Bouler added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...


"HEMI-Powered" schreef in bericht
...

Leeboards I learned from boatbuilder Dave Fleming.

I'm not sure about the bow configuration's purpose. Apparently it
worked quite well ass it has been in use for many centuries..

Maybe Bouler knows some more, it's his favorite ship if I'm
right... Regards,

You're right there, my father, grandfather and grandgrandfather
sailed these ships before I was born.
I cannot answer the question about the bowconfiguration but I
think because they were cargo ships there was more space in the
ship than with a small bow.
Dont forget, these ships were aground by low tide in the
"Zuiderzee" and the "Waddenzee" waiting for high tide to go on.
BTW, thanks for this beauty Jeroen.

Interesting stuff I don't recall hearing about before, Bouler.
Thanks for sharing it with the group.

I am hardly a nautical engineer but for maximum cargo capacity at a
given length and a given amount of material, it is necessary to
displace the most water possible using the shape of the hull. Thus,
a wide ship with a blunt bow shape tends to be the best since it
displaces a good deal of water and at the same time draws the least
depth making it ideal for inland waterways.

Thats exactly the reason, a lot of lakes have shallow water in The
Netherlands

OTOH, this configuration is
very wasteful of power and cannot get very much speed over the
water before friction caused by a gigantic bow wave overwhelms the
power of the engines. Thus, in the case of true "tall ships" such
as the fast clippers of the 19th century, speed was more valued
than cargo tonnage and draft. Today, however, the pendulum has
swung back to cargo capacity especially for container ships and
tankers as power plants have advanced tremendously in the last 20
or so years while costs have skyrocketed.

Clippers were sailing in deep water.
In the early year the ships were nice and had class.
Nowadays they think what the cargo is and and build something around
it that floats and call it a ship;-(

I understand the purpose of the clippers and the fact that because of
both their hull design and the configuration of their sails they were
unsuited for smaller bodies of water and totally unsuited for rivers
and canals. However, I used the clippers as an example of the
difference in hull designs for speed vs. cargo capacity.

One could draw a similar comparison in modern nautical terms between a
huge lake ore carrier or super tanker vs. greyhounds of the fleet such
as destroyers, fast carriers, or even the once proud passenger liners
such as the SS United States or the first Queen Elizabeth. In fact, had
Capt. Smith of the Titanic not been so concerned with setting a new
speed record for a transatlantic crossing on a ship's maiden voyage, he
would have both slowed down and move 100 miles or so south when warned
about the many sightings of icebergs in his path, but he decided to
take the risk because being more conservative but decreasing his risk
would have cost him nearly a day's steaming time, a decision that he
learned to his sorrow was fatal for many hundreds of passengers, crew,
and himself.

Now, undoubtedly I've made a number of errors in the above but as I
said, my background is much more mechanical engineering from an
education point-of-view and specifically car body engineering from
a practical point-of-view so corrections to my factual errors would
be much appreciated.

It was not that bad Jerry;-)

Thank you, Bouler, I appreciate the critique. It is better not to lead
with one's chin when venturing into areas where one does not have a lot
of knowledge and/or is unsure of one's facts, don't you think?

--
HEMI - Powered, aka Jerry

"You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a ****!"