Jump to content

Talk:Seawise Giant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prelude now worlds largest floating vessel ever

[edit]

Prelude is joined. At a length of 1601 ft the Prelude (owned by Shell) is the longest floating vessel ever. 243 ft wide. 600,000 metric tonnes laden. mickrussom (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Prelude is certainly longer, but I don't think it can be regarded as a "ship" since it has no means of propelling itself of which I am aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.173.62 (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]
  • Article says this in the section "The Ship":
    The ship sails under the flag of Singapore. She is crewed by 40 people.

    However, the ship dosen't sail anymore and is permanently moored, as mentioned later in the article.

    According to the data in the following website, the ship has been carrying the Norwegian flag since 1979.
    http://supertankers.topcities.com/id132.htm

    The only involvement of Singapore in with Knock Nevis is when Keppel Shipyard repaired the wreck after Iraqi jets bombed the ship.

    I have removed the reference to the Singapore flag untill someone can present evidence of the ship sailing under the Singapore flag. --Pavithran 13:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Class Society DNV at https://exchange.dnv.com/exchange/main.aspx?extool=vessel&subview=registry&imono=7381154 it is Singapore. Also Equasis at http://www.equasis.org/equasis/affiche.build_page_2?P_IMO=7381154&P_SHIP_MANAGER=1448869&Z_CHK=30123 shows Singapore.Offshore1 19:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Hong Kong category?--ZorroIII 12:01, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

[edit]

Maybe it Google took a new photo when the ship wasn't it? Or maybe I'm looking at the wrong thing. Riobranden 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency / Gulf War Damage

[edit]

In the first paragraph the Iranian Airforce is supposed to have damaged the ship. Later in the article the blame is shouldered by the Iraqi Airforce. Is this verifiable? --203.187.212.153 23:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like it should be verifiable. Article also states she "She sank and was declared a total loss" [per http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/jahre-viking.htm ] states " hit by the Iraqis on 14 May 1988 while transiting the Hormuz Straits. She was declared a total constructive loss and laid up in Brunei Bay"-- That is conflicting in my opinion. In my opinion the Hormuz Straits is a small particular area-- to far and unlikely to have been hit by Iraqi aircraft in this area. Quite likely hit by Iranians. That does not state she sank. I doubt she sank. Potentially she suffered damage to incur flooding and settle onto the bottom in a "relatively shallow" area (remember the 80+ foot draft). If she had really sank in semi-deep waters, we would all remember and media would have made it a major story. - Or even if she had "grounded the way I suggest. Many tankers damaged in that era/war was damage to the superstructure /deck-house or a few hull puncture rounds through skin of hull into tanks. --24.245.105.165 (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have to disappoint you but the ship on Google Maps/Google Earth is not the Knock Nevis. I therefore removed the link.

There are quiet a few things that let me draw this conclusion:

  1. The ship on GM/GE is too small. The article states she is 458 by 69 meters but the ship on GM/GE is only 331 by 57 meters
  2. Judging by the several photos the article points to, there are the following clues:
    • The mid ships piping abeam (across) of the sat photos ship count 3 but the Knock Nevis has 4
    • The sat photo ship shows two white towers from the piping midships towards the bow. The are no such towers on the Knock Nevis
    • The sat photo ship shows capstans at an angle while those of the Knock Nevis are straight abeam
    • The sat photo ship does not show the gill like structures along both sides of the ships deck which the Knock Nevis shows

The are a couple of other differences but those above should convince everyone that the satellite picture does not show the Knock Nevis - the most important should be the difference in size.

Here's the original link on Google Maps, coordinates 25°16'42.94"N, 55°15'2.84"E: Link

English Channel

[edit]

The English Channel has an average depth of 63 m (207 ft) and it's Max width is 240 km (150 mi). Even if the Seawise Giant were to be fully loaded and have a draft of 24.6 m (81 ft), she would still have enough clearance to navigate through the channel. Unless a valid source is presented where it shows that the vessel could not be navigated through the channel, this remains a dubious claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.63.110.9 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The average depth is meaningless, it's the shallowest part that dictates the size of ship that can pass. 82.46.109.233 (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page for the English Channel, the shallowest part is around 85 ft., so it's totally possible for a fully loaded Knock Nevis to get stuck, or at the very least, not be allowed to attempt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.24.34 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auto writes: There is no reason the Seawise Giant could not have visited Europoort, Rotterdam. Her draft meant that she would have needed to cross the shallowest points when the tide was above chart datum ('Chart Datum' is normally very close to the lowest water level caused by tide - Lowest Astronomical Tide; and is the 'low point' from which depths are measured). With tide heights in the English Channel exceeding - from memory - five metres, there should be no problem at all. I note that one of the shallowest points in the whole English Channel - not just the shipping lanes - is Brighton Beach. The Seawise Giant - under whatever name - certainly did visit Antifer, which is close to the mouth of the Seine; half-way, or so, up the English Channel. Antifer was built, at least in part, for the Batillus-class ships to discharge in France. Auto wrote 2039 Z, 03 February 2017. 86.179.75.195 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current location

