Anda di halaman 1dari 35


The Hydrodynamics of Planing Hulls'

BY ALLAN B. M U R R A Y , ~ [ E M B E R

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS at high speeds is much less than those of displace-

F o r a number of years, perhaps seventy-five, the m e n t boats of comparable size.
principle of planing boats has been recognized. Opinions differ as to just when planing starts
T h e idea of developing a hull to skim over the and as to just what constitutes a planing boat.
water surface rather t h a n through it had not come A precise answer is not important. I t certainly is
to m a t u r i t y sooner mainly because engines of low reasonable to consider a boat to be planing if its
weight to power ratios were not available. In the center of gravity is lifted above its normal still-
last 25 or 30 years, considerable development of flotation height. For the purposes of this paper,
this t y p e of boat has taken place, accelerated b y a planing boat will be considered to be one which is
the two world wars and prohibition. I m p r o v e - designed to be supported in major p a r t b y the
ments in engines b y the automotive and airplane dynamic reaction between the water and the bot-
industries have been helpful. t o m of the boat. I t should be remembered t h a t
High speed in boats usually requires great power, planing boats are not entirely supported b y d y -
b u t it is not always realized just how rapidly namic lift. As long as p a r t of the volume of the
power requirements increase with speed. Fig. 1 boat is below the surrounding water surface, some
shows curves of shaft horsepower against speed b u o y a n t lift is present. As speed is increased,
in knots for two 22,000-pound boats, one a round- this b u o y a n t lift becomes smaller and smaller.
b o t t o m design of 55-foot length and one a planing I t is interesting to observe what happens to the
type of 44-foot length. The tabulation on the elevation of a planing boat as speed is increased.
chart gives the shaft horsepower for each design Fig. 2 gives the change in elevation of the bow, of
for several speeds up to 40 knots. Notice t h a t the stern, and of the center of gravity, of a 40-foot
the planing-type hull requires more power at low planing t y p e boat over a range of speeds from 0 to
speeds but very much less at high speeds. T h a t 60 miles per hour. At low speeds, the planing
is the reason for planing b o a t s - - t h e i r resistance boat behaves like a displacement boat; it settles
down in the water and the bow usually goes Hown
t Paper presented at F e b r u a r y 1950 meeting of N e w E n g l a n d
Section of T h e S o c i e t y of N'aval Architects a n d M a r i n e Engineers. farther than the stern. As speed is increased,



44' V~

~O/~ ~ //~O00J
Jf .......... ~ ....

20 230 280 ~O~///~ /~ 800 E,
25 400 420 ' ~ o
55 1060 750 ~ O ~ ."
ao ~580 1000 .
I [ 400- O-

1~O I 15
20 25 3,0 35 =0 20
30 40 5O 6O





trim angle increases sharply, and the center of

gravity rises above the normal f l o t a t i o n h e i g h t .
Continuing increase of speed results in a leveling
off of the curves of elevation with generally a
slowly decreasing angle of trim. Of course, as k tt
all this happens, the center of gravity of the hull
remains fixed. For a condition of equilibrium, the
sum of the horizontal forces, the sum of the vertical
forces, and the sum of the pitching m o m e n t s
m u s t each be equal to zero. These forces and
m o m e n t s are due to gravity, buoyancy, dynamic
lift, drag, and propeller thrust. As speed changes, R = L tan r (1)
the trim adjusts itself in order to retain a condi- When the friction F is added the resistance be-
tion of equilibrium. comes
For an understanding of planing boats, a study
of the basic planing surface is desirable.

A large amount of experimental research on

planing surfaces has been carried out through the
need of information for the design of flying-boat
hulls and seaplane floats. Some of the original
investigations on this subject, made by Sottorf,
Shoemaker, and Sambraus, are covered in refer-
ence [1] 2 through [4]. A review of this work,
together with added data and analysis, is pre-
sented in references [5 ] and [6 ]. F
The action of a planing surface is not unlike R = L tan r + . - - (2)
cos T
t h a t of a wedge driven in under a weight for the
In reference [1 ], Sottorf compares measured re-
purpose of lifting it. T h e planing surface makes
sistance of flat plates with the formula
its own inclined plane by forcing the water down,
and this downward force creates a pressure field R = Ltanr + F .(3)
which raises the level of the water on each side
of the plane. T h e increased pressure at the point where
of entry raises the level of the water, some of o v.,'sct (4)
which is broken up into spray leaving the planing
surface in a lateral direction.
In equation (4) p is the water density, Vm is the
T h e simplest case for analysis is t h a t in which
mean velocity under the planing surface deter-
complete planing exists, where the water flows
mined b y pressure measurements, S is the meas-
freely away from the side boundaries of the sur-
ured wetted surface, and C I is the frictional re-
face without wetting the topsides. For this case
/l - - I / V1 \ 0 . 2 1600q*
tangential (friction) and normal forces act on the sistance cefficient [_0"075 \ R e / Re J de-
under side of the plane.
For a frictionless fluid, the tangential force is veloped b y Prandtl. In his comparison, Sottorf
zero. With a trim angle r, lift L, and normal made cos r equal to 1 in the frictional p a r t of the
force N, the resistance R will be
, t N u m b e r s in brackets indicate references listed a t the end of this * R e is R e y n o l d s n u m b e r Vl/v, where l i s the w e t t e d l e n g t h i n
direction of motion, and ~ is the kifiematic viscosity of the water.

"~ i i ,
LiNE I$ L TAN ?" + e/sVm
1 SOl
faired, results at the trim angle for which the resist-
0 0 DINGLES ARE MEASURED VALUES ance is a minimum were picked off and reduced
i~.,.~ A * 4 8 KG.
to a non-dimensional form. T h e y are presented as
curves of resistance coefficient, best trim angle,
wetted length, and center of pressure, all plotted
against speed coefficient. Fig. 6 gives the results
in this f o r m f o r the 10-degree d~adrise model. N o -
tice t h a t the "best" trim for the 10-degree deadrise
angle at all loads and speeds is between 4 ~ and
51/~ degrees. As shown on Fig. 9 the "best trim
, A " 16K6.
J angle" increases with deadrise angle.
The coefficients used in reference [3] are the
same as those used in the analysis of flying-boat
t 4" G* O" IO" It*
hull tests. T h e y conform to Froude's law of
similitude, and are defined as follows:

theoretical equation (2). This is reasonable since

IS = 8 3 4~ "
cos r is not ordinarily lower than 0.985.
T h e agreement is quite good except at low
speeds with h e a v y loads. The disagreement at
low speed has been attributed to side wetting,
and to edge effect not taken into account in the
friction calculation. Fig. 3, taken from reference
[1], shows one of the comparisons. I n reference
[2], Sottorf gives the results of additional study
of the subject, which includes tests of V-bottom J
surfaces and surfaces with transverse curvature
(see Fig. 4), as well as surfaces of flat sections
with longitudinal curvature.
In reference [3], Shoemaker
gives the results of tests made
on four planing surfaces hav-
ing deadrise angles of 0 degree,
10 degrees, 20 degrees, and 30 ,2
degrees over a wide range of
speed, load, and trim angle. !',
These tests were run in the
N A C A t a n k in Langley Field,
Va. T h e test data are presented
on charts t h a t show resistance,
wetted length, and center of B t 1160 I

pressure plotted versus speed.

Fig. 5 shows a typical chart.
Notice t h a t at constant trim
angle and constant load, the re-
sistance does not change much
i I
with speed. For heavier loads,
resistances are higher at lower
speeds due to side wetting. As
speed is increased, true planing I I
is approached and more or less I I t i 8 ._..I L . .
, I
constant resistance exists with I I
I------- 6 = 30omrn ~ I
:= 8 * 300ram
increase of speed.

I0 [:t~ L

~=~ ~ L
d - Paramet er - load, lb.--
= 6


m 4


5 -- t
50 80

40 I

\\" \_ \

\ J



0 C

60 ~ . , \~,
.~ ~0 40 s'~, "~ "x
tC \ - %x \


0 5 I0 15 g0 g5 30 35 40 45
Speed, feet per sec.



L o a d coefficient, Ca = ~ Speed coefficient, Cv = V

wb8 V'~
R e s i s t a n c e coefficient, Ca = - -
wb 3 A = l o a d on t h e w a t e r , lb.



c R W.I.
R = w------.~ b




-~ 2

0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 u i 2 3 4 S 6 7
cv' rF



R resistance, lb.
sional coefficients. These coefficients can be used
w weight density of water, Ib per cu ft.

b = beam, ft. with any other consistent system of units. The

V = speed, ft per sec. charts permit quick estimates of hydrodynamic
g = acceleration of gravity, ft per sec.~ characteristics when numbers are inserted.
In addition wetted length and center-of-pressure For the purpose of illustrating the large change
distance in inches have been divided b y the beam in resistance with trim angle, Fig. 7 has been pre-
in inches to reduce these values to non-dimen- pared from Shoemaker's data for a given constant
speed and constant displacement. In this case, a
reduction of 2 degrees from the "best trim angle"
increases the resistance b y 20 per cent.
Notice that in all this analysis the beam is the
important dimension rather than the length,
which is usually the important number to naval
z architects. This is reasonable when it is remem-
bered that for planing surfaces and planing boats
the wetted length does not remain constant,
while the wetted beam usually does. Moreover,
f it is possible to change the length of a planing sur-
face of a planing boat without changing its
hydrodynamic characteristics when operating at
high speed.
Shoemaker goes on to present all his results as
curves of A/R, the load-resistance ratio, w.l./b,
the wetted length ratio, and, c.p./b, the distance
2 4" 6 8"
of the center of pressure from the trailing edge
FIG. 7.--RESISTANCE PER TON VERSUS TRIM ANGLE FOR divided b y the beam, all for best trim angle.
SHOEMAKER PLANING SURFACE D A T A These are plotted against the planing coefficient,
D .3
A .4
o .5

x 10
^ ,I- ~ x

A '" 8
R <3
~r--~ A"
o U
8 ~ *---o-- J ~ G
A A _.~
W.I. ~W.1. f
+~..a-- o j
b / ~b V.
and 4
f I b
b z L'J'~ J _ . ~ . . ~ -'-6- c.p. o

~r oo

0 .O4 .o8 12 .16 0 .04 .08 .12 .IG 0 .04 .08 .12 .16 .20
A /~ A
K = I/2 pV~bZ K = ' v~-
2 bP~ ~ / z K = z/zpV2b2
z~ w.l. c.p.
FIG. 8 . - - V A R I A T I O N OF ~ , - - ~ - , AND ~ - - AT " B E S T " TRIM ANGLE WITH PLANING COEFFICIENT K (FROM [3])

