Interesting boats

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers

Attachments

  • uss-zumwalt-ddg1000.jpg
    uss-zumwalt-ddg1000.jpg
    61.5 KB · Views: 89
Same company, Baltic Workboats...
 

Attachments

  • BD6764A1-AF04-483B-BB5A-CB6422DE21D5.jpg
    BD6764A1-AF04-483B-BB5A-CB6422DE21D5.jpg
    86.8 KB · Views: 91
QUOTE=bogranjac1;619915]very sleek[/QUOTE]

Sleek my arse.
Look at the hullsides. Not even fair. Looks a bit like a homebuilt metal boat.

However the bow is sleek and in a way the house is too. Don’t see any external junk like hand rails, life boats, masts, ect ect. I suspect the house would reflect radar energy even better w a rounded house front. Would look better and more sleek.
 
OldDan1943 said:
LOL and your excuse to the USCG for piloting the boat at 21 knots on the ICW is....?
Seldom if ever do we drive our car at its maximum speed sooo, why a boat?
There must be a reasonable "sweet spot" for that boat.
Click to expand...

On full plane... 16 to 17 knots works well and = 1 nmpg.

Sweet spot for economy while still making decent time is 6.5 to 7 knots which = 2 +/- nmpg. 7.58 knots is calced hull speed.

For real economy... 4.5 to 5 knots running just one engine = 2.75 nmpg. Note that is great speed for ICW locals.

Then again - sometimes it may become needed to go WOT fast. On a 2009 day pictured, due to circumstances that suddenly occurred while coming in toward the GG bridge, I felt need to push Tolly onto WOT [about 23 knots] for a few minutes to get out of the "pleasure boat" fray; while "The Maltese Falcon" headed toward SF Bay. And, no... when photo was taken we were not at WOT.... but, I was then surveying the confuctuation developing amid too many stupid boat captains... that soon thereafter did make me decide to hit WOT for quickly getting way away.
 

Attachments

  • Copy of Art & Linda on TO - Maltese Falcon SF Bay Entry Spring 2009_100_1391.JPG
    Copy of Art & Linda on TO - Maltese Falcon SF Bay Entry Spring 2009_100_1391.JPG
    55.2 KB · Views: 87
Last edited:
Art said:
On full plane... 16 to 17 knots works well and = 1 nmpg.

Sweat spot for economy while still making decent time is 6.5 to 7 knots which = 2 +/- nmpg. 7.58 knots is calced hull speed.

For real economy... 4.5 to 5 knots running just one engine = 2.75 nmpg. Note that is great speed for ICW locals.

Then again - sometimes it may become needed to go WOT fast. On a 2009 day pictured, due to circumstances that suddenly occurred while coming in toward the GG bridge, I felt need to push Tolly onto WOT [about 23 knots] for a few minutes to get out of the "pleasure boat" fray; while "The Maltese Falcon" headed toward SF Bay. And, no... when photo was taken we were not at WOT.... but, I was then surveying the confuctuation developing amid too many stupid boat captains... that soon thereafter did make me decide to hit WOT for quickly getting way away.
Click to expand...

LOL You'd love the Miami cut. NOT.
I guess that is one of the reasons I now have a fast trawler instead of another trawler.
 
Nomad Willy said:
QUOTE=bogranjac1;619915]very sleek
Click to expand...

Sleek my arse.
Look at the hullsides. Not even fair. Looks a bit like a homebuilt metal boat.

However the bow is sleek and in a way the house is too. Don’t see any external junk like hand rails, life boats, masts, ect ect. I suspect the house would reflect radar energy even better w a rounded house front. Would look better and more sleek.[/QUOTE]


its called stealth technology..

Its NOT supposed to reflect radar..
:facepalm:

HOLLYWOOD
 
hollywood8118 said:
Sleek my arse.
Look at the hullsides. Not even fair. Looks a bit like a homebuilt metal boat.

However the bow is sleek and in a way the house is too. Don’t see any external junk like hand rails, life boats, masts, ect ect. I suspect the house would reflect radar energy even better w a rounded house front. Would look better and more sleek.
Click to expand...


its called stealth technology..

Its NOT supposed to reflect radar..
:facepalm:

HOLLYWOOD[/QUOTE]

Yea, says right on the label, "Stealth Technology. Does not reflect RADAR"
They and other "stealth" planes and boats will reflect RADAR but the 'picture' is supposed to be much smaller than in real life.
 
healhustler said:
I proposed an X-Bow project for my Krogen Manatee, but then I saw how the change would have ruined the refined sleek and graceful lines of the boat.:hide:
Click to expand...

Does look a bit PhotoShopped. Nice try. WINK
 
NBS, it's funny but I guess I never thought of your country, or many others, having a navy. That ship is pretty amazing and it would be fun to be on board for a short cruise.


I found another video of the ship that was interesting. Take a look at this, and especially the bow treatment that you will get a decent look at around 3:00 into the video. I don't think I've ever seen a bow setup such as that ship has.


 
OldDan1943 said:
its called stealth technology..

Its NOT supposed to reflect radar..
:facepalm:

HOLLYWOOD
Click to expand...

Yea, says right on the label, "Stealth Technology. Does not reflect RADAR"
They and other "stealth" planes and boats will reflect RADAR but the 'picture' is supposed to be much smaller than in real life.
Click to expand...

