAA max is probably closer to 4000 miles per year . A 1000 hours is about 90 hours a month. Probably should be 90 hours every two weeks.
4000 miles? WHAT are you talking about?

FAA limits airline pilots to a maximum of 1000 flying hours per year. Look it up. PArt 121 regulations.