[edit]

The ship is under contract to Maersk Oil in Qatar until mid-2007, apparently in the Al-Shaheen oil field, which is northeast of Qatar's land. Google Maps apparently does not have good enough resolution to show the ship in that area. JonathanFreed 05:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest?

[edit]

Anyone know if the Knock Nevis is self-propelled after her conversion? That is, is her steam plant still in operation? If not, then she is not listed in Lloyd's Register of Ships and the title of world's largest ship would be held by the four TI Europe class ULCCs.Mytg8 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the Batilus class vessels were scrapped... which leaves Knock Nevis as largest. Or do you mean TI Oceana? Go to that link and it recognises Knock Nevis as larger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.16.174 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steam plant in use?

[edit]

FSO Knock Nevis steam plant is still in operation and is regularly being used during mooring operation with export tanker to keep her in place. This is also part of the emergency procedures, which means she is able disconnect import/export hoses and mooring hawser and sail away on her own power.

NO SMOKING

[edit]

That must be one of the largest no smoking signs in the world. I dare, nay, I challenge anyone to find one that is bigger. Actually, perhaps there should be an article for the largest sign in the world... Mk623SC20K 22:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge met and destroyed! http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/nullarbor-logo-zone/2006/12/13/1165685690455.html

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.36.236 (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

but still gotta be world's largest no smoking sign, ya?
Cramyourspam (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison Image

[edit]
Click image for list of items included

Greetings, I created the comparison image to the left, and I originally added it to this page in Feb 2007, only to have it removed because apparently it is "ridiculous".. Can I please have some opinions/comments? Apparently including arguably the most well known sci-fi spaceship makes the entire thing "ridiculous"? - Fosnez 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you understand why including a fictional object might expose your compariaon to ridicule? Whay not include the Yellow Brick Road as well? Apart from the spacecraft it is actually quite informative. Why not replace it with a real spacecraft, or the Hindenburg? or a large aircraft? Greglocock 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very nice image, but I agree. Remove the starship or replace it and it would make a very good addition to the article.Mytg8 15:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


New version uploaded, but now I see there is already one on the page.. what to do?? Fosnez 12:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Map Coordinates

[edit]

The coordinates listed in the article are in the middle of the ocean which Google maps doesn't render. HOWEVER, south west of that location (near Qatar) is a port where a large craft appears to be moored. The coordinates are 25.933680, 51.598535. I'm going to edit the page to reflect this change.Kakomu 06:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLW? (Gross Laden Weight) etc.

[edit]

This is (or was) a oil tanker, not an eighteen wheeler. The Knock Nevis has gross registered tonnage of 260,941 grt, a net registered tonnage of 214,793 nrt, a deadweight (weight of cargo/fuel/supplies etc.) of 564,650 dwt and a displacement (maximum total weight) of 647,955 t. The first two of these measurements are of volume (100 cubic feet equals one gross or net ton) and the latter two measurements are of mass in metric tonnes. It appears that the figure for GLW was derived by adding the figures for grt and deadweight tons together. As this is combining apples and oranges (or rather volume and mass) the figure is meaningless. In the final analysis, only trucks have a GLW, not ships.--Sadowski (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autochthony writes. " . . . . her displacement was 657,019 tonnes . . . " from the article [on 2 Feb 2011]. I presume that that was her Summer Displacement? Tropical ditto would be several thousand [?? 12,000 ???] greater.

By the way, it may be - I have no data - that this vessel - call her what you will - had the largest waterplane area, and so the highest Tonnage Per Centimetre Immersion [TPCI] of any vessel ever built. Autochthony wrote - 2 Feb 2011, at 2050z. 86.129.157.144 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weight

[edit]

No way does this ship weigh 236000 GT, that would be 236 trillion tonnes, enough for a steel block 31 x 31 x 31 km. --90.211.128.237 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it refers to gross tonnage. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

numbers do not add up

[edit]

The article mixes long tons (2240 pounds / 1016 kg approx) and metric tonnes (1000kg).

