ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Ship info  (Read 13227 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mohammed Alhassan
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11



View Profile
« on: January 01, 2017, 06:14:02 pm »

Dear Friends,

Happy New Year. Please I've been trying to get the possible LDT of a Tanker known as MELILI details are on the link below. I need help please . I have tried for over a week. I only need the Light weight to help with a report

https://www.classnk.or.jp/register/regships/one_dsp.aspx?imo=8501634

Thank you/ Best regards
Mohammed
Report to moderator   Logged

There's always a solution  !!
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,927



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2017, 10:51:15 pm »

MELILLA (IMO 8501634) listed by IHS as 4835 LDT
Report to moderator   Logged
Mohammed Alhassan
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2017, 09:17:13 am »

Thank you My Brother. Happy new year
Report to moderator   Logged

There's always a solution  !!
seas2fly
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2017, 04:22:59 pm »

Guys just some question that confuses me, anyone can answer...
What is the basis that the ship is the biggest like for example the box/container ship, is it the GT, DWT or the TEU capacity?
How can we determine the ship is capable to carry TEU quantity?
Because, media reports is confusing which one is which?
Report to moderator   Logged
pieter melissen
Photo Corrections
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2017, 06:32:05 am »

Because the number of TEU is a commercial unit, (unlike GT which serves as basis for calculating all sorts of dues), the figure may vary considerably. It also has to do with the number of loaded TEU that a ship is able to carry before being full and down. Most of the time maximum number of TEU quoted relates to just the space that the containers take up and does not take into account the actual weight of the cargo. 
Report to moderator   Logged
deadwood
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2017, 02:45:24 pm »

I wonder why a ship's displacement hasn't been mentioned yet in the questioners query.
To me, especially the volumetric displacement (which liberates one of any assumptions about the water's properties, such as specifiv density), seems to be the most tangible and unbiased measurement of a ship's actual size.
Volumetric displacement in m^3,
(or even better still expressed as a dimensionless number like the block or the prismatic coefficient)
to me only seems to be prone to controversy over e.g. if one takes the shell and apandages into account, or if one sticks to the traditional calculation/integration based on moulded measurements (which gives the submerged volume without the shell).
Report to moderator   Logged
pieter melissen
Photo Corrections
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2017, 05:34:45 pm »

Displacement is a function of deadweight. The higher the deadweight, the higher is the displacemnt. However it does not offer a good insight in the size of the ship in terms of dimensions. A standard VLCC carries 320000 DWT these days so loaded displacement would be about  360000 tonnes. Typical dimensions are 330 meters overall, 60 metres wide and 30.50 depth.
A Triple E Maersk ship has a DWI of about 195000, same beam,same depth but roughtly 70 meters longer. Lightship would be probably around 40-45000, but I have no data on that.

So really displacement is not going to give you a proper size indication. And for more extrme figures, just look at cruise ships, which have hardly any deadweight to speak of.
Report to moderator   Logged
deadwood
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2017, 10:53:04 pm »

Hm, I would have rather thought that deadweight is a function of displacement.
But I might be mistaken, since I am totally uninitiated in ship design matters.
Report to moderator   Logged
pieter melissen
Photo Corrections
Home away from home
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 266


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2017, 07:06:32 am »

Well, by putting weight/cargo in a floating hull you increase its displacement.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mohammed Alhassan
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2018, 12:35:32 pm »

Dear Sir,
Kindly assist with possible light weight of the ships listed below.  We have a job to remove their wrecks but we can't find any documentation on the
1. IMO 7374436 SAPEN 1 *Raniya)
2. IMO 6908668 Flipper
Thanks
Report to moderator   Logged

There's always a solution  !!
Humberman1
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 16


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2018, 11:09:59 am »

From a 1985 Lloyds Register the net tonnages are 2,199 and 960 respectively. Are these wrecks in the Lagos area? Any photos would be appreciated.
Report to moderator   Logged
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,927



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2018, 01:16:23 pm »

Found light displacement figures for RANIYA/KAIKURA (IMO 7374436) = 1735 LDT
Nothing found for FLIPPER (IMO 6908668)

We would certainly be interested in new photographs of these or any other "oldies" in Nigeria.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2018, 01:36:41 pm by davidships » Report to moderator   Logged
Mohammed Alhassan
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2018, 02:20:33 pm »

Thank you very much my people. Very useful infomation for me. Merry Christmas.
Report to moderator   Logged

There's always a solution  !!
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.045 seconds with 19 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved