The voice over say it is here first voyage wrong not she's launched. Then he said she was refitted wrong she's a new build. Difficult to do things right by those idiots of RTL 7.
@MrHolyducky Ja, het was de eerste vaart.. En het was tegelijkertijd opgeknapt.. En daarna is het kantelen de schuld van de ontwerper. Iemand die het nog volgt, of slaat RTL er maar een kromme slag naar?
Nothing wrong with the design, it is just a matter of no ballast in the double bottom tanks. Very nioe example to see how the ship regains it's stabilty when she has listed, making the width of the shipp larger, and thus making the GM positive again.
If you take the stability curve the first part is negative, but at a certain list it becomes possitive again.
Yes it does Bugsier, but what you probably mean is that it isn't designed to have a good stability without ballast.
It is evident someone has made a mistake with the calculations, not enough ballast anyway.
But.....when the ship is listing, the whole submerged underwatership changes, changing the position of point G and B, until a new situation with a positive stability occurs.
The voice over say it is here first voyage wrong not she's launched. Then he said she was refitted wrong she's a new build. Difficult to do things right by those idiots of RTL 7.
Maasdam1993 5 months ago
zuur
dididj97 6 months ago
haha
atzejoop1 1 year ago
The ballasts tipped, thats why it layed over to the side...
Fedabu 1 year ago
''Het Is De Eerste Vaart Van Dit Schip ''
'' En de Laatste ''
MrHolyducky 1 year ago
@MrHolyducky Ja, het was de eerste vaart.. En het was tegelijkertijd opgeknapt.. En daarna is het kantelen de schuld van de ontwerper. Iemand die het nog volgt, of slaat RTL er maar een kromme slag naar?
Skoda130 7 months ago
te weinig ballast in de romp geplaatst. Verkeerde berekening dus.
Angerfist2 1 year ago
stom stommer stomst
xplosionnoname 2 years ago
Oepss best wel erg !! Heb je net een hele boot gemaakt zinkt ie vervolgens.
jelle109 2 years ago
Ik denk niet dat hij gezonken is. Op het einde van de film lijkt hij nog net voldoende richtend vermogen te hebben.
samwattele 2 years ago
(oops) :D
alphatwinsfan 2 years ago
Just a bit too top heavy
RyanChinchilla1992 2 years ago
someone looked at the calculator upside down ... :-|
kode1303 2 years ago 10
pwn
dialectuz 2 years ago
Hallo erickiel
Nou niet voor veel jejeje net was dat de stok zeer stuurboord wat je niet ziet waar het zonk groeten en bedankt
Bueno no es para tanto jejeje solo fue que metio la caña muy a estribor lo que no se ve si se hundió saludos y gracias
CX9AAW 2 years ago
Which vessel was this????
egskitiatad 3 years ago
S.S. Breakaleg
HalfLiveForEver 3 years ago
Nothing wrong with the design, it is just a matter of no ballast in the double bottom tanks. Very nioe example to see how the ship regains it's stabilty when she has listed, making the width of the shipp larger, and thus making the GM positive again.
If you take the stability curve the first part is negative, but at a certain list it becomes possitive again.
domian83 3 years ago 2
not intyerly threu!
this ship has no balastless stability!!!
(unsafe!!!!)
(it has to be stable whitout water ballast!
(height and weight of superstructure is to high!)
bugsier5 2 years ago
Yes it does Bugsier, but what you probably mean is that it isn't designed to have a good stability without ballast.
It is evident someone has made a mistake with the calculations, not enough ballast anyway.
But.....when the ship is listing, the whole submerged underwatership changes, changing the position of point G and B, until a new situation with a positive stability occurs.
domian83 2 years ago
holy shit id say the ballast tanks werent full
corpse66688 4 years ago
what happend to make it list like that?
oceanz4me 4 years ago
Much too little weight in the bottom (ballast). Look how high she floats.
leijonhjelm 4 years ago 7