L~ I0
K p/2 V2b2" The curves for deadrise angles
of 10 degrees, 20 degrees, and 30 degrees (Fig. 8) J
show very well the trends for the whole series. f~
Diem in reference [5] reviews in detail reference J
[3 ], for the purpose of pointing out its usefulness J
to seaplane designers. Fig. 9, a reproduction of t6 f
one of his charts, shows the variation of the "best
trim angle" with deadrise angle
T h e planing-boat designer can make use of
Figs. 8 and 9 to relate quickly dimension, weight,
power, and speed; w.l./b will give him an idea of
how long his boat must be and c.p./b will give him 2
information about the longitudinal location of the
center of gravity. I t should be kept in mind,
however, t h a t this information is for o p t i m u m trim 0 5 I0 /5 ~0 25 dO
from the standpoint of resistance. For practical Angle of deod ri~e~ deg
reasons the operating trim of a planing boat is
usually about half the o p t i m u m trim angles OF DEADRISE (FROM REVERENCE [5D
brought out here.
An examination of Fig. 8 shows t h a t as the
deadrise angle is increased, AIR decreases; in
other words, the ratio of resistance to displace- of beam for trim angles and centers of pressure
m e n t increases. The flatter the b o t t o m - - t h e possible in this type of boat.
lower the resistance. Some deadrise, however, An extensive study of planing surfaces, started
is necessary. For flying boats, deadrise at the a few years ago, is now being conducted at the
main step is necessary to reduce the impact loads Experimental Towing T a n k at Stevens Institute
when landing, the usual amount being between of Technology, under contract with the Office
20 degrees and 25 degrees. A still greater dead- of Naval Research, D e p a r t m e n t of the N a v y .
rise forward is necessary to keep down the re- This study includes a review of past work on
sistance at low speeds before planing is reached,and planing surfaces, a development of the theory
to give satisfactory rough-water characteristics. on the subject, and experiments with additional
In a planing boat, the b o t t o m can be quite flat surfaces as necessary to fill in gaps. References
aft but it has to have increased deadrise forward [7] through [13] are the published reports to
for the same reason as does the flying boat. date. Others will be issued later.
Some deadrise aft is necessary if good turning Reference [13], " W e t t e d Area and Center of
characteristics are required. For semi-planing Pressure of Planing Surfaces," presents in com-
boats, the average deadrise angle is 3 degrees at pact form the functional relationship of the five
the transom and 15 degrees at the mid-length. important variables involved in planing bodies.
Beam, as well as trim and deadrise, often has Figs. 10 and 11 show these relationships. Use
an appreciable effect on resistance. If constant of these figures will be demonstrated later.
speed and constant load are assumed, the curves Although for an exhaustive study of planing
of A/R in Fig. 8 show the variation of resistance surfaces several other papers could be cited, the
with beam. Average wartime P - T boats had a ones mentioned here seem to be those most con-
beam of 20 feet, a displacement of 100,000 pounds, venient for use in the design of planing boats.
and operated at about 40 knots. This would give
a K = 0.055 for the 10 degree deadrise case. If P L A N I N G BOATS
the boat could operate at "best trim", AIR would The subject of this paper deals with planing
be 7.8 M a x i m u m A/R of 8.5 occurs at K = boats. I t has been said t h a t you can make a barn
0.025 which would necessitate an increase of b e a m door fly if you give it power enough. This state-
to 29.6 feet. Thus if it were possible to operate m e n t might be extended by saying t h a t you can
at o p t i m u m trim and with c.p. = 0.3 .beam, a m a k e a barn door plane if you give it enough
reduction of 9 per cent in resistance would be ob- power Actually a barn door can be made to
tained. Again, for practical reasons, stepless fly in the air or plane on the water without too
V-bottom boats cannot take a d v a n t a g e of this much power if directional stability and trim are
condition. A later example will show the effect somehow controlled. But who wants to fly


.84t- .015 B
K f(f~,~) ~m

n. - (.o5 + .o1.8 )

m .E2s + .oo42 a






0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20







0 .5- 1.0 1.5 2.0 ~2.5 3.0 " 3.5 4.0
(FROM [13])


~. =. ,~/.('V'b' = ~'c,,/Cv'
OLo = r'.'(.ol~o ~"+ .0095 XVGv=1
GLp = GLo-.OO65,B GLo=

,06 .06
llOi illililllllll
.os Inn
i--/ ,lll~lll~llillil
t l l l l l i l i l t
llii q l l l l l l l l l l
.04 "==
IIII w~ii, m,-,-,-,
nI ! i H I iui/nnumnl .04
t l i / l i m i n i t
ii IIl~l~lillill
,03 n n u u n m maml i iimimnmiu m
m i n i n i l i i
mmiimil .03
.,% unmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm~rdmJ

TU.O2 Nmmumnnmnmnmnmi
nnmmmnmmmm~i~i~ ~:
m n i p i l ; ~ E ~ . ~ ~: .o2'r"'!
111111111111~7~ 7~l,,ml
I I I I I I I I I 1 ~ ~- ...~-~'dlll II
IIIIIII1~ ~''_.,,lllillllll
I I I I I I P ~ i / l l l l l l l l l l l l
,OI IIIl~.'~.dlllllllllllll II ,01
I l l i l l l l l l l l i l l l l l l l II
I~111111111111111111 II
#I r
I I i,,:/,/l
.3 .3
Y~Z., "." /
~.,')'~Z, i ; "

. ...,/~..i..~
.2 /'l I.,'D ;.,"
/. ~ ~, ~ ; 1 % = C,o-.OO6S~c.;'

," iI .2 .3 .4

.~ ~ ~.-.- - ~=
8o ~ _ . _ . . . . _ . _ ~ ~ . ~ ~ __-- ~'= o"

~ , ' - - - --'--,i ~ --"



\ I.,
r { .,
.... -i.-~..--..- .

i =5.o
)oo~A= N
aoiT=. 20"
i g~_..~===r---.--.:=--~=-= ao~
OltAFT Alrl0

/\ \


,; ,.i . ' / , ,
I,; ,
!~ ',.
t ~,

L. \ ..-:... :._-_.__-:-- . . . . . . . . .
\ ..,~i'f "....
IZO ',.\',.' ._..<:---:-
v,," . . . . :9~ ~ . ' ~
/ f r
i00~ A" N
80 f
8oiT= 4."
t f
'x, \ z

40 If S- 40
S P E E D - L E N G T H RATIO OF 5.0
668 . H Y D R O D Y N A M I C S OF P L A N I N G H U L L S

around in, or sail in, a barn door. For an effi- to 125 feet. Its lowest speed for planing would
cient, comfortable planing boat many character- be 3 X %/L = 67 knots, for which it would re-
istics need to be considered. quire about 2 million horsepower. A 500-foot
Planing boats can include V-bottom boats planing boat of usual proportions would have a
without steps, single-step or multiple-step boats, displacement of 16,000 tons. Where to put the
inverted V-bottom or sea-sled types, three-point power plant would be a real problem. More im-
hydroplanes and hydrofoil boats. The hydrofoil portant would be how to convert t h e p o w e r to
boat is a complex problem all by itself and will not thrust.
be discussed here. I will confine m y immediate As many of you know, there is not much useful
discussion to the more usual V-bottom boat literature on the design of planing-type boats.
.without step, and touch on the others later. The probable reason is that this is a comparatively
I d o n ' t suppose that anyone here is naive new field in naval architecture. However, there
enough to think that planing boats are the answer is o n e b i t of literature that should prove useful to
to all ship problems, but I have heard of all Sorts designers of this type boat. Reference [14] gives
of proposals for their use., including 9.ce.~n~liners. the results of a broad-range~ of tCs~s.~made on a re-
There is a lower limit i~'sp~ed ~below w}lich plari- lated series of V2b0ttbm m o t o r b o a ( s ~v~/rying in
ing boats are not practicable. This speed limit beam-draft ratio from 4 to 15, and in displace-
is not absolute, but is related to the size of the ment-length ratio from 40 to 160. The models are
boat. Below the lower limit of planing, the called " U S E M B Series 50" and the tests covered
water curls up around the sides, adding frictional three static trims and three loads. This refer-
and eddy resistance. At very low speeds, the ence should prove to be useful both to show the
curling up around the transom creates very serious effect of proportion changes and to obtain pre-
e d d y drag. liminary estimates of power. A new edition is
An examination of Fig. 6 shows the lower limit now available from the David Taylor Model Basin.
of the data at a Cvof 2. This means that for a Fig. 12 is a typical page from this report show-
beam of 10 feet V will be about 36 feet per second ing contours of resistance per pound of displace-
or 21 knots. T h e u s e of beam as a criterion may ment plotted against beam-draft ratio and dis-
not be very familiar, nor is the seaplane speed placement-length ratio.
coefficient Cv = V/V~gb. Most naval archi- Each page gives data for three static trims at
tects think of a boat in terms of its length and of one speed-length ratio. Three load conditions
its speed-length ratio, V/W/L, where V is in were considered, normal (designed) load, 110 per
knots, and L is load-waterline length. Both of cent normal, and 120 per cent normal. Exami-
nation of Fig. 12 shows that it is possible to select
these speed coefficients, V/'@gb and V/W/L,
the beam-draft ratio for lowest resistance per
are based on a pure form of the Froude number.
pound of displacement. Also shown are the
Most semi-planing boats have a length of
marked reductions of resistance per pound with
something like 4 times the beam. If we take
increase of static trim. The use of this reference
4 as a good average and accept 2:as a,!ower limit
will be presented later.
of V/V~gbfor practicable planing, wd'have


2 ( V in feet per second)
The first consideration in most planing boat
C=2x __=5.60 ( Vin feet per second) designs is size and speed. Rough approximations
of displacement can be determined very quickly.
V X 1.689 Quite early in the study a fairly reliable esti-
5.60 (V in knots)
mate of the power must be obta!ne.d in order to
V 5.60 select, from those that can be obtained, a stiitable
3.3 ( V in knots) engine. Size and weight of. power plant and
%/L 1.689
mechanical accessories are necessary for the final
In the writer's experience, speed-length ratio layout of the hull.
of 3 is the lowest at which a planing-type boat The references cited make possible a reasonably ".
should be c o n s i d e r e d . For high displacement- accurate estimate of power requirements as well..
length ratios, the lower limit is higher. as indicate possible ways to reduce resistance. '=~i'-"
If anyone is thinking of a planing boat for an Let us suppose we have laid down a prelimS--
ocean liner, he should consider the following. A nary design for a V-bottom power boat 62-feet
ship 500 feet in length would have a beam of 100 long weighing 60,000 pounds, with the center of

gravity 27 feet forward of the transom and t h a t

it is desired to estimate ~the power requirements '10 ~

for a speed of 40 knots. For this condition, the

boat will be largely supported on the after half
of the bottom. -30 ..~ /

For our design, the chine beam is 11.7 feet at 40 r .~

the transom and 15.9 feet at the mid-point, or an Z e-
- 5 0 w I-"
average of 13.8 feet. The deadrise at the transom t ) LU

is 3.4 degrees and at the mid-point 17.4 degrees or

an average of 10.4 degrees.
Using Figs. 10 and 11, we will need the speed
coefficient -IZ,O00 -

