Manxman2000 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I did hear that Incat 050 will burn upto 50% more fuel than Viking, If true the fuel surcharge will be high from next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I did hear that Incat 050 will burn upto 50% more fuel than Viking, If true the fuel surcharge will be high from next year. Maybe they should consider going back to their real roots. Sails will save a fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Im not even anal but......as if you would get a wooden boat with fabric sails past the health and safety, just the mere mention of it would have them cacking their pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 do you get a discount if you bring your own oars ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I did hear that Incat 050 will burn upto 50% more fuel than Viking, If true the fuel surcharge will be high from next year. Maybe they should consider going back to their real roots. Sails will save a fortune. It is happening: http://skysails.info/index.php?id=8&L=1 Available for "cargo vessels and superyachts" i.e. the IOMSPC fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I did hear that Incat 050 will burn upto 50% more fuel than Viking, If true the fuel surcharge will be high from next year. Maybe they should consider going back to their real roots. Sails will save a fortune. It is happening: http://skysails.info/index.php?id=8&L=1 Available for "cargo vessels and superyachts" i.e. the IOMSPC fleet. Perhaps they can get Geoff (Jeebus! he's been so quiet I'd forgotten his name and had to look it up) Corkish - to go back to the steam packet to power it when the wind dies down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I did hear that Incat 050 will burn upto 50% more fuel than Viking, If true the fuel surcharge will be high from next year. Maybe they should consider going back to their real roots. Sails will save a fortune. It is happening: http://skysails.info/index.php?id=8&L=1 Available for "cargo vessels and superyachts" i.e. the IOMSPC fleet. Perhaps they can get Geoff (Jeebus! he's been so quiet I'd forgotten his name and had to look it up) Corkish - to go back to the steam packet to power it when the wind dies down. I think that this video explains the process he might have to participate in... http://www.cvps.com/cowpower/Cowpower_For_Web.wmv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 £15000 fuel for a round trip of what, 160 miles? Can't be true can it? Please tell me there's too many 0's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 £15000 fuel for a round trip of what, 160 miles? Can't be true can it? Please tell me there's too many 0's No, they are gas guzzlers - at £700 plus per ton of fuel, it doesn't take long for a trip to cost a fortune. Just like running a 4x4 really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 So thats over 21 tonnes for the round trip of 5 hours = over 4 tonnes an hour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 It would be fascinating to get some input from the IOMSPC on this fuel business: a) can they save fuel by reducing speed and therefore save the need for fuel surcharges and pollute less? b) will Incat 050 really burn up to 50% more fuel than Viking? After a brief flurry of comments Mark Woodward seems to have developed 'man overboard' syndrome and his IOMSPC blog has also become rather anodyne. Is he the sort of CEO who likes positive comments only? Hopefully not but it's looking that way at present. Maybe we need to have a Manxforum IOMSPC 'love-in'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Fascinated by this fuel burn. Does anyone know if 4 tonnes an hour is about right. What payload can the Seacat carry for burning this huge amount of fuel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Fascinated by this fuel burn. Does anyone know if 4 tonnes an hour is about right. What payload can the Seacat carry for burning this huge amount of fuel? http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/condor/ PROPULSION The Condor Express is powered by four 20-cylinder Ruston RK270 diesel engines, rated to reach 7,080kW. Each engine powers a Lips LJ145D waterjet mounted on the transom. Each of the drive trains incorporates a Renk ASL60 reduction gearbox. Steering, reversing and thrust vectoring of the waterjet nozzles are carried out by a Lipstronic Jet Control System, which also provides the autopilot system. Fuel consumption is 212g/kWh or 0.21l per passenger mile in full deadweight conditions at 44 knots. Two 230kW Caterpillar generators are located in each hull to provide the electrical power. This feeds associated independent main switchboards to provide the 415/240V three-phase AC supply and distribution. If I interpret this correctly it works out at about 1.5 tonnes per hour for 7,080kW. I am not sure if this represents the total output of the four engines. The Condor Express looks considerably bigger than the Snaefell. What I continue to wonder is what the fuel consumption is at different speeds - and whether there is an exponential reduction in consumption if the speed is reduced. I assume that the conventional hulled Ben would have quite different consumption figures (better or worse?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxman2000 Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 Could somebody phone or e-mail ask Mark Woodward if all this is true and if so where will the extra money come from? Stupid question, We are the Steam Packet's cash cow. MW on the radio this morning is reported to have said " with the agreement we have with the Manx Government we have no need to slow down to save fuel as other operators are doing" This must be a miss quote, even a fool would not admit to having stitched up the government with the user agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monasqueen Posted July 4, 2008 Share Posted July 4, 2008 I don't know how litres convert to tons to £, but I have found the following, which relates to one of 050's twin sisters - "Fuel consumption is 6,785 litres per hour at 100% MCR and 6,175 litres per hour at 90% MCR". "4 ..tanks of 40,000 litres gives a range of 900 nautical miles" Full article at http://www.cat.com/cda/files/255878/7/Bentayga.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.