Lightship displacement (i.e mass of ship without cargo, fuel, crew etc) quoted as 81,879 long tons Full load displacement (i.e mass of ship plus cargo, fuel etc) quoted as 646,642 long tons

If this is the case then the deadweight (i.e mass of cargo, fuel etc ) should be the difference between these i.e 564,763 long tons.

But the deadweight is quoted as 564,763 metric tonnes (equivalent to 555,843 long tons). Same number, inconsistent unit?

It seems a bit like pedantry but if we are looking at the largest ship ever built then the numbers do need to be right. I have trawled the internet but cannot find any real consistency with these numbers as definitions of weight/tonnage/displacement are tricky and seem to be readily misquoted or misinterpreted.

Suggest Displacement 646,642 long tons (correctly converted to 657,019 tonnes), deadweight 555,843 long tons ( converted from quoted 564,763 tonnes). This leaves Lightship displacement as the difference; 90,799 long tons (92,256 tonnes) not the 81,879 tons quoted.

There is clearly 9,000 tons difference so I don't want to edit the article by swapping an error with another one. If anyone knows the correct values for all three.....

Conversion used: 1 long ton (2240 pounds) = 1.016046909 tonnes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firthwood14 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery

[edit]

This image is from only five days after the conversion was completed, there is a really large tanker here, could that be it? http://www.terraserver.com/view.asp?cx=325421.746447646&cy=2793757.07137899&proj=32640&mpp=7.5&pic=-1&prov=-1&stac=-1&styp=AD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.21.14 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs an update - the job in Al Shaheen field is over

[edit]

FSO "Knock Nevis" demobilized from the Al Shaheen field, Qatar on contract expiry on 12th August. The USD 2 million end of up grade project bonus was received from the client. The unit sailed to Fujairah and arrived mid September and is currently undergoing tank cleaning and de-mucking, scheduled to be completed before year end 2009. There is a dispute with the previous client regarding conditions at redelivery of the vessel. The Company is marketing "Knock Nevis" for future opportunities world-wide - scrapping is also a possible scenario. (from http://www.bluepulz.com/?Id=1864) (See also: http://www.na24.no/imarkedet/article2742753.ece (Norwegian)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.111.246 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the Seawise Giant/Jahre Viking/Knock Nevis?

[edit]

Sad reports from southwest Asia: http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=thread&topic_id=6996&forum=1&post_id=40716#40716 The Knock Nevis has been renamed "Mont" and is headed to Bhavnagar, India on her way to the breakers at Alang beach. End of an era. Mytg8 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sob Sob) sooo sad to see it go, after all these years the largest ship that ever existed will no longer be with us and BTW it deserves more media coverage!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.204.236 (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a great shame that a ship that the largest ship ever built (according to most standards at least) will no longer be among us. This ship that has endured for three decades, went through a brutal war, was sunk, and was renamed five times over its long career is now going to be cut apart. this signifies an end not only for this ship but the end of an era. no longer will ultra large crude carriers plow there way through the waves providing to provide us with the lifeblood of out economy and infrastructure already have the Bautillus class and the Esso Atlantic class tankers made their journey to the scrap yards. Knock Nevis was lucky enough to outlive all of them but now everything has its time and for the benefit of the steel industry the ship will now be recycled. This has truly ended and era indeed. there will never bee a ship like the Knock Nevis/Jahre Viking/Happy Giant/Seawise Giant/Mont. This ship has left a great legacy and a many records that may be broke in the future —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.27.101 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming article?

[edit]

Since the ship is beached and in the process of being scrapped, I wonder what the article name should be. She was only named Knock Nevis for about 5 years of the 30 she was in service, and her last name was actually "Mont". Would it be appropriate to name the article "Seawise Giant" or "Jahre Viking" and redirect the other names? After all, that was what she was registered as most of her working life.Mytg8 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, does the name Knock Nevis mean anything in Norwegian?Mytg8 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am aware of. It seems that there are other ships that have the first word Knock but I don't think it means anything. I admit I may be wrong--99.141.194.185 (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can confirm that "Knock Nevis" means absolutely nothing in Norwegian; it sounds more English than anything to a Norwegian ear - we wouldn't even know how to pronounce it. I'm not an expert on this ship but I don't believe the motivations for naming her Knock Nevis came from a Norwegian source. Nimloth250 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Nimloth250[reply]

Sad to see it go; surprised at the little attention it got

[edit]

I didn't mean for my last edits to come off as vandalism; sorry. Honestly, though, I am surprised that a Flick Search only brings up a few pictures from "everyday people" or people who work on it. And there is NO findable video coverage/"bootleg" footage. Not necessarily too late if it will be broken slowly, but I guess I'll never get to see it in real life.