V 40 X 1.689 '~ 3.21
G v'a2.2x 13.8 I 0 , 0 0 0 -

and the load coefficient

8,000 --m_,~k~
Ca ~ 60,000
wb ~ 64 X 2630 0.356
and the lift coefficient
2x 2Ca 0.712
CLo p / 2 V2b 2 Cv ~ 10.3 0.0691 .4,ooo

We also need CL0, the lift coefficient for a zero

2,000 ..
degree deadrise planing surface. A value of CL0 =
0.088 is obtained from the lower chart of Fig. 11 TRIM ANGLE~ r l
for /3, the deadrise angle, = 10.4 degrees and 2" 3- 4- 5" 6- 7-
To obtain a complete picture we will go through
calculations for a wide range of trim angles, r,
kinematic viscosity. For the l a t t e r , 1.46 X 10 -5,
from 2 degrees to 7 degrees. The tabulation be-
the value for sea water at 50 degrees F is used.
low gives the results.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

T r ~.~ CL,/~ ~~ X l lb lb Vl
Re =-- Ci
2.14 0.0411 4.25 58.6 809 822 2 . 7 1 (X 10 ~) ~809iX10 -3)
3.35 0.0263 2.72 37.5 518 526 1.74 1.920
4.59 0.0192 1.82 25.1 347 352 1.16 2.030
5.87 0.0150 1.28 17.7 244 248 8 . 2 0 ( X 107) 2.131
7.18 0.0123- 0.96 13.3 184 186 6.16 2.220
8.50 0.0104 0.65 9.0 124 126 4.17 2.350
(10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
r C I + AR F Tan r " A tan r R
2 2 . 2 0 9 (X 10-~) 8242 0.0349 2095 10,337
3 2.320 5542 0:0524 3144 8,686
4 2.430 3885 0.0699 4194 8,079
5 2.531 2855 0.0875- . 5250 8,105
6 2.620 2215 0.1051 6306 8,521
7 " 2.750 1574 0.1228 7368 8,942

In this tabulation columns (1) to (4) are clear

enough from Fig. 11.
(9) is the Schoenherr friction coeffcient t a k e n
l in (5) is the wetted len .gth, equal to X times b. from reference [15].
- - in (7) is the wetted area of the bottom. (11) is (9) plus a correction for-roughness of the
COS ship's bottom. 0.400 X 10 -3, the value adopted
Re in (8) is the Reynoldsnumber, speed in feet b y the American Towing T a n k Conference, is used
per second times wetted length, divided by the [15].

F in (i2) is t h e p r e d i c t e d skin f r i c t i o n c a l c u l a t e d o u r friction resistance. I t s h o u l d n o t be i n f e r r e d

by t h a t b e a m increases are g e n e r a l l y d e t r i m e n t a l .
lb I t is safer t o e x a m i n e e a c h case s e p a r a t e l y b y a n
F = ~ V~SC.t where S = cos 13 (4)
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e effect of possible changes in
(.14) is t h e r e s i d u a l resistance, 60,000 )< t a n r beam.
where L = A = 60,000 p o u n d s . R e f e r e n c e [3] c o u l d be u s e d also for t h e d e t e r -
m i n a t i o n of a p r e l i m i n a r y e s t i m a t e of resistance.
(15) is t h e t o t a l resistance, f r i c t i o n a l plus resid- C h a r t s like Fig. 6, however, give t h e resistance
ual b y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n l y for t h e " b e s t " t r i m angle and,
R = Ltanr + F (3) f u r t h e r m o r e , h a v e no c o r r e c t i o n for Skin friction.
I t w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y to go b a c k to t h e original
T h e f r i c t i o n a l resistance, t h e r e s i d u a l resist-
d a t a (charts like Fig. 5), select t h e a p p l i c a b l e
ance, a n d t h e t o t a l r e s i s t a n c e are p l o t t e d a g a i n s t
data, and make a regular model-to-ship extra-
t h e t r i m angle as solid lines in Fig. 13. T h i s
c h a r t shows v e r y well t h e m i n i m u m r e s i s t a n c e be-
T h e f o r e g o i n g e s t i m a t e of 8,700 p o u n d s is of
t w e e n 4 degrees a n d 5 degrees. I t shows also t h a t
course t h e r e s i s t a n c e of a p l a n i n g surface w i t h
friction r e s i s t a n c e increases as t r i m angle de-
c o n s t a n t d e a d r i s e of 10.4 degrees. W e h a v e in
creases ( w e t t e d a r e a increasing), a n d t h a t residual
t h e " S e r i e s 50" r e p o r t [14] a c h a n c e to o b t a i n a n
resistance increases w i t h i n c r e a s e d t r i m angle.
e s t i m a t e of a c o m p l e t e hull. L e t us a g a i n ex-
C o n t i n u i n g o u r p r o b l e m we d e t e r m i n e t h e Center
a m i n e our p r e l i m i n a r y design for a p l a n i n g - t y p e
of p r e s s u r e v e r s u s r b y use of Fig. 10.

~- l x x" K p / l = KX', p
2 58.6 4.25 0.80 0.87 0.696 40.8
3 37.5 2.72 0.85 0.825 0.701 26.3
4 25.1 1.82 0.92 0.785 0.722 18.1
5 17.7 1.28 0.97 0.755 0.732 12.95
6 13.3 0.96 1.01 0.730 0.738 9.82
7 9.0 0.65 1.07 0.715 0.765 6.88

T h e s e values are p l o t t e d a t t h e t o p of Fig. 13.

I n o u r design, t h e c e n t e r of g r a v i t y is given as b o a t which, i n c i d e n t a l l y , has a m a x i m u m b e a m of
27 feet f o r w a r d of t r a n s o m . T h i s m e a n s our 16 feet. C e n t e r of g r a v i t y of 27 feet f r o m t r a n s o m
p l a n i n g s.ui-face will h a v e to o p e r a t e a t 2.95 degrees is a t 56.4 p e r c e n t of l e n g t h f r o m f o r w a r d per-
a n d o u r r e s i s t a n c e will be 8,700 pounds. Thus, . p e n d i c u l a r . L e t us now see w h a t We c a n find
we h a v e a tool in Figs. 10 a n d 11 for p r e d i c t i n g out. T h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of o u r design a r e :
p o w e r r e q u i r e m e n t s for p l a n i n g b o a t s . A ' 60,000/2240
A n e x a m i n a t i o n of Fig. 13 shows t h a t resistance Displacement-length ratio,
(L/100) 3 (0.62)*
could be r e d u c e d c o n s i d e r a b l y , if the t r i m angle 112.3
were i n c r e a s e d b y m o v i n g t h e c e n t e r of g r a v i t y 16
Beam-length ratio, B / L = ~ = 0.258
aft. T h e r e are p r a c t i c a l reasons w h y this m a y be
impossible. T o o high a t r i m angle m i g h t r e s u l t 40
in porpoising. Speed-length ratio, ~ = 5.08
I n c r e a s e of b e a m also m i g h t r e d u c e r e s i s t a n c e .
Fig. 8 shows a n o p t i m u m K v a l u e for 10 F r o m t h e c o n v e r s i o n f o r m u l a g i v e n in t h e refer-
degrees d e a d r i s e of 0.025. A p p l y i n g this to ottr ence,
p r o b l e m , we w o u l d o b t a i n a b e a m of 23 feet. ,By 1.16 X 104 X (0.258) 2 = 6.87
r e p e a t i n g c a l c u l a t i o n s for this b e a m , t h e b r o k e n Beam-draft ratio, B / H = 112.3
lines in Fig. 13 are o b t a i n e d . W e see t h a t
whereas m o r e b e a m decreases t h e m i n i m u m re- F r o m t h e L . C . G . c o n t o u r c h a r t in [14],
sistance, it increases the r e s i s t a n c e a t the o p e r a t - when r = 0, L.C.G. = 56.6 per cent,
ing t r i m of o u r design. F o r t h e c e n t e r of g r a v i t y when r = 2 degrees, L.C.G. = 67.1 per cent,
specified, we w o u l d now h a v e t o o p e r a t e a t a Interpolating,
t r i m angle of 2.15 dega:ees, r e s u l t i n g in a resistance
56.4 -- 56.6
of 10,300 pounds, or 19 p e r c e n t higher. Because 67.1 -- 56.5 )< 2 degrees.= --0.2 10.6 = --0"04 degree,
the c e n t e r of g r a v i t y is fixed, t h e w e t t e d l e n g t h
r e m a i n s a b o u t t h e same. T h u s , w i t h a d d e d b e a m , which i.s t h e s t a t i c t r i m .angle o f .the S e r i e s 50
t h e we{ted a r e a is g r e a t e r . T h i s enables us to b o a t h a v i n g , t h e s a m e l o n g i t u d i n a l c e n t e r of
c a r r y o u r d i s p l a c e m e n t w i t h less t r i m a n d a d d s to g r a v i t y as t h e s u b j e c t design. "

For the beam-draft ratio and displacement Substituting our values we have
length ratio calculated, we enter the charts for- p _ 60,000 3,810
speed-length ratios of 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5, at static
trim angles of 0 degree and 2 degrees, obtaining the 40 X 1.15]
following resistances per pound : On page 52 of Lindsay Lord's recent book [17]
R e s i s t a n c e per lb. is a chart prepared by Paul Tomalin from em-
pirical data collected here and abroad. This
Speed-Length Ratio For r = 0 For r = 2
4.5 0.1775 0.1500
chart gives an estimate of 2,800 horsepower.
5.0 0.1920 0.1580 We have therefore several estimates of required
5.5 0. 2110 0.1720 power.
Interpolating for a speed-length ratio of 5.08 P l a n i n g surface d a t a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,700
" S e ri e s 50" r e p o r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,580
and a static trim of --0.04 degree, we obtain S ke ne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,870
0.196 pound of resistance per pound of displace- S ke ne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,810
ment, or 11,750 pounds. This does not take into Lord ..................................... 2,800
account the scale effect due to skin friction. At Skene's information was based on data derived
the Experimental Towing Tank, we often mul- from experiences of some years ago when this
tiply bare-hull model resistance for this type of type of boat had higher length-beam ratios (indi-
boat by 75 per cent and the scale cubed to get cating higher resistance), and when propellers
a quick rough estimate of the full-size resistance. were not as good as those of today. I t is safe,
Doing this gives us a value of 8,810 pounds. therefore, to throw out or discount those two
After correcting for skin friction b y the method values.
given in reference [14], the resistance comes From here on in, the design of planing boats is
out to 8,390 pounds (see Appendix). pretty much an art.
These two estimates of resistance (8,770 pounds
from the planing surface information and 8,390
pounds from the "Series 50" report) give us effec- Skene stated in reference [16], "Little accurate
tive horsepower estimates of 1,080 and 1,030. information can be obtained from model tank
Doubling the effective horsepower generally gives experiments on small model hydroplanes . . . . "
a reasonably good estimate of engine horsepower, He further implied t h a t the difficulty was due to
taking care of appendage resistance, gear losses, the inability of accurately measuring the actual
and propeller losses. If it is suspected t h a t pro- wetted area of the model so as to separate friction
peller cavitation cannot be avoided, some addi- resistance from residual resistance.
tional power is necessary. For this case, the Actually, results of model tests on planing boats
writer chose to guess t h a t an extra 10 per cent might well have been misleading, since such tests
would take care of the latter. This will then give have not enjoyed the attention to detail t h a t
us estimates of engine horsepower of 2,700 and tests of larger, "more important," displacement
2,580. vessels have enjoyed. Up to very recently some
In the literature, there are, of course, formulae model testing establishments have still issued
and charts for estimating power requirements for predicted full-size resistances of planing boats
high-speed boats. In Skene's book [16] on page without corrections for skin friction. We at the
206 is given a chart for estimating power of step- Experimental Towing Tank believe that accurate
less V-bottom boats. According to this chart predictions of full-size resistance of planing boats
the power required for the subject boat is 3,870. can be obtained only from model tests when proper
On page 222 of this reference Skene also gives the attention is given to test details and when fric-
following formula: tion corrections are made. The former requires
C paying particular attention to center-of-gravity
position and propeller shaft thrust line. The
where latter requires reasonably accurate measurement
of actual wetted area and wetted length.
W is r u n n i n g w e i g h t of b o a t
S is speed in miles per h o u r Model tests for determining resistance char-
P is engine h o r s e p o w e r acteristics are always made according to the
C is a coefficient for w h i c h he gives 180 t o 185 for s t e p - Froude law of similarity. For this purpose, the
less h:Cdroplanes.
part of the model coming into contact with the
Transforming this equation, we have water should be geometrically similar to the full-
W size boat. If the scale of the model is ~, the scale
P --~ - -
(C/S) of the speed will be k ~, the scale of the wetted

