Shipbucket

Therefore, when designing Imperia's stern, i brought into consideration the flat surface required for the azipods, the wider stern shape awarded to her by the transom and the overall aesthetic importance of the design by keeping the transom underwater.
Regards,
Mike.

_________________
Illustrator at Liner Designs
https://www.linerdesigns.com/

Alright, another one of my "uniformed layman" questions ... Wouldn't at least part of the transom need to be above the waterline for the ship to gain the benefits of having one, or for efficient operation of the azipods?

Not criticizing, just want to find out whether that is true, false or just another facepalm worthy comment from me.

_________________
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Seventh Doctor

I was considering this issue as well. Some sources say that a transom adds some degree of improvement to a ship's drag. Whatever the case, the inclusion of this feature on Imperia is purely to provide a flat and wide surface for the placement of azipods and to accommodate a wider stern. M.S Imperia has a larger portion of the hull underwater than Queen Mary 2, which is quite flat, yet wide and tall. Therefore, there is indeed space enough for the placement of something like the transom on Imperia below the waterline, not to gain the benefits of reduced drag or improved flotation, but simply for the reasons mentioned above and to improve aesthetic qualities.
Nevertheless, I am quite interested in hearing what other purposes the transom on such a ship like QM2 serves, and what the benefits are of having it above the waterline.
Kind regards,
Mike.

_________________
Illustrator at Liner Designs
https://www.linerdesigns.com/

While not to ship-bucket standard yet, (I will modify it soon to comply with the rules)
Here is the first liner of the series, "Imperia".


Regards,
Mike.

_________________
Illustrator at Liner Designs
https://www.linerdesigns.com/

those midship thrusters are more or less useless, and the bow thrusters are somewhat high.
the masts will get you problems with bridges, and that huge height is useless.
the bilge keels are not following the shape of the hull (or you have used an oil tanker hull) and have more length then needed
the stern you have now has the disadvantages of both stern shapes, instead of the advantages
your waterline should be an straight line

other then that, good work!

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Thanks mate. I'll set about fixing those quickly.
As for the stern shape, what do you recommend instead?
Regards,
Mike.

_________________
Illustrator at Liner Designs
https://www.linerdesigns.com/

an regular transom. I know, not the looker, and if you want an classic looking ship, I suggest using something like the QM2..... or keeping the extra drag and cost that comes with an traditional stern. you will need something to flatten your bottom then near the azipod position though....

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

Looks like I'll have to do the "QM2 Compromise". :/
Regards,
Mike.

_________________
Illustrator at Liner Designs
https://www.linerdesigns.com/

This is one of the things that new people tend to realize/learn after not to long (please don't take this the wrong way, learning is a wonderful thing).

Real world designs tend to look the way they do because they work. One-off designs tend to be one-offs because something didn't work right.

I will say this - I like her lines.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

That's fine, I know nothing of modern shipbuilding in comparison to my knowledge of older designs, so I'm learning as I go.
Regards,
Mike.

_________________
Illustrator at Liner Designs
https://www.linerdesigns.com/