USS Zumwalt 1:250
 

I think its time I showed off another one of my current projects. I know its been a long time since I released a model, but I have this and a couple others almost ready.

Before I do release it though, I need some help. I really want to do this model full-hull. IMO, it's rather uninteresting as a waterline model. Not much going on up top. I designed a lower hull based on this model here: http://assets.theatlantic.com/static..._model%201.jpg

At the time I started that was the closest thing to an "official" design that I had. However, about halfway through I ran across this photo:
http://images.machinedesign.com/imag...0000050208.jpg

Which shows a completely different hull shape. My current hull looks pretty good compared to the one on the model, but is much to "round" for the test hull. So...which to believe? What do you guys think?

I think the hull seen here is the most realistic looking.
DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class DD(X) Stealth Guided Missile Destroyers - custom wood ship models
http://www.allwoodships.com/Military...G-1000-bow.jpg
The one below looks very crude and would create an incredible amount of self noise.
http://images.machinedesign.com/imag...0000050208.jpg

With a few exceptions (stern area mostly) that's about the same as my current hull, I think. I like that hull too, so maybe I'll tweak mine to match theirs and go with that. What does everyone else think?

I agree about the second hull, it just doesn't really make sense hydrodynamically (at least to my very untrained eyes)...especially compared to the very fluid shape of the Burkes (mmm, sexy :D)

It's interesting that the hull looks like something from the 1890's. Personally, I like waterline models. Probably because I can't do hull planking very well.

Even with the plain look, it fits in well with the USS Independence and the Swedish Visby. I agree with you that the below the waterline hull looks like a hydrodynamic abomination. I think it must have been optimized for shallow draft over efficiency.

I like the lines of this ship. I would like to make a real Canoe that looks like this. Nice job!

Interesting shape for the underwater portion of the hull...I wonder if that design reduces the "noise" of the hull as it slices through the water, and possibly eliminates the "pounding" of the conventional shaped bow?

It DOES resemble some of those earlier battleship hull shapes, at least in profile, from the 1890s that I've learned about from design threads here.

Wonderful looking subject, hope you continue with this work!

Cheers!
Jim

I'm not sure that new bow design is still call bulbous bow. But looking at the two images. I believe both are the same bow. The first image looks different is because of the lighting and angle down shot of the model. We are seeing just a little bit of the port side of the bow(bulb?). Just enough to making it looks rounder. But both are the same bow, or bulb, or whatever you want to call it.

I'm guessing they made the blow like this is because of the new hull design tapers outward. It reducing drag already. So no need to make the same old protruding bow design?

Nice 3D model, Avery. It going to came with a Seahawk too?

nice work Avery.

At 1:200 this will be a pretty large model. She will be about 60 ft longer than USS Langely (CV-1).

1:1 scale
Length: 600 ft (182.9 m)
Beam: 80.7 ft (24.6 m)
Draft: 27.6 ft (8.4 m)
Displacement: 14,564 tons

1:200 scale
Length: 3 ft (0.9 m)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ley_(CV-1).jpg

Maybe they plan on ramming with that bow? Who knows what might be inside it. Big models are sweet! Maybe, at that size, aluminum flashing could be used for the hull. Of course, that would be anathema to paper modeling.