I thought, and Wikipedia confirms, that some naval architects in 1912 also used a bulbous bow. Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbous_bow http://en.w

I thought, and Wikipedia confirms, that some naval architects in 1912 also used a bulbous bow. Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbous_bow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbous_bow : > Although the bulbous bow concept is credited to David W. Taylor, a naval architect who served as Chief Constructor of the United States Navy during the First World War and who used the concept (known as a bulbous forefoot) in his design of the USS Delaware, which entered service in 1910, there are earlier examples. Continuing, > The modern bulbous bow was developed by Dr. Takao Inui at the University of Tokyo during the 1950s and 1960s, ... It was eventually found that drag could be reduced by about five percent. Experimentation and refinement slowly improved the geometry of bulbous bows, but they were not widely exploited until computer modelling techniques enabled researchers at the University of British Columbia to increase their performance to a practical level in the 1980s. I presume the experiments in the 1950s and 1960s were done experimentally, and the later CFDs validated through experiment. The WP page links to http://www.dieselduck.info/library/01%20articles/bulbous_bows.htm http://www.dieselduck.info/library/01%20articles/bulbous_bow... which says "Today, to see a large ship without a bulbous bow is a rare sight indeed. Their results have been proven over countless thousands of deep ocean miles in all kinds of weather by all kinds of vessels." Thus, color me doubtful that this CFD run is meaningful.