Qv 8002

Queen Victoria

Just got my cabin assignment today.(8002 on deck 8)

Anyone have any experience with cat. cabin.

Location is foward under the spa.

Info is that cabin in this cat.range from 240-450 sq ft.

Is it on the small end or the large end of the range?

Any info is welcomed.

Thanks

We had 8001 last year, which is directly opposite 8002, and it was next to the officers' accommodation.

I don't know the square footage of it but I think the 450 sq ft will refer to the corner balcony cabins which have extra space at one end.

Please see this link for more information on my cabin

http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1343323

Queen Victoria

Just got my cabin assignment today.(8002 on deck 8)

Anyone have any experience with cat. cabin.

Location is foward under the spa.

Info is that cabin in this cat.range from 240-450 sq ft.

Is it on the small end or the large end of the range?

Any info is welcomed.

Thanks

Well - I posted on our Roll Call for this trip that I got room 8003 and was asking on that roll call what anyone knew of that. Appears we will be neighbors!

Based on the deck plan, it appears it could be a little larger since it is on the push out of the ship vs. the push in in the center.

Based on the deck plan, it appears it could be a little larger since it is on the push out of the ship vs. the push in in the center.

We've had both and the cabins were the same size. It's the corridors that go in and out as well.

We had 8001 back in 2009 and it was fine. We had our teenage grandaughter with us and the settee converted to a third bed. I think it is one of the cabins listed as three birth. Don't worry about it being to far forward - you won't notice any difference to elsewhere as far as pitching and rolling is concerned - unless it gets very very stormy. We were on QM2 in the Bay of Biscay in 2008 and 1000 people were sea sick. It wasn't very rough but there was a side-on swell which caused the ship to have a twisting motion. Glad to say my wife and I weren't affected. She did develope an attack of vertigo a day or so later though and whilst everything else had settled down she was the only one who couldn't walk in a straight line lol.

We had 8001 back in 2009 and it was fine. We had our teenage grandaughter with us and the settee converted to a third bed. I think it is one of the cabins listed as three birth. Don't worry about it being to far forward - you won't notice any difference to elsewhere as far as pitching and rolling is concerned - unless it gets very very stormy. We were on QM2 in the Bay of Biscay in 2008 and 1000 people were sea sick. It wasn't very rough but there was a side-on swell which caused the ship to have a twisting motion. Glad to say my wife and I weren't affected. She did develope an attack of vertigo a day or so later though and whilst everything else had settled down she was the only one who couldn't walk in a straight line lol.

Not wishing to put anyone off, but you can't really compare the sailing quzalities of QM2 and QV, the former is a well stabilised ocean liner, built specifically for the seas of the North Atlantic whereas the QV has often been described as a flat bottomed tub. It doesn't sail badly but the QM2 is streets ahead, sailing wise. They are both very nice ships and I do hope that the OP enjoys the trip.

Not wishing to put anyone off, but you can't really compare the sailing quzalities of QM2 and QV, the former is a well stabilised ocean liner, built specifically for the seas of the North Atlantic whereas the QV has often been described as a flat bottomed tub. It doesn't sail badly but the QM2 is streets ahead, sailing wise. They are both very nice ships and I do hope that the OP enjoys the trip.

QM2 is also flat bottomed. So what?

I have heard it said by people whom I respect that not only is QV in some ways superior (que sea boat) to QE2 but that QE did as well as QM2 on her maiden transatlantic.

QM2 does of course act as a huge sail at times, which must make some difference.

I think the essential difference is that QM2 can maintain speed when QE/QV may not be able to, and that she'll be crossing when the Vistas are razor blades.

The Vistas are fine ships.

WD

QM2 is also flat bottomed. So what?

The Vistas are fine ships.

I do believe that the QM2 has a keel, perhaps I am wrong. I have been on both and it is my opinion that the QM2 handles the larger seas better than QV. I did say that both are nice ships, and the QV has often been described as a flat bottomed tub. I am not against Vista class ships but am just offering my view. I do hope that you will allow me to do that.

Based on the model back by the Queens Room I'd classify the QM2 as flat-bottomed. Looking forward to comparing the QV's "ride."

I do believe that the QM2 has a keel, perhaps I am wrong.

All ships have keels.

And of course you are welcome to your opinion.

WD

Found this on the internet, it might help explain.;)

All modern ships have flat bottomed hulls so they can stand in a dr-dock without support. An 'Ocean Liner' like QM2 has a much deeper draft (depth of hull) than a regular cruise ship, but she still has a flat bottom.

The squared-off feature at the QM2's bow above the waterline IS NOT representative of her underwater hull shape.

"Stephen Payne's (QM2's designer) initial intent was to make the ship's stern profile with a spoon shape, similar to that on most previous ocean liners, but the mounting of the propeller pods required a flat transom. The compromise was a Constanzi stern – a combination of the two. The final design was agreed upon, as a Constanzi stern provides the transom required for azimuthal pod propulsion, and provides better seaholding characteristics in a following swell than a standard transom stern".

Below are her four 'Azi-Pods'. The rear two can swivel 360 degrees, making her very manoeuvrable and eliminating the need for a movable rudder. Each Pod weighs the same as a fully laden 747 jet. The stainless steel variable pitch screws are driven by VERY BIG electric motors housed in each pods (under water). There are no drive shafts passing into the hull to cause noise and vibration.

Also found this

"The hull is perhaps the most immediately impressive part of the Queen Mary 2. In contrast to the typical white hulls of the Caribbean cruise ships, the immense black hull of the new Cunarder will be, without doubt, one of her identity signs. This hull, designed and built for the North Atlantic run, is different from various points of view. It is higher than the conventional cruise ships, better suited for Mediterranean and Caribbean sailings. Thus, the height from the keel to the freeboard deck forward is over 22 meters (71½ feet). The steel work, which is composed of 300,000 metallic pieces and weighs 50,000 tons, was grouped in 94 blocks, some of them of 600 tons weight. This required 15,000 kilometers of welding, completed in less than a year, to build the ship. Furthermore, the hull has strength far exceeding the norm, which means than in some areas steel of 10 millimetres of thickness was used and is designed with a fatigue life of 40 years, 10 more than a normal cruise ship".

The squared-off feature at the QM2's bow above the waterline IS NOT representative of her underwater hull shape.

I had heard the "spoon" explanation earlier and the picture helps explain that.

If you mean "stern" rather than "bow" above I understand your point better.

I had heard the "spoon" explanation earlier and the picture helps explain that.

If you mean "stern" rather than "bow" above I understand your point better.

Hi, the words are not mine so I don't know if the writer means the bow or the stern. I posted the quotes and pictures as I thought it might help clarify the discussion on the hull attributes, I apologise if it has just muddied the waters even more.

OK, I just can see the squared-off stern in the water, but I've never been able to discern a squared-off bow on the QM2.