so now they got these new X-Bows......

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by Squidly-Diddly, Jul 29, 2018.

  1. Squidly-Diddly
    Joined: Sep 2007
    Posts: 1,859
    Likes: 150, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 304
    Location: SF bay

    Squidly-Diddly Senior Member

    so now they got these new X-Bows that are supposed to be better at just about everything.

    My big question is: How do they keep coming up with new, as in "previously never investigated much less tested" basic hull shapes in this day and age?

    I've thought that about 2 years after the first workable steam ships happened, SOMEONE, probably "The Lords of the Admiralty" would've done an exhaustive study of every conceivable hull, bow and stern shape combination, because "The Future of the Nation" mostly likely depends on winning the next big navel battle, etc.

    Shouldn't there be some big tome dating from no later than 1870 with about 1000 different bow shapes and experimental data of them being pulled by strings at diff speeds and diff simulated sea-states in an indoor pool of some Englishman's estate?

    Shouldn't any even unexpected good bow shapes been revealed by CAD and related 3d simulation decades ago? Just have the computer do what they could have done in 1870, and let it run for a week.
  2. JSL
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 811
    Likes: 63, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 41
    Location: Delta BC

    JSL Senior Member

    Got any photos. It might be interesting... 'X' usually stands for an 'unknown' .
    Probably the BBB factor.. "Bull***t Baffles Brains"
    Then again... it could be a weapon... X bows (cross bows) have been around for ages.

    ps: Oops- I should have done some research.
    Yes, seen them before but forgot the term x-bow. Some WW1 battleships had similar type- referred to as a ram-bow. Perhaps a good form in some applications.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2018
  3. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,374
    Likes: 1,279, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Says who?

    And that's the point. "THEY" say it is better and with the magic of sales marketing Depts and the internet, you have taken their bait as it being the best thing since sliced bread. Job done, in that sense!

    No one hull or shape is best, each has their own merits. In the case of the X-bow, again this is nothing new - just look up dreadnoughts, or go back further, to the greek galleons etc.

    As for its will see graphs showing how good it is, giving the WOW factor. But look closer, you'll see it is only applicable in head seas. In stern seas, wont get those plots :eek:

    Everything today is about marketing....get the message out and quickly and loudly they saying goes....the squeaky wheel gets the oil!

  4. Rurudyne
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 1,170
    Likes: 40, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 155
    Location: North Texas

    Rurudyne Senior Member

    Of late I've been contemplating the virtues and defects of the following for if it may suitably be called a truism: "It is relatively easy to think outside of the box if you don't own a box."

    On the surface it seems to work well with the widely accepted "Necessity is the mother of invention."

    But it runs counter to the best is the enemy of good enough.

    Frankly, the Brits while they sought to be a naval power have except for a brief moments when race built galleons and their new long guns came along nearly together have traditionally had a box to call their own and to think in, they long had to consider projecting power to a wide area too, which is sometimes why it's said that the Royal Navy was hesitant to fully commit to steam power.

    Everyone else, mostly, thought within the box that the Royal Navy imposed on them.

    The early large American frigates, while innovative in their specs, were so because they gamed the rules that had become established among navies. Big, fast and heavily armed as frigates went they still in theory benefited from gentleman's notions that ships of the line shouldn't attack frigates ... unless the frigates were uppity enough to outright attack the ships of the line and then screw them. This left those completed to their original design specs to tussle it out with more conventional frigates, pirates or merchantmen during their careers and they did very well in that service.

    So I would suggest the Royal Navy had an actual motivation not to engage in revolutionary experimentation on hull forms, as incremental advancement met their long term goals for a long time.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.