FIG. 14. - - M O D E l . OF V - I { ( v I I ' O M I>O\VER [{~AI' M O V I N G AF ~PEI,;D L E N G T I ! ]~ATIt~ (~F .t.o, [I.I.USTRATIN(; ~ I E I I [ t ) D ~)F

area will be X2, and the scale of the submerged While the stationary wetted area m a y be used
volume will be k s. If the t a n k water is fresh and for computing friction for displacement ships, it
the full-size boat will operate in salt water, the is necessary to determine the actual wetted area
scale of the weights will v a r y from k s b y the rela- and the wetted length of the moving planing-
tive densities of the two fluids.S boat model.
If no corrections were necessary for friction, At the Experimental Towing T a n k , planing-
the scale for resistance under the foregoing condi- boat models are marked with lines to enable deter-
tions would be k s. Actually, however, only mination of the wetted length of the chine and
residual resistance (wave making and form re- keel. A straight line joining the forward ends of
sistance) approximates this law. Friction resist- these lengths is assumed to be the forward
ance runs to quite a bit less than k s. boundary of the wetted bottom. Lines on the
T h e usual solution of the problem is to assume topsides at the transom enable an estimate of
t h a t the frictional resistance of a model is equal the area of side wetting occurring at low speeds.
to t h a t of a flat plate having the same immersed T h e running wetted areas are sometimes as little
length and the same wetted area as the wetted por- as 50 per cent of the static wetted area; thus, their
tion of the model. This assumed frictional resist- importance in the friction correction is consider-
ance is subtracted from the model resistance, and able.
the remainder, the residual resistance, is multiplied Figs. 14 and 15 show photographs of a V - b o t t o m
b y Xs to obtain the full-size residual resistance. m o t o r b o a t being tested in the E T T tank. T h e
T o this is added the full-size frictional resistance lines, spaced 5 inches apart, enable a r e a s o n a b l y
which is assumed to be t h a t of a fiat plate, X times accurate determination of wetted chine and wetted
the length, and X2times the wetted area of the plank keel lengths. T h e arrow on Fig. 14 clearly shows
assumed for the model, moving, of course, a t k ~4 the point t a k e n as the keel length. T h e deter-
times the model speed. I t is the practice, then, to ruination of the wetted chine length takes a little
m a k e an addition for the surface roughness of the more "know-how," as this point is fogged b y a lot
full-size boat. of lateral spray. Study of the technique has
shown t h a t the location to select is a t the after
s F r o n d e ' s law of similitude is thoroughly covered in the literature
and ~eed not be explained in detail here. boundary of the f o a m y spray just at the point


where the main spray blister starts. Fig. 15 the center of gravity m u s t be located accurately
shows this location. so t h a t the model trim is geometrically similar
In order to check this method, tests were run to to the designed trim of the boat. For the same
determine the actual running wetted area of the reason, some account m u s t be t a k e n of the loca-
same model. T o do this, spots of wet paint were tion of the propeller shaft.
p u t on the model, after which it was run to deter- T h e Experimental Towing T a n k makes a prac-
mine the flow lines. Fig. 16 is a photograph tice of towing planing boat models from a point
of the b o t t o m of the same model as pictured on the designed propeller shaft line and providing
in Figs. 14 and 15 after running at the same speed. an upward force, F,, to compensate for the up-
I t can be seen t h a t a straight line between the ward thrust of the propeller. F~ -- R tan a,


forward ends of the wetted chine and keel de- where a is the angle of the shaft line with horizon
fines quite closely the forward boundary of the when the model is moving. T o determine F, a
wetted b o t t o m . trial-and-error method is necessary to first ob-
We have noted previously how i m p o r t a n t the tain reasonably close estimates of R and a.
effect of trim is on the resistance of planing sur- This does not become a chore, since, with ex-
faces. Therefore, the longitudinal position of perience, very accurate guesses for Fo can be


made after the first few runs. Figs. 14 and 15 show model and compared to the actual measured re-
the arrangement for adding weights to apply F,. sistances of the larger model. Figs. 17 and 18
The Experimental Towing T a n k has had an show the comparisons. Considering t h a t there
opportunity to check this expansion method with are differences of testing technique in the estab-
larger models; in one case, with a model tested at lishments, the agreement is quite satisfactory.
the NACA tank at Langley Field, and in another On each curve, spots indicate the predictions ob-
case with a model tested in the Taylor Model tained if the model results were merely multiplied
Basin. In each case, the test results of the smaller b y k s, as has been the practice in some tanks for
model were expanded to the size of the larger many years.

.." ~ i J J


, ,.o*" *" t


SPEED ADJUSTMENT. " ~ ' ~ " ' - - " ~ l)

s'/2 Lsc
MA M /'
z -30'

118.8 SCALE =:


,S .8
ip i? ~p Is


11 I

i a


2 3 4


., .., . [


FIG. 19.--PRESSURE D I S T R I B U T I O N OF 1 0 - D E G R E E D E A D R I S E P L A N I N G S U R F A C E (FROM [ 2 ] )

The real pro9f of the pudding, however, would can be made in a hull. In five alterations of the
be comparison of model predictions with the full- previously mentioned design, the 40-knot ef-
size performance. T h e difficulties in getting fective horsepower was reduced from 1,2~I0 to
accurate measurements of power delivered t o the 1,120. Several years ago, the writer worked on a
sliaft of a small high-speed boat, together with the series of model tests which eventually reduced the
possibility of propeller cavitation, are only two of resistance of a certain design to less t h a n 60 per
the m a n y problems cofinected with a satisfactory. cent of t h a t of the first trial.
comparison. I t is often possible to obtain reductions of re-
Model tests have been made of the 62-foot sistance b y local changes in design. In general
power boat previously considered. At 40 knots most planing boats operate at less than the trim
the predicted effective horsepower was ,1,120. for o p t i m u m resistance, and it is not possible to
This compares with 1,080 from planing-surface increase the trim b y locating the center of gravity
data and 1,030 from the Series 50 report. The farther aft. In the pressure distribution curve
client estimated 12 per cent for appendage re- shown in Fig. 19, we note t h a t the greatest pres-
sistance. As cavitation was expected, a liberal sures exist near the entl:ance of the b o t t o m into
3,000 horsepower was installed. The boat made the water. If the b e a m is increased in this local-
40 knots with 2,600 horsepower; wide open, she ity, increased running trim m a y be obtained.
did 41. The trial results indicated a drop of pro- Lowering the chine at the water entrance, and
pellet efficiency due to cavitation from 61 per cent thereby decreasing the deadrise, accomplishes the
to 47 per cent. same end r e s u l t . Rocketing the b o t t o m at the
This story indicates not much difference be- transom or decreasing the b e a m at the transom
tween estimates obtained from the literature and will often increase trim and decrease resistance.
from model tests. One might a r g u e - - w h y a N o t enough is known at present to set up general
model test? A prominent naval architect has rules for these changes. In fact, changes like
said, " I t is very difficult to design a boat much the latter have on a few occasions resulted in in-
better than existing good ones but it is very easy creased resistance. Unless checks can be m a d e
to designone 10 per cent worse." by model tests, such suggestions must be carefully
Model tests often indicate how improvements considered.

o , // /

/," / /
/ ../I
.,-. /
,.t, /,I,,~ ~ ...:.;/.,../
o ,d;//. --::>7.>-
a //, y / / . - . . ~ _ - ~ ..... ~ .

l -i".,.-",77z ~~=-----
L i~Ti/-"~'-

,o - - .


,ll~. / ~ / ~ "r


2 $ 4 5



A great m a n y tests of 'planing boats have been cently developed boats can be obtained. Fig.
made at the Experimental Towing Tank. When- 21 shows these minimum resistance envelopes for
ever time permits, an a t t e m p t is made to correlate four groups of displacement ratios. This figure
the results. In a n y such investigation, the im- can be used for preliminary resistance estimates.
portant variables, length, beam and trim, m u s t For a close comparison of these various boats,
be considered. At present, curves of resistance they should all be reduced to a common length to
per pound of displacement for the full-size boats correct for Reynolds effect. For the boats con-
have been worked up; such a group of curves for sidered here, running in length from 23 feet to
displacement-length ratios of 140 to 160 are shown 85 feet, reduction to a mean length would intro-
in Fig. 20. As can be seen, there is a great spread duce variations of resistance per pound of up to
in resistance above speed-length ratios of 31/~. 6 per cent. T h e curves, therefore, can be used
Similar curves have been prepared for lighter and only for an ' a p p r o x i m a t e power estimate. The
heavier boats. B y drawing in an envelope below lack of the correction for length does not materially
each group of curves, minimum resistances for re- alter the trend with displacement-length ratio.

"I _ ::. ' '" '

o. /7/ I .

