Costa NeoRomantica - IMO 8821046
| |||
 | |||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
More Of This Ship |  |
 © Glenn Towler |
 © Andreas Hoppe |
 © Glenn Towler |
 |
 |
| More Of: This Photographer - This Ship - This Ship By This Photographer |
Photo Comments (9)
Comments sorting method : |
Maria Fowler on Jun 23, 2012 23:45 (11 months ago) | |
| Thanks for the comments folks. Personally, I'd do away with the 'chimney pot' style funnels. Add something more swept back in design. But hey . . what do I know? |
|
|
|
Patagualino on Jun 17, 2012 21:10 (11 months ago) | |
|
Lengthened by another 30m &it would be a nice ship again instead of a forward-condominium-tower, eh?
Mind you, I'm neither a naval architect nor an anorak; Just expressing a point of view. |
|
|
|
Robert J Smith on Jun 17, 2012 14:27 (11 months ago) | |
|
She came out of refit this year with new name
http://www.costacruise.com/eu/costa_neoromantica.html |
|
|
|
Clive Harvey on Jun 17, 2012 14:14 (11 months ago) | |
| She is being referred to as Costa NeoRomantica because that really is her new name. If you look in the picture above you will see the name Costa Romantica just forward of the lifeboats and just above the letters T and O is a semi-circular shape, in that appears the letters Neo. A similar arrangement has been done with the name on the hull and in the picture above you can just see the slight shadow of those letters. They don't stand out in the same way as the original lettering as it is in a different and paler colour. |
|
|
|
Guest on Jun 17, 2012 14:06 (11 months ago) | |
| Maybe I am missing something but why is this ship being referred to (even by Equasis) as Costa NeoRomantica when it is writ large on the ship that the name is still Costa Romantica |
|
|
|
Dеnis on Jun 17, 2012 09:58 (11 months ago) | |
|
Ugly ship but the shot turned out to be pretty good with such lighting.
I think lengthening on some 50m won't hurt this 'Mary Rose'. |
|
|
|
Guest on Jun 17, 2012 09:44 (11 months ago) | |
| No doubt you are a naval architect and have done all the tank testing and hydrodynamic calculations involved in determining the effect of lengthening by 30 m while retaining the same beam/draught/speed/propeller-size/power requirement? |
|
|
|
Michael Brinkmann on Jun 17, 2012 09:14 (11 months ago) | |
| Lengthened by another 30 m and it would be a nice ship again instead of a forward-condominium-tower, eh? |
|
|
;){kind=link}