OldDan and Hollywood, that's not exactly correct. This past summer I had an opportunity to do a very close-up walk around and examination of the USAF's newest stealth fighter, the F-22 Raptor.

The skin of the aircraft, unlike other aircraft and stealth aircraft is made from a different material that actually absorbs the radar power rather than simply reflect it. The plane is totally invisible to radar and, if they want it to be seen by radar, they have to attach a piece of equipment to the bottom of the plane that will reflect the radar energy.

DSCN3383.jpg


DSCN3384.jpg


DSCN3404.jpg



Those are my grandsons in the photo above. When we got the tour of the plane the pilot asked me not to touch the skin of the plane and also not to take any close up photos of the skin. Once I got up next to it (within arm's length) I could see the structure of the skin and could see why he didn't want me to touch it or photograph it.
 
and submarines currently have a skin to absorb SONAR but, sometimes a portion becomes dislodged allowing for some SONAR reflection.
 
Looks like they have been around for a while, for some purpose or another.
 

Attachments

  • trireme.jpg
    trireme.jpg
    10.8 KB · Views: 425
GFC said:
OldDan and Hollywood, that's not exactly correct. This past summer I had an opportunity to do a very close-up walk around and examination of the USAF's newest stealth fighter, the F-22 Raptor.

The skin of the aircraft, unlike other aircraft and stealth aircraft is made from a different material that actually absorbs the radar power rather than simply reflect it. The plane is totally invisible to radar and, if they want it to be seen by radar, they have to attach a piece of equipment to the bottom of the plane that will reflect the radar energy.

DSCN3383.jpg


DSCN3384.jpg


DSCN3404.jpg



Those are my grandsons in the photo above. When we got the tour of the plane the pilot asked me not to touch the skin of the plane and also not to take any close up photos of the skin. Once I got up next to it (within arm's length) I could see the structure of the skin and could see why he didn't want me to touch it or photograph it.
Click to expand...

GFC,
I was over simplifying the stealth comment for you guys, I worked on projects in the aviation industry that were related to new stealth in the late 80's so I didn't go into a long winded explanation of the tech because it just didn't matter. Just was pointing out that the Z was shaped that was because of stealth. That ship isn't "invisible" to radar but it returns a much smaller target.. the Raptor is very stealth .. right up to the point it opens it's bay doors.
Stealth never makes for a " good looking" design due to the angular design.
Hollywood
 
hollywood8118 said:
Sleek my arse.
Look at the hullsides. Not even fair. Looks a bit like a homebuilt metal boat.

Old Dan and Hollywood,
However the bow is sleek and in a way the house is too. Don’t see any external junk like hand rails, life boats, masts, ect ect. I suspect the house would reflect radar energy even better w a rounded house front. Would look better and more sleek.
Click to expand...


its called stealth technology..

Its NOT supposed to reflect radar..
:facepalm:

HOLLYWOOD[/QUOTE]

I’m well aware of that as I stated or implied. And (also as I said) rounding the house fwd should not interfere w the radar return or even make it less. I suspect the sharp breaks were done for economy of the build. And highly justifiable in view of our extremely expensive military spending.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Nomad Willy said:
its called stealth technology..

Its NOT supposed to reflect radar..
:facepalm:

HOLLYWOOD
Click to expand...

I’m well aware of that as I stated or implied. And (also as I said) rounding the house fwd should not interfere w the radar return or even make it less. I suspect the sharp breaks were done for economy of the build. And highly justifiable in view of our extremely expensive military spending.[/QUOTE]

The "square corners" have absolutely nothing with economy,
It is the angles that help create stealth.
The angles make it less economical to build due to stress at the intersections, necessitating more costs in structural design and in carbon varying layouts of fabric and cord.
A round house would return a bigger radar signature.

Our military spends a LOT of money to attempt to kill only the bad guys, not our troops or innocents on the ground.

No matter what arena, it always costs a lot to be #1.

Merry Christmas to all,
HOLLYWOOD
 
Yes ..... the angles UP. You see all the surfaces project the return up at about 30 degrees where there is nothing or nobody to receive the return. By rounded I mean like the front of an old fishboat or tug. The radar energy will still be reflected up the same amount. No change in reflection.

And making a car body w very squarish lines would be much less time consuming than to make it in the forum of a E type Jaguar.
 
Last edited:
Even I like it.
And I’ve always thought twins were better.

But if Mark was to win this boat in a lottery I’m sure he’d get over the single screw bias.
 
gaston said:
Seems very very cheap ????
Click to expand...
I thought so too (Aussie pricing), it would need a detailed "gaston" checkover:). Only 1300 hours on the John Deeres too. But there is a 2005 Clipper 50 twin Cummins @ 449K, so maybe not a red flag.
 
BruceK said:
I thought so too (Aussie pricing), it would need a detailed "gaston" checkover:). Only 1300 hours on the John Deeres too. But there is a 2005 Clipper 50 twin Cummins @ 449K, so maybe not a red flag.
Click to expand...



Wish you would STOP posting this rubbish and let me get along with life :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bshanafelt
this is an interesting trawler for Eric?
Replies
6
Views
2K
QB
QB
N
Woman advice needed urgently
Replies
25
Views
2K
Pineapple Girl
Pineapple Girl
Moonfish
Trawler Search/new to forum
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
JD
JD
dwhatty
Key West in January
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Keith
Keith
M
Boat fire in Bellingham
Replies
1
Views
974
Boathommy
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom