From:	Geoff Skellams geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Subject:	Submarines (was RE: Shipping (was Re: the value of education))
Date:	Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:40:10 +1000

On shadowrn@*********.org, Sommers[SMTP:sommers@*****.umich.edu] wrote:
> I would think that subs on the surface would be able to go faster than
subs
> completely submerged, since it would have less drag.

Actually, IIRC, I believe that submarines are far more efficient
underwater than on the surface. If you look at a surface ship, you have
a sharp bow that cuts through the surface. On the other hands, if you
look at a modern submarine, you find an extremely blunt bow. For
example, the new Australian Collins class sub has an almost
hemispherical bow. I don't understand the physics behind this concept,
but that's certainly what I remember. Perhaps some of the more naval
aware people on the list can elaborate.

Early(ish) submarines (including U-boats and the like) had bows that
looked more normal ships. That was until someone discovered that
underwater, the blunt bow was actually more efficient underwater. On the
surface, they tend to suck the big one, but subs are not designed to be
surface vessels.

From a personal perspective, modern subs tend to look more like the
large whales (particularly ones like the Sperm Whale or the Right Wahle)
- relatively blunt at the bow, tapering to a thin(ish) point at the
stern. Nature designed whales with that shape and they spend all their
time underwater. It must make sense somewhere along the line.

cheers
G
--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

Hili hewa ka mana'o ke 'ole ke kukakuka
(Ideas run wild without discussion)