Everything Old is new again - Flettner Rotor Ship is launched

If you pedalled and went somewhere, then stopped peddling and didnt - I bet there isnt a transport inspector who would have enough knowledge to say it was a sail boat

 

An unscrupulous fat farm owner could have a lower deck with dozens of exercise bikes to power his lake yacht's rotors.

Hey, it isn't (galley) slavery if they are paying to be there.

 

Another site: http://windpowerships.com/en/

Btw, this might be of some interest - designs for flying cars with use of Magnus effect:
http://www.icar-101.com/icar/index.php
http://www.designboom.com/technology/icar-flying-vehicle/

 

Greta find 1J1

With the growth of web designs, maybe something will burst out into relaity one day

 

But perhaps there is one with enough knowledge to say it isn't one. One who would notice it doesn't have a sail. That's the one you need to find. Of course it does have a mast. If I take the sails off my boat, it is still a sail boat. But if I take the mast off it, it isn't. So it is a bit of a conundrum.

Of course it is up to you to dispute what the officer decides. They don't need knowledge, they just need an ink pen. Experience suggests that the initial determination will favor the option that generates the most revenue.

 

Regarding the flying car designs - looks like this one is pretty promising to happen in to at least a RC model someday:






From https://www.facebook.com/iCar.101.PoP

 

Already lots of Flettner RC models

 

Yes, I mean that hopefully they won't stay at CGI's but will move further to making actual models & more.

 

Back on topic. Not sure if the concept of an autonomous cloud seeding rotor ship was mentioned here, here's a some (is it real or CGI?) pic of such one:



Also, detailed drawing of such ship: https://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Flettner ship/side no fences.jpg

And more stuff at https://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Flettner ship/

 

yeah, that is mentioned a few times. They built a real prototype boat that worked OK

 

Does it really matters that if a ship would have 2 or more rotors, all of them should be of the same size?
If the rotors are placed at sides - it should be symmetrically from centerline & equal number of rotors per side? I saw a pic where the ship had a row of rotors only on her port side.
Any flaws in arrangement if bow rotor is placed on starboard but aft rotor on port side?

 

There are some small performance issues, but considering the ease of unloading from a clear side, not a big deal.

Unlike conventional sails, there is not a huge pressure from the wind on Port or Starboard - the thrust is straight ahead, and not trying to make the boat list to one side or the other. In fact, the boat tends to claw itself upright into the direction of the wind, so having rotors down one side is very practical.

Two rotors or more makes it a bit easier to balance the wind pressure on the hull, but its not a crucial issue.

 

I see http://www.monorotor.com/ patented their invention - infos & interesting construction of their rotors: http://www.google.com/patents/US8776705

 

Looks like they are using two rotors too - probably easier to maneuver that way, but it restricts forward visibility. I suppose CCTV monitors would help

 

An alternative solution is revert to bridge forward superstructures.
Out of favor because of increased cost of wiring from aft engine room to forward house, and two separate sewage/graywater treatment systems, and additional lifesaving apparatus for two manned extremes of vessel..
If economy of stacking everything vertically above engineroom is outweighed by propulsion economy of Flettner rotors, and visibility concerns, the forward superstructure may once again come into vogue.
It's a safer design, because of shorter bowshadow.
Almost all Seagoing Tugs and Oilfield Supply Vessels have forward bridges, so seaworthiness isn't a concern.

Pictured is one of my favorite ships, I served aboard 4 years during early/mid 70's.
Originally a WWII Victory ship, converted and lengthened (twice) into a Great Lakes Ore Freighter.

"
CLIFFS VICTORY

CLIFFS VICTORY, US.247522, Lake Bulk Freighter. Built in 1945 as a VC2-S-AP3 "Victory" cargo ship for the U.S. Maritime Commission (U.S.M.C. contract number MC c34763) by the Oregon Shipbuilding Corp., Portland, OR as Hull #1229 (U.S.M.C. #175) at a cost of $2,618,000. Her keel was laid on January 26, 1945 and was launched 42 days later on March 9, 1945 as a) NOTRE DAME VICTORY. 455’loa 436’6"lbp x 62’x 38’; 7606 GRT, 4549 NRT, 10,750 dwt at 25'8" draft. Powered by a 9,350 shp double reduction geared, cross--compound steam turbine built by the Joshua Hendy Iron Works, San Francisco, CA and two oil-fired Babcock & Wilcox boilers, with a total heating surface of 16,260 sq.ft."

" The first such conversion occurred when the Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co. of Cleveland, OH bought the NOTRE DAME VICTORY on December 10, 1950. They had her towed from the James River on December 19th and arriving January 2nd at the Key Highway yard of Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Ship Building Division at Baltimore, Md. There she was cut in two just forward of her mid-ship engine room in order to add a 165'6" new mid-section which had been built nearby at Bethlehem's Sparrows Point yard. In addition the engine was overhauled, side tanks were added, the spar deck, holds and deck houses were built or rebuilt to conform to Great Lakes standards. Her reconstruction was unusual in that she retained a shallow hold and five deck hatches aft of her rear cabin structure. She was unique for having two traveling hatch cranes and a propeller shaft alley through her after hold. She was floated from the drydock on March 21, 1951, three months and two days after she entered the dock, and was rechristened b) CLIFFS VICTORY. New dimensions: 619’loa, 601’lbp x 62’x 38’; 9305 GRT, 6203 NRT, 14,500 dwt."

"She sailed on her maiden voyage light from South Chicago on June 4, 1951 bound for Marquette, MI where she loaded 13,089 gross tons of iron ore on June 6th. Her downbound delivery trip to Cleveland, OH took only 38 hours, normally a 55 to 60 hour run for other lakers, and averaged over 13.9 knots (16 mph). The speed necessary to outrun enemy submarines during the war was 20 knots (23 mph) which the CLIFFS VICTORY was able to attain in open waters. She was the fastest bulk freighter on the Great Lakes, which helped because of her relatively small cubic capacity, until the GIRDLER Class C-4 conversions arrived on the Lakes. Classic unofficial races reportedly occurred throughout the Lakes between these eventual fleetmates with the CHARLES M. WHITE being declared the fastest in 1953 by the Cleveland papers. The CLIFFS VICTORY did better the WHITE’s time from Sault Ste. Marie to Duluth, MN by two minutes on May 24, 1953 when she logged a time of 17 hours and 50 minutes."

"The CLIFFS VICTORY was returned to AmShip's South Chicago yard to be lengthened 96 feet over the winter of 1956-57 by adding a fifth cargo hold forward of her engine room. Her new dimensions were: 716’3"loa, 698’5"lbp x 62’x 38’; 11,151 GRT, 7309 NRT, 17,600 dwt. On June 30, 1962 she made her first trip down the Welland Canal with a load of iron ore for Hamilton, Ont. An Amthrust bow-thruster was installed in early 1964 at AmShip's Lorain shipyard"

. " finally arrived at Masan, South Korea December 22, 1986 for dismantling there which was completed in 1987. It is a bit ironic that the VICTORY should end her sailing career in the country that was most responsible for giving her a second life on the Great Lakes."

http://www.mhsd.org/publications/a&f2/cliffaf.htm