I've always wondered why the "modern" ironclads of the late 1800's had
an odd bow design. After probably thousands of years of ship building
from around the world, it seems that the bow always well overlapped
the keel, that is... untill the later 1800's when the "new navy"
decided that a "swept back" bow was the way to go. like for
instance,the USS Main:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h60255a.jpg

Now I know there's a lot more under the waterline than what one may
realize forexample the HMS Nile. seems like the bow is almost a direct
vertical, but really isn't that is unless you look below the waterline

http://www.cww2.net/bbs/attachment/M...f8a67f7a4f.gif

i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:

http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Ru.../LK_Gangut.jpg

I suppose that what I'm asking is what cause the engineers to go for
this design hull for about 50 years then revert back to the
overlapping hull like the USS Wisconsin?
http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...May%201946.jpg

Any ideas?

On Jan 19, 1:11*am, Tim wrote:
I've always wondered why the "modern" ironclads of the late 1800's had
an odd bow design. After probably thousands of years of ship building
from around the world, it seems that the bow always well overlapped
the keel, that is... untill the later 1800's when the "new navy"
decided that a "swept back" bow was the way to go. like *for
instance,the USS Main:http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h60255a.jpg

Now I know there's a lot more under the waterline than what one may
realize forexample the HMS Nile. seems like the bow is almost a direct
vertical, but really isn't that is unless you look below the waterline

http://www.cww2.net/bbs/attachment/M...f8a67f7a4f.gif

i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:

http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Ru.../LK_Gangut.jpg

I suppose that what I'm asking is what cause the engineers to go for
this design hull for about 50 years then revert back to the
overlapping hull like the USS Wisconsin?http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...SS%20Missouri%...

Any ideas?

In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow
wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty
vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut
under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They
have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but
it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think..

On Jan 19, 1:11*am, Tim wrote:
I've always wondered why the "modern" ironclads of the late 1800's had
an odd bow design. After probably thousands of years of ship building
from around the world, it seems that the bow always well overlapped
the keel, that is... untill the later 1800's when the "new navy"
decided that a "swept back" bow was the way to go. like *for
instance,the USS Main:http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h60255a.jpg

Now I know there's a lot more under the waterline than what one may
realize forexample the HMS Nile. seems like the bow is almost a direct
vertical, but really isn't that is unless you look below the waterline

http://www.cww2.net/bbs/attachment/M...f8a67f7a4f.gif

i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:

http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Ru.../LK_Gangut.jpg

I suppose that what I'm asking is what cause the engineers to go for
this design hull for about 50 years then revert back to the
overlapping hull like the USS Wisconsin?http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...SS%20Missouri%...

Any ideas?

Look at this...

http://www.tu-harburg.de/skf/forschu...nker_bild1.jpg

or he

http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...-8&sa=N&tab=wi

These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,

wrote:
On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim wrote:
I've always wondered why the "modern" ironclads of the late 1800's had
an odd bow design. After probably thousands of years of ship building
from around the world, it seems that the bow always well overlapped
the keel, that is... untill the later 1800's when the "new navy"
decided that a "swept back" bow was the way to go. like for
instance,the USS Main:http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h60255a.jpg

Now I know there's a lot more under the waterline than what one may
realize forexample the HMS Nile. seems like the bow is almost a direct
vertical, but really isn't that is unless you look below the waterline

http://www.cww2.net/bbs/attachment/M...f8a67f7a4f.gif

i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:

http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Ru.../LK_Gangut.jpg

I suppose that what I'm asking is what cause the engineers to go for
this design hull for about 50 years then revert back to the
overlapping hull like the USS Wisconsin?http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...SS%20Missouri%...

Any ideas?

In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow
wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty
vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut
under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They
have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but
it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think..


David Taylor designed the first bulbous bow ship about 100 years ago for
the US Navy. There's a tank testing facility named after him on the
Potomac River under the bridge that connects Maryland and Virginia at
the "top" of the beltway.