2 5 4 5

I t is not intended that this paper deal with pro- from the engine-propeller cominbation. Racing
pellers; however, some mention of them should the engine to carry the boat over the resistance
be made. Intelligent selection is necessary to hump m a y result in cavitation with great loss of
prevent unbalance between the boat, the engines, thrust and inability to get over the hump.
and the propellers. For planing boats the selec- The only excuse for a planing boat is speed;
tion of engines is, in large part, based on what is and, when speed is desired, propeller cavitation is
available. Often the selection of propellers is a problem. Cavitation can often be avoided by
based on pulling two or three off the shelf and installing gears to change the shaft speed, which
trying them out to 'see which is best. Propeller may involve gear losses and increases of append-
manufacturers often do a good job furnishing age resistance. I t can be avoided also by increas-
wheels from stock. However, with the propeller ing blade width. In any event, the problem
information available in Taylor's "Speed a r i d should be attacked intelligently by determining
Power of Ships" and in the "Principles of Naval just what the conditions are. When cavitation
Architecture," it is possible to determine closely cannot be avoided conveniently, it is possible
what characteristics ought to be used. to operate with a certain amount of it by increas-
In the early part of this paper, a single required ing the engine size and propeller size to com-
design speed was chosen for illustration. In de- pensate for.the loss in propeller efficiency. For
signing a planing boat, this is not enough--a high-spee d boats cavitation definitely should be
full curve of resistance versus speed should be taken into account when selecting engines and pro-
estimated. At lower than design speed, this type pellers.
of boat can have resistances higher than t h a t at
the design speed. In any event, the curve of re- OTHER CONSIDERATIoN's
sistance versus speed is very much flatter t h a n
l~hat of displacement boats. Against the curve Resistance is only one important hydrodynamic
of resistance should be plotted the available thrust characteristic of a planing boat. Often some-

thing else is the deciding factor in laying down the continues moving aft resulting in a condition like
final lines. Other characteristics are maneuver- (c). This results in a negative trimming moment,
ability, porpoising tendency, diving tendency, forcing the bow down. This in turn tends to
pounding in a seaway, and spray throwing. A move the resultant forward to a condition like
good deal is known about this subject but, un- (a). The cycle keeps repeating.

fortunately, not much has been published Use- A considerable amount of study has been made
ful information has been obtained by model tests of this phenomenon in connection with flying-
on all of these characteristics in connection with boat work. Fig. 22 is a typical chart showing
P~T boat design where the investment is high. unstable porpoising regions for a seaplane hull.
Smaller boats apparently cannot afford the benefit Flying boats are always designed to operate in the
of such study. stable region between lower limit and upper limit
The design of rudders must be a compromise
between resistance and effectiveness. Rudders
should be placed in the slipstream of the pro-
pellets. The lateral location with respect to
the shaft line has been the subject of much dis- A~ 0~$r41tt"l"
cussion lately--one side or the other is more favor-
able, depending on the propeller rotation. A
complete enough story is not available to put
down here. Perhaps some discussers may have
something for the record.
For very high speed boats, it is desirable to
have the boat heel inward on a tight turn. In
most cases, the V-bottom boat does this in a
most satisfactory manner. Too little deadrise FIG. 2 2 - - U N S T A B L E "PORPOISING" 'REGIONS OF A FLYING
at the transom seems to interfere with good turn-
ing at high speed.
Most planing boats are not often bothered by
porpoising. However, when it does occur, it is ~ porpoising with a speed-trim curve like-A. Plan-
uncomfortable and sometimes can be disastrous. ing boats generally operate below the "island"
Porpoising is a self-sustaining oscillation involv- of lower limit porpoising, in a region such as 23.
ing an interaction of vertical and pitching motions Increasing speed w i t h o u t change of trim or in-
The sketches in this section indicate what happens creasing trim without change of speed in direc-
in a physical sense. Let us suppose that at a tions indicated by the arrows will put the boat
certain time, condition (a) exists with the re- i n t h e unstable range.
sultant water force forward of the center of When static trim angle was increased, pot-
gravity. This creates a trimming moment which poising was present at high speed for most of the
raises the bow and results in the water reaction hulls reported in reference [14]. The limiting
moving aft. In moving aft, if it remained at the speeds for various cases are shown in this reference.
position shown in condition (b), no porpoising A great deal of work on porpoising of flying
would exist. However, the resultant water force boats has been done by m a n y investigators.

Much of this would be useful for a basic study of radius, and equipped with spray strips might be a
porpoising of planing boats. better answer than a V-bottom boat. It would
A tendency to dive in a high-speed boat is a not be as fast in smooth water b u t it might well
condition that has resulted in the loss of boats. make a faster average speed in rough going, and
This condition, which is caused b y the suction it would certainly be more comfortable.
effect of high velocity flow over the forward Spray throwing can be controlled by the same
sections, is aggravated in close turns and in a sea- means as diving tendency is reduced--proper
way, often leading to broaching. I t can be beam width forward and spray strips. Spray
avoided completely by increasing the flare under strips almost always improve V-bottom boats
the chine forward so that sufficient dynamic lift with regard to speed as well as maldng a drier,
is produced to overcome any sucking-down tend- more comfortable boat. Reference [19] gives
ency. T h e application of spray strips will also some of the experiences of the Experimental
reduce diving tendency. Reference [18] briefly Towing T a n k in this respect and should be in the
describes tests made to obtain quantitative in- library of all small power-boat designers.
formation on the "diving tendency." In addition to the single-step V-bottom boat
Pounding and slamming in a seaway is a con- which is much in the lead for semi-planing boats,
dition difficult to avoid in V-bottom planing boats. the "sea sled," or inverted "V," and the multi-
step hydroplane deserve some mention. T h e in-
verted "V" makes a very dry, clean-running boat.
It is possible t h a t pounding might be reduced
b y the entrapped air and bow wave. Sea sled
proponents often quote the very high lateral sta-
bility as an advantage. The higher stability is
there, but it is much greater than there is any
need for. The sea sled m a y well have poor turn-
ing ability.
Multi-step hydroplanes have a definite place in
the very-high-speed field. If the load is carried
on two or more planing surfaces, it should be pos-
sible to design for the optimum trim angle and
The condition is so uncomfortable and so damag- optimum beam. The study on planing surfaces,
ing to the hull structure that such boats must now going on at the Experimental Towing Tank,
be slowed down considerably when the going is will give information on the wake contours be-
very rough. Round-bottom German E boats hind the surfaces so t h a t information will be avail-
could almost always outrun potentially faster able on the best angle of attack for the trailing
V-bottolfi motor torpedo boats in the North Sea surfaces.
during World War II. Any rounding of the Before a complete scientific method can be used
forward sections seems to cut down the severity of for designing planing boats, a great deal of re-
pounding, but probably with danger of increased search will be necessary. I t is hoped that the
diving tendency and spray throwing. However, present work being carried out on planing surfaces
a compromise m a y very well be possible. This can be continued and extended to include sur-
has led to forward sections similar to an inverted faces with changing deadrise, with c u r v e d sec-
oxen yoke, like the sketch, which have been used tions, with longitudinal curvature, and other de-
by some designers with success. Such a shape tails that approach the configuration of a prac-
does not add much to the resistance, but it does tical boat. Such a study ought to be useful to
ease the pounding. In an informal test at the flying-boat designers as well as to small surface-
Experimental Towing Tank, such a design was at boat designers.
one time compared in head seas with a V-bottom The "other considerations" brought out in the
and a round-bottom boat. The V-bottom boat foregoing contribute to the "sea-keeping" quali-
pitched a great deal more than the round-bottom ties of a boat which is a measure of its ability to
boat. The "oxen-yoke" boat had pitching char- operate safely and comfortably at a useful speed.
acteristics about halfway between those of the The Society of Naval Architects and Marine
other two. Engineers has a committee on "sea-keeping"
If a fast boat is to operate a large part of the which undoubtedly will consider this general
time in rough water, a round-bottom boat having characteristic with reference to planing boats as
a quite wide flat bottom aft, a moderate bilge well as for displacement ships.


[1] Sottorf, W., "Experiments with Planing Fund Paper No. 168, Institute of the Aeronautical
Surfaces," National Advisory Committee for Sciences, New York, June 1948.
Aeronautics Technical Memorandum No. 601, [11 ] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V., Savitsky,
1932. Daniel, and Lehman, William F., "Wave Con-
[2] Sottorf, W., "Experiments with Planing tours in the Wake of a 10-degree Deadrise Plan-
Surfaees," National Advisory Committee for ing Surface," Sherman M. Fairchild Publication
Aeronautics Technical Memorandum No. 739, Fund Paper No. 170, Institute of the Aeronautical
1934. Sciences, New York, November, 1948.
[3] Shoemaker, James M., "Tank Tests of [12] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V., Savitsky,
Flat and V-Bottom Planing Surfaces," National Daniel, and Lehman, William F., "Wake Profile
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Technical of a Vee Planing Surface, Including Test Data
Note No. 509, November 1934. on a 30-degree Deadrise Surface," Sherman M.
[4] Sambraus, A., "Planing Surface Tests at Fairchild Publication Fund Paper No. 229, In-
Large Froude Numbers--Airfoil Comparison," stitute of the Aeronautical Sciences, New York,
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics April 1949.
Technical Memorandum No. 848, February [13] Korvin-Kronkovsky, B. V., Savitsky,
1938. Daniel, and Lehman, William F., "Wetted Area
[5] Diehl, Walter S., " T h e Application of and Center of Pressure of Planing Surfaces,"
Basic Data on Planing Surfaces to the Design of Sherman M. Fairchild Publication Fund Paper
Flying Boat Hulls," National' Advisory Com- No. 244, Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences,
mittee for Aeronautics Report No. 694, 1940. New York, August 1949.
[6] Locke, F. W. S., Jr., "Tests of a Flat [14] Davidson, Kenneth S. M., and Suarez,
Bottom Planing Surface to Determine the In- Anthony, "Tests of Twenty Models of V-Bottom
ception of Planing," Navy Department, Bureau M o t o r Boats," Navy Department, David Taylor
of Aeronautics Research Division DR Report Model Basin, Report R-47, Revised Edition,
No. 1096, December 1948. March 1949.
[7] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V., and Chabrow, [15] "Uniform Procedure for the Calculation
Faye R., "The Discontinuous Fluid Flow Past an of Frictional Resistance and the Expansion of
Immersed Wedge," Sherman M. Fairchild Pub- Model Test Data to Full Size," Bulletin No.
lication Fund Paper No. 169, Institute of the 1-2 of The Society of Naval .Architects and
Aeronautical Sciences, New York, October 1948. Marine Engineers, New York, August 1948.
[8] Pierson, John D., and Leshnover, Samuel, [16] Skene, Norman L., "Elements of Yacht
"An Analysis of the Fluid Flow in the Spray Root Design," Dodd, Mead & Company, New York,
and Wake Regions of Flat Planing Surfaces," 1944.
Sherman M. Fairchild Publication Fund Paper [17] Lord, Lindsay, "Naval Architecture of
No. 166, Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences, Planing Hulls," Cornell Maritime Press, New
New York, October 1948. York, 1946.
[9] Pierson, John D., "On the Pressure Dis- [18] Davidson, Kenneth S. M., "The Growing
tribution for a Wedge Penetrating a Fluid Sur- Importance of Small Models for Studies in Naval
face," Sherman M. Fairchild Publication Fund Architecture," Transactions of The Society of
Paper No. 167, Institute of the Aeronautical Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, page 98,
Sciences, New York, June 1948. Volume 49, 1941.
[10] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V., Savitsky, [19] Ashton, Randolph, "Effect of Spray
Daniel, and Lehman, William F., "Wave Con- Strips on Various Power-boat Designs," Experi-
tours in the Wake of a 20-degree Deadrise Plan- mental Towing Tank, Stevens Institute of Tech-
ing Surface," Sherman M. Fairchild Publication nology, Technical Memorandum No. 99, 1949.