Here are the Flickr results; http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=knock%20nevis&w=all check out the helicopter shot; http://www.flickr.com/photos/mortan/3671468974/. Wow, I wish whoever that was took more pictures; it's a high quality shot, too, not some cell phone catch. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it nobody seems to care that this has happened, this should be relatively important news that the largest ship in the world and the largest ship ever will no longer be the same ship, at least it is highly unlikely unless we go into an oil crisis again like 1973, which triggered the building of the Batillus class supertankers. couldent we at least get more than one little picture of the ship at Alang--99.141.194.185 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable Contradictions

[edit]

the draught in the first paragraph is 26 meters while in the infobox with another reference it's 30 meters; and the Batallius class ships also claim a 30 foot draught which would make them just as much or more unnavigable as the Nevis. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. The infobox data is actually the depth of the ship, not the draft. Changed it to say so.Mytg8 (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current location due to scrapping

[edit]

Current location is Plot V1 of the Alang Ship Breaking Yard [1]. This ship can be viewed during the scrapping process at coordinates 21°25'05.02 N 72°12'26.53 W per image provided by Digital Globe 2010 in Google Earth. Image may be viewed in Google Maps at the following link:

[ http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=21.417824,72.20797&z=17&t=h&hl=en]

208.75.96.66 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Jodie S.[reply]

Yes, the problem is when and if Google Earth will update the view. The present view was taken in 2004 and it may be years before its replaced.Mytg8 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ship viewed is not the Knock Nevis, that ship has been there for some time and it is impossible that they could have gotten to scrapping that quickly. When will the next update on Google maps be? I hope its soon because the ship is being slowly eaten away as we speak.--99.141.194.185 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MV? Mont

[edit]

What's with the MV? She wasn't a motor vessel; she was a steamship. Chasrob (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know and don't care! The article should be changed back to the original name, either Knock Nevis or Seawise Giant. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MV Mont → Seawise Giant

  • This ship has had many names. The last 'Mont', was just a name for her on her way to the scrapyard. My opinion is change the name to what she was best known as--eg, 'Seawise Giant' or 'Jahre Viking'.
  • I think 'Seawise Giant' is appropriate--it was the name given her by her original owner who conceived of the project. Mytg8 (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose: she was more widely known as Knock Nevis than nom. --emerson7 16:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • concur: Knock Nevis was her name as a storage barge. Not much difference than Mont. How do you know it's 'more widely known?' Chasrob (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment:one simple gauge is that nearly all of the interwikis use Knock Nevis.
a quick google search:
Knock Nevis 167,000 results
Jahre Viking 131,000 results
Seawise Giant 37,700 results
--emerson7 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
true...but that's why wp:name suggests usage of common name. --emerson7 22:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you're missing the point. What I was attempting to get across is that the common name may not necessarily be the one that Google throws up. Google has its limitations in determining the common name, particularly when you are dealing with a period before widespread Internet use. What does Google Books, which would include books from earlier periods, give? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done a quick Google Books search, which sort of makes my point, as Knock Nevis moves from being the most common name to the least of the three (it's impossible to do a quick search for Mont as it throws up far too many hits that have nothing to do with the ship):
Jahre Viking: 331 hits
Knock Nevis: 134 hits
Seawise Giant: 355 hits
  • Skinsmoke (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Knock Nevis rather than a name not used for 20 years. --emerson7 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting how emerson7 changes his/her argument as soon as the search results go against his/her preferred name! He/she really can't have it both ways. Either we go for the most common use in English, or we go for the latest name, but we certainly don't chose article titles on the basis that I like this name the most. The standard Google search that emerson7 quoted above seems to be seriously flawed. A search in English, excluding Wikipedia, gives:
Jahre Viking: 5,840 hits
Knock Nevis: 11,100 hits
Seawise Giant: 1,900 hits
  • That, of course, will be skewed by the fact that there was no Internet when the ship was known as Seawise Giant (and you would expect that it would have received considerable news coverage, and therefore been most widely known at that time, as the largest ship ever built). I don't have a particular preference on this one, but if we can't determine the most common name in English, I would suggest we leave it at the most recent name held by the vessel, which would be MV Mont. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • um...no...perhaps i wasn't clear...my initial opposition was for Seawise Giant, ie nom ...and suggested Knock Nevis. i still think she is more commonly known as Knock Nevis for all the reasons i previously stated above. i didn't think it necessary to comment on each of her previous names. in fact...all standard searches will be flawed. the book search is skewed towards the previous name(s), because the ship was more relevant/novel then. as the ship aged and the novelty wore off, other vessels became more interesting for different reasons...and who wants to write about a has-been? --emerson7 12:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing my point--whatever a popularity contest you make of her names--as the Knock Nevis, she was not a supertanker, not a ULCC as claimed in the first paragraph. She was a FSO, a glorified storage barge, permanently anchored in the Arabian Gulf. She was in this capacity for 5, 6 years whereas she was an ocean-going ship, trading on the high seas as the Seawise Giant and Jahre Viking for more than 20 years. BTW, she was the S.S. Mont, not a motor vessel and that only on her last short voyage to the breakers.Chasrob (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanding on my reasons for naming the article 'Seawise Giant'-
    Her existence was entirely because of C.Y. Tung, a ship owner in his time as famous as Onassis. He bought an ordinary ULCC that nobody wanted and rebuilt, jumboized her into the largest ship ever built. And named her the 'Seawise Giant'. During her sea-going career, she was about equally known as either that or 'Jahre Viking'. I think that 'Seawise Giant' is more meaningful for the title of the article, since that was the name given by the man who conceived of her to begin with. Mytg8 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

