|
Related Topics:
| Electric Grounding - steel hull - Hello I have just upgraded from a GRP 30ft sloop to a steel hull 40ft sloop. is in excellent state except for the wiring which will certainly consume most of my winter My main worry before else is..
Coal tar for bottom of steel hull? - Hi, I'm buying a houseboat with a steel bottom. New steel was put on 4 years ago, and treated with coal tar epoxy, I was told that the coal tar treatment will last for a long time. Can anyone tell me if the coal tar treatment is..
USS Arizona Battleship Model Ship - The USS Arizona (BB-39) was a class used by the US Navy. It was best known for her and dramatic sinking that losses 1,177 lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor. offers the USS Arizona model..
Hull Waxing Question - I just purchased a boat and wish to clean and wax the hull. It is on a bunk trailer. My question is - how do I clean/wax the areas of the hull that are under the trailer bunk supports and therefore not for cleaning while it sits on the
Anyone ever removed the windshield from a Late '80's Sea R.. - I'm removing the and having the frame because it looks terrible on a boat that's in otherwise beautiful I don't feel any under the in the cabin, so I don't know..
|
|
|
Next: An internal memo on Clinton Healthcare...
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 868
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:11 pm
Post subject: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's
Archived from groups: rec>boats (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Apr 29, 2007
Posts: 1461
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:19 am
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim <tschna... RemoveThis @gmail.com> 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/images/h60000/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/Mon_0610/518_377_1ec76f8a67f7a4f.gif
>
> i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:
>
> http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Russ_Pics_album/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/1940%20Pic/266%20USS%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.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 29, 2007
Posts: 1461
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:23 am
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 868
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:47 am
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
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:
> <justwaitafrekinminute DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eba27e47-b4f3-4287-b0da-d6b556c382e3@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim <tschna... DeleteThis @gmail.com> 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/images/h60000/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/Mon_0610/518_377_1ec76f8a67f7a4f.gif
> >
> > i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:
> >
> > http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Russ_Pics_album/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/1940%20Pic/266%20USS%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. >> Stay informed about: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 868
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:51 am
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 04, 2007
Posts: 3008
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:28 am
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
justwaitafrekinminute.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim <tschna....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> 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/images/h60000/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/Mon_0610/518_377_1ec76f8a67f7a4f.gif
>>
>> i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:
>>
>> http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Russ_Pics_album/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/1940%20Pic/266%20USS%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. >> Stay informed about: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 17, 2008
Posts: 15
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 am
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
<justwaitafrekinminute.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eba27e47-b4f3-4287-b0da-d6b556c382e3@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim <tschna....DeleteThis@gmail.com> 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/images/h60000/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/Mon_0610/518_377_1ec76f8a67f7a4f.gif
>
> i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:
>
> http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Russ_Pics_album/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/1940%20Pic/266%20USS%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. >> Stay informed about: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 703
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:54 am
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Tim wrote:
>
> justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com 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. >> Stay informed about: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 17, 2008
Posts: 15
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:08 pm
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Jim" <jiminbazootastan RemoveThis @atta.boy> wrote in message
news:01dd64be$1$11757$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>
> <justwaitafrekinminute RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eba27e47-b4f3-4287-b0da-d6b556c382e3@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 19, 1:11 am, Tim <tschna... RemoveThis @gmail.com> 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/images/h60000/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/Mon_0610/518_377_1ec76f8a67f7a4f.gif
>>
>> i take it the Russian Gangut is the same way:
>>
>> http://vmk.vif2.ru/gallery/EBR_LK_Russ_Pics_album/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/1940%20Pic/266%20USS%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/acousticstructuresandsonardomes.shtml >> Stay informed about: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 292
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:38 pm
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"BAR" <ScrewYou.DeleteThis@Your.Place> wrote in message
news:MLydnYjCIfnUtg_anZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tim wrote:
>>
>> justwaitafrekinmin....DeleteThis@gmail.com 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. >> Stay informed about: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 01, 2007
Posts: 703
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:50 pm
Post subject: Re: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late 1800's [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
CalifBill wrote:
> "BAR" <ScrewYou DeleteThis @Your.Place> wrote in message
> news:MLydnYjCIfnUtg_anZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Tim wrote:
>>> justwaitafrekinmin... DeleteThis @gmail.com 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.
My dad was a Naval line officer and did some time as the ASW officer on
a couple of ships. One of his claim's to fame was putting a practice
torpedo into the sail of submarine. The other claim was following a
Soviet flotilla traversing the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean. He
was commanding a DER. Two 3 inch 50's, an ASROC and a couple of torpedo's. >> Stay informed about: a question about steel battleship hull designs of the late.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