F o r t h e b o a t c o n s i d e r e d on p a g e 675, we h a v e Ship Model

t h e following i n f o r m a t i o n : Wetted area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616 sq ft 1.78 sq ft
Wetted length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 ft 2.01 ft
Ship Model
K n o w i n g t h e m o d e l resis{ance, R~, t h e full-
Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 ft 3.33 ft
Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ft 0.88 ft size resistance, Rs, can be c o m p u t e d f r o m t h e
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,000 lb 9.32 lb following :
R/lb. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 196.
Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 826 lb R0 =" [R., -- (C/p/2 SV2)m (scale) 3 + [(C/ +
Speed, knots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 0.0004)0/2 SV2],
Speed, ft/sec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.6 15:7 R,~ = 1.826 pounds
Scale--length ratio 18.6 (C/p/2 SV2)~ = 3.602 X 10(~) X 0.97 X 1.78 X 246.5
wetted area ratio 346 = 1.533
displacement ratio 6,440 [(C/ + 0.0004) p/2 SV~]. = (1.921(V + 0.400) X
speed ratio 4.31 10 -3 X 0.995 X 616 )< 4570
= 6500
R, = (1.826 - 1.533) 6440 + 6500 = 8390 pounds -.
I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e s i s t a n c e p e r t o n reference
[14] gives ,wetted area. F o r t h e s u b j e c t design
this is 1.78 s q u a r e .feet. '~Dividing this b y t h e '" (t) F r o m reference [15] for Re Vl 15.7 X 2.01
v 1.055 X 10-~ = 2.99 X J0*
b e a m of 0.88 we h a v e a n a v e r a g e m o d e l w e t t e d w h e r e 1055 X 10-5 is v for model f r e s h w a t e r a t 70 d e g r e e s F.

l e n g t h of 2.01 feet. ,This gives us in a d d i t i o n to 67.6 X 37.4

(~) F r o m reference [15] for Re = 1.46 X 1~-~ 1.732 X 101where
the above 1.46 X 10-5 is v f o r s e a w a t e r a t 50 degrees F.


MR. DWIGHT S. SIMPSON, Member: As a long- As a n e x a m p l e of t h e t y p e I describe, I a t t a c h

t i m e e x p o n e n t of t h e a l l - r o u n d s u p e r i o r qualities t h e b o d y p l a n of a 38-foot b y 9-foot t w i n - s c r e w
of t h e r o u n d b o t t o m hull for m o d e r a t e l y f a s t c o m m u t e r of 13,000 p o u n d s d i s p l a c e m e n t de-
b o a t s , I c a n n o t resist a d d i n g some r e m a r k s to signed n e a r l y t w e n t y y e a r s ago. On' h e r one
t h e second p a r a g r a p h on p a g e 679 of M r . M u r r a y ' s official trial, she a t t a i n e d a s p e e d of 28.8 k n o t s
very able paper. w i t h a n e s t i m a t e d 356 horsepower. A f t e r a
I t h a s been m y f o r t u n e to be a s s o c i a t e d in t h e
d e v e l o p m e n t of a n u m b e r of f a s t b o a t s for r o u g h
w a t e r service, a n d i t has b e e n our experience t h a t ~ 35
t h e r o u n d b o t t o m c r a f t can o u t r u n a n d o u t -
m a n e u v e r t h e V - b o t t o m in a n y t h i n g b u t t h e 9 I0 ' -

s m o o t h e s t w a t e r a n d w i t h m u c h less d i s c o m f o r t
to t h e personnel. F u r t h e r m o r e , such c r a f t oper-
ates a t slow or j o g g i n g s p e e d s m u c h as a n o r m a l
design w h i c h is m o r e t h a n can b e s a i d of a n y V- OWL
bottom boats with which I have been familiar.
A f u r t h e r p r a c t i c a l a d v a n t a g e of t h e r o u n d b o t -
t o m d e s i g n is i t s d u r a b i l i t y d u e to t h e i n h e r e n t
s t r e n g t h of t h e c o n t i n u o u s a r c c o n s t r u c t i o n as
c o n t r a s t e d to t h e i n t e r r u p t i n g corners of t h e chine
t y p e ; w h i c h is to s a y t h a t t h e i r g r e a t e r a b i l i t y to FIG. 23.--TwIN:ScREW CRUISER BODY PLAN
" t a k e i t " is a n o t h e r a d j u n c t to t h e m a i n t e n a n c e of L e n g t h over-all, 38 feet; d e s i g n e d waterline, 37 feet 46 inches;
b e a m , 9 feet; d r a f t , 1 foot 11 inches; d i s p l a c e m e n t , 13,000
s p e e d in r o u g h w a t e r w i t h o u t b r e a k i n g up. pounds.

change in propellers, she was reported to make comparison with model tests under the same
30.5 knots at full engine revolutions or an esti- scaled conditions of trim and displacement.
m a t e d 380 to 390 horspower. These results are not yet available, but will prove
Five years afterward she was reported as still extremely interesting. I do believe t h a t accurate
capable of better than 29 kiiots and was "bailed predictions from model tests will not be made
with a sponge" which, again, cannot be said of until self-propelled models can be run. The
any V-bottom craft with which I have been famil- Bureau of Ships is a t t e m p t i n g to have this done,
iar. Her owner also reported that-he had driven but here again a serious problem exists in obtain-
her at speed through Water in which he would not ing a d y n a m o m e t e r of sufficient power without too
have taken any of l~is previously owned V-bottom much weight.
craft. Aside from the theoretical portion of the paper,
This hull was handicapped b y an oversupply of I am h a p p y to note that Mr. M u r r a y concedes b y
appendages being fitted with heavy propeller his examples and statements t h a t the design of a
struts and projecting guards, but it is interesting planing hull is one of compromise even to a greater
t o note in the light of present data t h a t at 28.8degree than for the normal displacement type
knots her hull trim changed about 4 degrees cor- ship. I call your attention to his statement on
responding to an angle of attack or trim at the page 671, where he states, " F r o m here on in, the
mean buttock of about 3 degrees. H e r center of design of planing boats is pretty much of an art."
gravity was 16.1 feet from the transom. No This statement should not go unnoticed. On
driving tendency was noticed. the whole, m a n y of the planing boat designers
I t is to be hoped, t h a t the future schedule at the
are, shall I say, a temperamental lot, ready to
Stevens T a n k will include some tests on round argue for their pet theory at the blink of an eye.
b o t t o m hulls which appear so far to have been I am quite sure t h a t Mr. M u r r a y will agree with
sadly neglected. me on this.
In this day and age of "irium" in toothpaste,
MR. SIDNI~Y A. PETERS, Member: I believe "solium" in soap powder, hydramatic, gyro-
t h a t Mr. M u r r a y has crammed as much informa- matic, ultramatic, and countless other coined
tion in as few words as is possible on a subject of words, the contagion has reached the planing hull
this type. so t h a t we have quadraconic, monohedron,
The curves in Fig. 8 are very interesting and clinometric, and others. These terms are in-
demonstrate the decrease in lift over drag, or load tended to convey a system of hull form for which
over resistance as defined earlier, with an in- certain claims are made.
crease in deadrise. Incidentally, I believe t h a t Needless to say, the design of a planing type
on page 664 the load over resistance figures of hull must reflect the d u t y to which the boat is to
4.25 and 3.9 do not check with the scale on the be employed. T h e degree of sacrifice of an
right of Fig. 8 which is labeled, " L o a d Over o p t i m u m characteristic depends on the importance
Resistance." The method of computing pre- of other characteristics. For instance, the de-
liminary resistance from .Figs. 10 and 11 is a sign of a small, open, fast, day sp0rtster, which
notable contribution and help .to the designer, as ordinaril)r will be run with wide open throttle in
a check against computations from the Series 50. sheltered waters, does not require the same de-
With regard to model testing, the separation of gree of sacrifice of characteristics as the design of
frictional resistance in expanding model data a motor torpedo boat, with which I am. most
gives much more accurate predictions than the familiar. Speed and acceleration of a m o t o r
older method. I distinctly recall t h a t the model torpedo boat are important characteristics, b u t
d a t a of some of the early PT's, expanded without there are other characteristics of equal im-
regard for frictional resistance, indicated t h a t portance. Rapid maneuverability, good sea-
they would not make 40 knots. T h e boats made keeping qualities, a comparatively d r y topsides,
w e l l over 43 knots. In this connection the and an economical cruising speed, are some of
models of the four experimental P T ' s now under these. T h e last mentioned is one of the most
construction were towed at Stevens. Larger difficult to achieve unless a round b o t t o m boat is
models are now being towed at the Taylor Model used.
Basin with and without appendages. The Bureau I note t h a t under the title, "Other Considera-
of Ships intends to conduct extensive trials of the tions," Mr. M u r r a y has mentioned these char-
full-scale boats for comparative purposes. Inci- acteristics but has been compelled necess~ily to
dentally, the old aluminum ex-PT8 has been run s a y very little about them. The design, of the
through extensive t e s t s at various trims and rudders for a P T boat is based on comparison with
displacements and m a n y data obtaiixed for model testing, past performance, and good judg-

ment. N o One can foretell definitely .whether or DR. K. S. M. DAVIDSON, Member: I t seems to
not the rudder 'design is satisfactory until the boat me t h a t Mr. M u r r a y has succeeded v e r y well in
is finally tested full scale. This is easily under- showing in this paper, first t h a t an immense
standable when it is considered t h a t the rate of amount of d a t a applicable to the design of plan-
change in heading of the boat is a function of the i n g boats has recently become available, second
hull form, the area of the rudders, the cross-sec- t h a t to a large extent the designing of such boats
tion of the rudder itself, the location of the rudder can be put on a rational basis.
with regard to the 'centerline of the propeller He mentions t h a t the field is a relatively new
shaft, the center of gravity of the area, and what one and t h a t this m a y account for the lack of
happens to the center of pressure at various general appreciation of the availability of material
speeds. Actually, very little dependable data are relating to i t . . More i m p o r t a n t t h a n this is, I
available regarding the behavior of rudders on think, t h a t it has received less concentrated atten-
high-speed boats. tion. Falling between the fields of ship design
A similar story m a y be told for propellers, as and seaplane or flying boat design, in both of
stated b y Mr. Murray. T h e convention is to which there have been stronger incentives and
assume a propulsive coefficient of 50 per cent. more compelling reasons for intensive study of
This m a y v a r y anywhere between 40 and 65 per technical problems, it-has received less than its
cent depending on a' number of variables. I t is 'needed share-of attentionl
almost axiomatic t h a t the first set of propellers NevertheLess, I believe t h a t a large measure
put on a boat Ere never quite right. of understanding of the interrelation Of the major
I could ramble on and on and have mentioned controlling variables has now been gained and
b u t a few of t h e : m a n y problems which face the t h a t the time is close when rational methods of
planing hull designer. I know t h a t the subject design will be formulated. I t will .be necessary
will provoke a lively discussion and I am very to draw on the methods of b o t h naval architecture
much disappointed t h a t I will be unable to take and seaplane designing, but the result will differ
part in person. somewhat from both.
In closing, I should like tolstate t h a t there is all One thing should be kept clearly i in mind in
too little reliable information available to the de- reading the paper; namely, t h a t it applies mainly
signer a n d I believe t h a t 'Mr. M u r r a y ' s - p a p e r to what are really moderate-speeds for planing
has filled one of the gaps. boats, say, 40 knots for a 60-foot boat ( V / X / L - - =