mathematics error

[edit]

8 kilometres is just under 5 miles, it's not 5 and a half miles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.129.209 (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I CHECKED THE video, The mistake was made by the captain, not the user who wrote the info down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.97.134 (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are these really not nautical miles? —208.54.87.157 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Relevant Search Scotland source says 3½ miles. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

8 kilometers (km) per hour is equal to 4.32 miles (International, nautical) per hour. 173.86.46.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

move

[edit]

I moved it to porthos because it should be knock nevis. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Voyage

[edit]

So, the final voyage was December 2009 or Jan 2010? The article contradicts itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.75.114.165 (talk) 01:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depths in English Channel

[edit]

Published sailing directions indicate that it would be unwise or even dangerous to attempt to take a vessel of >22m draft through the English Channel. Hence, Jahre Viking could not safely navigate the channel. See this link for sailing directions :

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/SD/Pub191/Pub191bk.pdf#page124

86.137.14.36 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The doubts were raised by an anonymous editor and not backed up by anything except personal opinion and flawed reasoning. We now have one reliable source plus confirmation. I suggest we remove the "dubious" template. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auto writes: Ships of 22 metres draft regularly sailed up the English Channel to Europoort, Rotterdam. The entry Channel there was maintained at 22 metres depth - below Chart Datum, so any tide - and tides could be several metres, [apologies for the imprecision, as it's decades since I sailed there!] - would allow 24, or even 25 metres draft ships to berth - at about High Water, subject to weather, with acceptable Under Keel Clearances [UKCs]. note that in a well-surveyed area, UKCs would, routinely, be below a metre! Yet it worked, and still does. Northerly wind would pile water to the south of the North Sea, giving above-prediction depths. Also a low pressure would give above-prediction depths. The opposites, obviously, wold reduce water depths below predicted. Auto wrote - 2111 Z 3 February 2017. 86.179.75.195 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "as well as the largest self-propelled human-made object ever built"

[edit]

This honour should rather go to F-60. At least if one understands "largest" as dimension and not as weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.242.200 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? Many trains are longer and heavier than this object. Chasrob (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auto writes: Some trains are indeed longer [GBR in 1970s indicates up to 1.6 miles, so certainly five-plus times longer. but, crucially, rarely over 40,000 tones - the mass of a very modest ship today].

A quick Google search yielded this: - "The record was set on June 21, 2001 in Western Australia between Newman and Port Hedland, a distance of 275km (170 miles) and the train consisted of 682 loaded iron ore wagons and 8 GE AC6000 locomotives giving a gross weight of almost 100,000 tonnes and moved 82,262 tonnes of ore, the train was 7.353 km (4.568 miles) long ...Oct 6, 2014" https://encrypted.google.com/#q=longest+train downloaded at 2053 Z 3 February 2017. The first 100,000 tonne deadweight tanker was built in about 1960-1965. Auto wrote: 2058 Z 3 February 2017. 86.179.75.195 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Seawise Giant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seawise Giant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dimensions

[edit]

Could someone please explain the dimensions of this vessel. What exactly is the height (top to bottom), length (front to back), and width (side to side) of this vessel? 173.86.46.180 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunk by parachute bombs ?

[edit]

The Iran–Iraq War#Attacks on shipping has that it was hit by Exocet missiles, with a source ref. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seawise_Giant&oldid=1213621713"