The bulbous bow impacts fluid dynamics. Any good college level reference
book on the subject will reveal the answers you seek, grasshoppers. Or,
if you are lazy, just google it.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim wrote:
I've always wondered why the "modern" ironclads of the late 1800's had
an odd bow design. After probably thousands of years of ship building
from around the world, it seems that the bow always well overlapped
the keel, that is... untill the later 1800's when the "new navy"
decided that a "swept back" bow was the way to go. like for
instance,the USS
Main:http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h60255a.jpg

Now I know there's a lot more under the waterline than what one may
realize forexample the HMS Nile. seems like the bow is almost a direct
vertical, but really isn't that is unless you look below the waterline

http://www.cww2.net/bbs/attachment/M...f8a67f7a4f.gif

i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:

http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Ru.../LK_Gangut.jpg

I suppose that what I'm asking is what cause the engineers to go for
this design hull for about 50 years then revert back to the
overlapping hull like the USS
Wisconsin?http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...SS%20Missouri%...

Any ideas?

In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow
wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty
vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut
under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They
have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but
it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think..

I was thinking that bulb was there to house sonar. But maybe not.

I was going to say, I don't think Sonar was available back in the late
1800's.

Maybe it did have to do with balast and stability.....

Jim wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim wrote:
I've always wondered why the "modern" ironclads of the late 1800's had
an odd bow design. After probably thousands of years of ship building
from around the world, it seems that the bow always well overlapped
the keel, that is... untill the later 1800's when the "new navy"
decided that a "swept back" bow was the way to go. like for
instance,the USS
Main:http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h60255a.jpg

Now I know there's a lot more under the waterline than what one may
realize forexample the HMS Nile. seems like the bow is almost a direct
vertical, but really isn't that is unless you look below the waterline

http://www.cww2.net/bbs/attachment/M...f8a67f7a4f.gif

i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:

http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Ru.../LK_Gangut.jpg

I suppose that what I'm asking is what cause the engineers to go for
this design hull for about 50 years then revert back to the
overlapping hull like the USS
Wisconsin?http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...SS%20Missouri%...

Any ideas?

In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow
wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty
vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut
under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They
have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but
it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think..

I was thinking that bulb was there to house sonar. But maybe not.

wrote:


These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,

I'm beginning to understand what you're saying...i think.

Tim wrote:

wrote:

These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,

I'm beginning to understand what you're saying...i think.

What are the advantages of a bulbous bow on a frigate or destroyer? It
is an excellent place to put active and passive sonar gear.

"Jim" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim wrote:
I've always wondered why the "modern" ironclads of the late 1800's had
an odd bow design. After probably thousands of years of ship building
from around the world, it seems that the bow always well overlapped
the keel, that is... untill the later 1800's when the "new navy"
decided that a "swept back" bow was the way to go. like for
instance,the USS
Main:http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/i...00/h60255a.jpg

Now I know there's a lot more under the waterline than what one may
realize forexample the HMS Nile. seems like the bow is almost a direct
vertical, but really isn't that is unless you look below the waterline

http://www.cww2.net/bbs/attachment/M...f8a67f7a4f.gif

i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:

http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Ru.../LK_Gangut.jpg

I suppose that what I'm asking is what cause the engineers to go for
this design hull for about 50 years then revert back to the
overlapping hull like the USS
Wisconsin?http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...SS%20Missouri%...

Any ideas?

In my very limited opinion it all has to do with avoiding the bow
wave, think speed. The last pic you showed was actually pretty
vertical at the water line, and there will could be a bulb or cut
under the water. Look at some of the modern oil tankers and such. They
have a big bulb under and forward, I have not looked at it closely but
it is to disrupt the formation of a huge bow wave I would think..

I was thinking that bulb was there to house sonar. But maybe not.
But then again maybe
http://www.epp.goodrich.com/prodapps...nardomes.shtml

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
Tim wrote:

wrote:

These bulbs are designed to help the vessel displace water more
efficiently,

I'm beginning to understand what you're saying...i think.

What are the advantages of a bulbous bow on a frigate or destroyer? It is
an excellent place to put active and passive sonar gear.

But would be a bad place if trying to run over a submarine. Which was a
common tactic. As the early subs surfaced and used cannon fire to sink
ships. Later, they got rid of the deck gun and used torpedoes as the lack
of a deck gun made the sub much faster underwater. The 2 design criteria of
the early and also later battleships were they had to fit under the Brooklyn
Bridge and through the Panama Canal. I fish near the Iowa at times and it
is amazing how low to the water the deck is midships.