Planing hull



Seaplane hull for same beam, length, and displacement

Fxd. 24

Effective trim-21/_9degrees

Effective trim 5 degrees

FIG. 25

5 + ) , and that it does not say very much about of half the length and, because its center of
truly high planing speeds. gravity would be much nearer the transom
During the war a scheme was put forward that (or step), its running trim could be greater than
involved designing a waterborne craft, to have a that of the out-and-out planing-boat type. This
moderate speed as defined above, driven by an is shown in Fig. 25, Which also suggests that, be-
air-screw and supported on catamaran floats. cause of the greater running trim, the shorter
The craft was never built, but the development of length would be enough to keep the bow up and
the float design for it brought out so vividly some out of the water.
of the fundamental principles described in Mr. The point is that the resistance would be
Murray's paper that a brief account of it m a y not much less. Systematic tests of pure planing sur-
be out of pl~tce here. faces show consistently that running trim angles
The obvious analogy to a float-supported sea- of around 5 degrees give lowest resistances (see
plane led at the start to the idea of adopting the Figs. 7 and 13 of the paper), whereas, as Mr.
same type of float. In the end, however, simple M u r r a y points out, V-bottom planing boats
V-bottom floats, narrower but otherwise similar seldom have running trim angles of much more
in type to the V-bottom planing boats of the than half of this, say 21/~ degrees. Why, then,
paper, were strongly recommended. would not the distorted seaplane type have been a
The essential differences between the two types satisfactory answer for the floats of the special
are shown in Fig. 24 and will be generally recog- craft under discussion ?
nized. Now it will be evident that if the after- ' It was tried in the course of the model testing
body of the seaplane type is regarded as an ap- program for this craft, and found to porpoise
pendage, the forebody m a y be regarded as a badly. To be sure, this behavior was predicted
"compressed" version of the planing-boat type, of from available information. B u t the demonstra-
roughly half the length and with its center of tion was nevertheless graphic and convincing.
gravity far aft. One could very nearly design The solution was obviously to lower the after-
the forebody of the seaplane type by taking the body keel angle--in other words, to return the
sections of the planing-boat type and spacing distorted design to more nearly the conventional
them half as far apart. He could not very well seaplane t y p e - - i n order to bring the afterbody into
contemplate building this forebody alone, with- contact with the water and thereby ~to get some
out its afterbody, and expect to reproduce the far water support and stabilizing influence from it.
aft position of the center of gravity. Every However, when this was done to a sufficient ex-
naval architect and airplane designer knows the tent to eliminate the porpoising, the resistance
difficulty of getting his center of gravity very far added by the afterbody just about wiped out the
away from the mid-length of his structure. But gain in resistance from the higher running trim of
he could, if he chose, considerably enlarge the the forebody. The seaplane and the planing-
angle between the forebody and afterbody keels, boat types had much the same resistances.
thereby keeping the afterbody clear of the water The principles thereupon became at once ap-
while running and making the forebody do all the parent: (1) that full advantage could not be
work. _taken of the otherwise possible reduction of re-
Suppose this were done. The distorted sea~ sistance through increasing the running trim angle
plane type would then be in effect a planing boat unless porpoising could be overcome; (2) that

the seaplane type overcame porpoising b y means sign of flying boats and planing boats, neverthe-
of a tail (afterbody) while the planing boat over- less the two fields are closely related. I t will be
came i t b y having a farther forward position of n o t e d t h a t the author's first thirteen references
the center of gravity and thus a lower running have been drawn from the aeronautical literature.
trim (see Fig. 22); (3) t h a t when porpoising was This is not entirely b y accident, since it is only a
eliminated, neither type had much resistance little over twenty years ago t h a t aeronautical
advantage over the other. engineering made the first systematic attack on
The recommendation to use the planing-boat the problem of planing. If the author now finds
type for the floats rather t h a n the seaplane ,type it desirable, as he has, to draw so heavily from
thenfollowed, and was based mainly on the argu- aeronautics to make a systematic start to the
m e n t t h a t the easier bow lines of the planing-boat rational design of planing boats, it means t h a t
type w o u l d b e a decided advantage in rough aeronautical engineering is at last getting into the
weather, for a craft going always on the water position where it can p a y off part of its h e a v y
and not simply taking off from or landing upon it. debt to the older and at one t i m e closely allied
T h e true reason for the seaplane type, to permit field of .naval architecture.
ready changes in the attitude of a seaplane at I t is unfortunate t h a t so much m u m b o - j u m b o
very high planing speeds b y means of aerodynamic has arisen about planing boats, and the a u t h o r ' s
controls, was wholly absent in this instance. paper should do much to dispel the fog. I t has
Incidentally, the blunt bow lines of the conven- always appeared to me t h a t planing is essentially
tional seaplane t y p e have been recognized for a a very simple p h e n o m e n o n - - m u c h more so t h a n
long time as undesirable even for the short behavior of b o a t s in the displacement range of
periods of operation of seaplanes on the water, speeds. I prefer to regard planing as being quite
and they are gradually being eased in the longer analogous to flying. If this concept is pur-
forebodies of modern seaplanes and flying boats. sued a little way, it will be found t h a t a flat
I m u s t add a word of caution against interpret- b o t t o m planing surface will develop just half
ing this instance as a complete portrayal of the the lift coefficient of a wing having the same
relation of the planing-boat type to the seaplane aspect ratio (beam/length ratio) and angle of
type. M u c h depended in this case upon the attack (trim angle). The underlying idea m a y be
moderate speed involved. M y chief reason for useful, because it allows the field of planing to
citing it has been the moral to which I think it .draw heavily on the well-established field of the
points: t h a t when such major considerations as aerodynamics of wings. I t is suggested gently
running trim and porpoising were properly dealt t h a t the author might have done well to have de-
with, even types differing as much in general veloped this concept a little more fully at the out-
appearance as these two behaved very much set. I agree, however, t h a t he m a y have felt
alike, t h a t it would have been confusing to the naval
I have never held much with the occult implica- architect, ancl hence done more h a r m than good.
tions of those who pin their faith on m y s t e r y of Those of his readers who wish to look into the
"subtlety of lines," in any sort of hydrodynamic m a t t e r further m a y find reference [20] 5 interesting.
designing. Mr. M u r r a y ' s paper goes far, I I find I must enter a protest against the
think, to set the stage for developing a rational author's method of measuring and defining wet-
approach. Need we wait for another war or ted area. H e is using the area aft of the stag-
another era of prohibition ? . nation line according to Fig. 16, and thereby
omitting about 13 per cent of what I would
1V[R. F. W. S. LOCKE, JR., 4 Visitor: I have call the total wetted area. T h e stagnation line
read Mr. M u r r a y ' s paper with keen interest. I is the line along which the local pressure is
am genuinely sorry t h a t I cannot be present to m a x i m u m and local velocity minimum. Aft of
hear it and the illuminating discussion t h a t it is t h a t line the pressure drops off gradually as shown
bound to provoke. T h e paper should be of in Fig. 19. T h e velocity gradually increases,
great value to practicing designers and will fill a and the lines of flow are generally parallel to the
b a d l y needed gap. direction of motion as m a y be seen b y Fig. 16.
Working, as I do,. in the field of the hydro- Forward of the stagnation line, the flow is gen-
dynamics of flying boats, it has 10ng been a source erally parallel to the stagnation line and is of
of wonder to me t h a t there was no rational ad- considerably lower pressure and higher velocity.
vice available to the designers of planing boats. Presumably the reason the flow is parallel to the
While there are i m p o r t a n t differences in the de-
[20] Locke, F. W. S., Jr., " A n Empirical Study of Low Aspect
4 Aeronautical ]Research Engineer (Hydrodynamics), Research Ratio Lifting Surface with Particular Regard to Planing C r a f t , "
Division, Bureau of Aeronautics, Department of the N a v y , Wash- Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Volume 16, No. 3, page 184,
ington, D . C . ,":: March 1949.

stagnation line is simply t h a t the pressure in this me t h a t the author's simplification will allow
flow is lower and therefore cannot penetrate estimates of the running trim angle to within
through the stagnation line. The water ahead of about plus or minus a quartet of a degree. This
the stagnation line flows out along the bottom and m a y be adequate for m a n y purposes, b u t the as-
then separates at the chine. On V-bottom plan- sumption of a higher degree of accuracy does not
ing craft the water ahead of the stagnation line appear to be warranted a priori.
h a s a rearward flow component of greater or lesser I a m amused b y the author's reference to
magnitude depending on the local deadrise angle, Skene's idiotic remark concerning the value of
the local trim angle, and the speed of advance. model tests of planing boats. I t seems to me
This water flowing over the b o t t o m is creating t h a t no less a figure than Thornycroft made a
frictional drag, one component of which must be similar r e m a r k in the discussion of Froude's
overcome by the propulsion system of the boat. paper on H.M.S. Greyhound. Times change,
I fail to see why this slice of wetted area ahead but people don't. Actually, the interpretation of
of the stagnation line can be ignored, since it model tests does require some skill which is well
creates drag and contributes to the lift. W h a t within the capabilities of all but a noisy and dis-
particularly disturbs me is that, up to several gruntled minority. In the case of flying boats,
years ago, the area ahead of the stagnation line it has been m y experience t h a t even extremely
very definitely was included in the measured small models will predict with remarkable fidelity
wetted area at the Experimental Towing Tank. the entire behavior of the full-size prototype.
The reason for the change in definition has not The same must be true also of planing boats, pro-
been stated anywhere as far as I know. I agree viding only t h a t all the conditions of Froude's
t h a t a case might be presented to show t h a t law are obeyed.
since one component of the frictional drag in this M y comments should in no sense be interpreted
region is normal to the keel, the area ahead of as fundamental disagreement with a tremendously
the stagnation line is not contributing a full share important paper. I believe the New England
and thereby can be neglected, although I am Section of The Society of Naval Architects and
afraid I would reject it without some sound reason- Marine Engineers is highly privilege d to hear this
ing on someone's part. Surely, moreover, this paper, and the paper should be regarded as the
same argument cannot apply to the lift. I will first and long-awaited step toward the rational
be very much interested to hear the author's reply. design of planing boats. I would like to add m y
T h e author's method for determining the run- sincere congratulations to the author for an in-
ning trim angle is simple and straightforward. structive and interesting paper which I know
I t can be used also to determine the distance t h a t will be of great practical value not only to naval
the transom or a step should be located aft of the architects but also to aeronautical engineers con-
center of gravity to make the boat plane at some cerned with the design of flying boats.
desired trim angle. For instance, the boat with
a 23-foot beam given in the author's example MR. JOHN B. PARKINSON, Member: Mr.
could be made to run at a trim angle of about 4 M u r r a y ' s paper is an able presentation of funda-
degrees b y locating a step some 10 feet aft of the mental information on planing surfaces and some
center of gravity. The resistance would then be experimental resources available to designers of
about 7,200 pounds, which is about 17 per cent planing boats, both of which have not been uni-
less t h a n the resistance of the author's basic boat. versally appreciated. Mr. M u r r a y is particu-
The designer will now have to weigh this ad- larly qualified to discuss the subject from the
vantage against such disadvantages as the struc- viewpoint of the naval architect because of his
tural complexity of the step. I am aware that, long connection with the Experimental Towing
in the past, designers have been hesitant about T a n k where much of the reportable activity in
using a step on such a craft, but the real point is the field has been eai-ried out.
t h a t the author has supplied the designer with the T h e question naturally arises in reviewing the
tool required to make a rational decision. paper as to what the future holds for planing
I t appears to me that in making calculations craft in general and along what lines their de-
of this sort it would be well to consider some of velopment should proceed. Planing hulls have
the Other forces acting on the boat if it is neces- provided the most readily available solution to
sary to know the trim angle to such close toler- operation at high speed-length ratios. There are
ances as the author uses. For instance, the pro- unexplored areas of usefulness for the t y p e t h a t
peller thrust not only introduces a component o f are being continuously enlarged b y develop-
lift but also a pitching m o m e n t about the center ments in power plants. Aviation has been
of gravity, as the author points out. I t seems to revolutionized almost overnight b y .the advent
H Y D R O D Y N A M I C S OF P L A N I N G H U L L S 687

of jet propulsion. A similar situation could very V. = the forward, speed, fps.
V= = mean speed over the wetted surface, fps.
well arise for surface vessels that wouldmi~ke the W dynamic load on t.he hull, lb.
planing hull of equal importance to displacement A = wetted stwfa-ceprojected .on base plane, sq ft.
hulls. r = trim of base plane, deg.
w = specific weight of water, lb per cu ft.
Mr. Murray summarizes.the present status of- g = acceleration of gravity, ft per sec per see.
the resistance problem very well. He indicates
resistance-displacement ratios at speed-length Thus, the ratio of mean speed to forward speed
ratios of present interest that are comparable decreases as the trim increases. The ratios cal-
with those of an ideal flat planing surface, and culated from this expression.for flat planing sur-
applies the well-established rational treatment faces agree closely with experimental values
of skin friction to power estimation from model derived from pressure distributions, and m a y be
tests. Presumably the problems of stability and taken for engineering power estimates to apply
control have been solved intuitively by practical to surfaces of any form..
designers who have long been aware that "the
b o a t that wins the race is the one that can turn
MR. EUGENE P. CLEMENT,Associate Member:
the buoys the fastest."
This paper coiatains much that is interesting and
I t seems to this discusser that the most fruitful
useful, but some criticism seems to be in order.
field for further development of the planing hull
The uses to which the author puts the planing
lies in the improvement of seaworthiness quali-
surface data of Fig. 8 are very misleading. At
ties, since the surface along which it must travel
the top of page 672, the author proposes to de-
is seldom smooth and. seriously limits its utility
termine the best beam for a boat, given the dead-
,an war or m peace. The problems of dynamic
rise, load, and speed (Judging from the com-
behavior and water loads become staggering as
ment at the bottom of the page, this is to be a
the speed-length ratio goes up, and must be met
stepless boat) From Fig. 8 the author picks
or the field yielded to the airplane and the sub-
the value of the coefficient K corresponding to the
marine or even the ubiquitous hydrofoil which is
maximum AIR for the given deadrise (10 de-
outside the scope of the papfir.
grees), and from this value of K calculates a
The rough-water problem has been attacked in
"best beam" of 29.6 feet. Evidently, however,
the seaplane field by a large amount of funda-
the author did not examine the lower curve of
mental research on imi~act loads and systematic
Fig. 8 to find the center of gravity location associ-
towing basin tests with dynamically similar, some-
ated with his "best beam." For the value of K
times self-propelled, models. As a result, sea-
chosen the center of pressure would have to be
plane hulls have been stressed to operate in heavy
0.3 beam forward of the transom in order to ob-
seas, and design principles have been arrived at
tain the anticipated maximum A/R. For the
to keep the motions and loads tolerable. I t is
two values of K considered at the b o t t o m of page
believed that a certain amount of similar research
664, the author obtains values of A/R, from Fig. 8,
must be done for the planing boats to extend their
of 4.25 and 3.9. Evidently the wrong scale was
over-all tactical and commercial usefulness, and
used, and the A/R values should be 8.5 and 7.8,
to keep up with the potential horsepower avail-
In another example on page 670 the author again
As a more tangible contribution to the paper,
uses Fig. 8 in an attempt to determine the opti-
the reference to the mean speed over the planing
mum beam for a stepless planing boat. As be-
surface for the ealculation of skin friction might
fore, the center of gravity would have to be 0.3
be enlarged upon slightly. Fundamentally, the
beam forward of the transom (or about 7 feet in a
reduction in speed follows from Bermoulli's
62-foot boat) if the AIR anticipated were to be
theorem, which states that there must be a redue'-
realized. Fortunately, however, in. each of these
tion in velocity head equivalent to the pressure
instances the author chose to ignore the beam
necessary to carry the load. In symbols, at the
dimension calculated from Fig. 8, and arrived at
surface of the water
a satisfactory. (and much smaller) beam by another
Vv V,,3 W method.
w A COS "r
Fig. 9 is apt to mislead the designer of a stepless
Or planing boat. This curve of " b e s t t r i m " is
V,~ = ~
2gw )n
wA cos
applicable only for very far-aft positions of center
of gravity, and g i v e s no indication of the trim
angle that should be sought o r ant!c!Pated for a
where practical Stepless boat

~V~R. J. H. CURRY, 6 Visitor: The paper pre- available consisted of a miscellaneous collection
sents a clear and not too difficult picture of the of misinformation. Much of the so-called in-
fundamental characteristics of the planing boat. formation in the literature is highly unreliable.
D a t a from several sources have been correlated On page 671 the author refers to a chart pre-
and assembled in working charts which should pared b y the writer. I t is surprising t h a t the
be of considerable assistance to the average de- answer given b y this chart comes as close as it
signer of planing craft, obviating the necessity does to the answer arrived at through model tests.
of wading through cumbersome formulae and At the time t h a t the chart was prepared, before
tedious calculations. These charts, as the author the war, it was exceedingly difficult to obtain
warns, are not to be taken too literally, but must good information on the problems of planing
be used with judgment. hulls. Such information as I was able to collect
Some will take issue with the author's state- which seemed to have some degree of reliability
ment on page 660, w h e n referring to Fig. 5, t h a t was plotted and seemed to correlate along the
"the resistance for the heavier loads actually lines of the chart. The chart was intended as an
drops with speed, due to decrease in side wetting." approximation of what would be expected from
'The character of the curves suggests t h a t the a hull of good design. A good deal of information
planing surface has not fully emerged from the was obtained from t h a t published for this t y p e o f
displacement stage. boat in London Engineering about 1939-1940.
In connection with the author's statement Present knowledge as presented b y the author
that. "because the center of gravity is fixed, the 'goes so far beyond the available knowledge enter-
wetted lefl'gth remains about the same," it is sugZ ing into this chart and m a n y others t h a t I be-
gested t h a t wetted lengths in the planing range lieve this would be an excellent time to give these
m a y be reduced greatly, without change in center charts a decent burial and congratulate the author
of gravity, b y the introduction of a very shallow on a paper t h a t gives us a sound and sensible
step, in conjunction with trim control. method as a guide to the solution of problems in
Series 50 has been, and is, a useful tool, within the powering of planing hulls.
limitations, for making preliminary estimates of
effective horsepower requirements; however, MR. JOHN D. PIERSON, Visitor: T h e author is
there is need for a new series based on a parent to be congratulated upon his excellent presenta-
form more in keeping with modern design. tion of the complex subject of planing-boat de-
Furthermore, there is need for the development of sign. This paper, dealing with the basic planing
equipment and techniques for self-propelling phenomena and their application to the boat
models of planing craft, if guesswork is to be problem, should help the designer bring into use
eliminated from estimating engine power require- the rapidly expanding store of basic information
ments, and maneuvering characteristics. T h e now ayailable.
designer of planing craft will continue to be handi- Of particular interest to one used to flying-boat
capped so long as he arbitrarily has to double the design is the critical importance of trim angle in
effective horsepower, and then add another 25 per the planing-boat problem. I t would appear
cent for appendages in order to be sure of provid- from the analysis of the typical design t h a t the
ing enough engine power to meet the speed re- normal relationship of center of g r a v i t y - t o the
quired. transom step causes the boats to run at angles
Some recent unpublished data from full-scale below the trim for minimum resistance and t h a t
turning tests on a high-speed planing boat, driven this situation becomes worse with increasing
b y three screws turning clockwise, reveal some speed. I t was n o t e d also t h a t porpoising might
rather startling effects of the interaction between occur at slightly increased angles b y entering the
propellers and rudders, the effects varying greatly loop region of instability shown in Fig. 22.
between right and left turns, and between port The flying boat generally is trimmed to a
and starboard rudders for the same turn. much more favorable attitude b y virtue of the
aerodynamic control surfaces and the more cen-
MR. PAUL O. TOMALIN, Member: I n the past, tral location of the main step. Possibly, the
any information related to the subject of the high-speed planing boat m u s t also have a closer
paper likely to be accurate has been classified step center of gravity relationship in order to
p r o m p t l y as a "trade secret." I t was hidden in develop the greatest speed. This m a y be more
the back of personal file cabinets and other in- difficult without aerodynamic damping to check
accessible places so t h a t the only data generally porpoising tendencies. On the other hand, a
forward hydrofoil or planing flap might achieve
e David Taylor Model Basin, N a v y Department, Washington,
D.C. the same increase in trim without a fully d e v d o p e d

two-step or three-point suspension system adopted. 4

One small po!nt might be mentioned with
regard to the discussion on porpoising. In
general, any initial disturbance, as at (a), will
result in an oscillation about the center at (b).
The criterion for porpoising would be whether the
oscillation decreased with time to an insignificant
amount (b), or grew to an objectionable magni-
G \
The section of the paper dealing with model
test technique is worthy of attention, especially ~,
by those who still m a y be skeptical of the value
of model tests for full-scale prediction. Im- ~z
proper test methods and faulty analysis of the LO
data obtained have "soured" m a n y designers to
all small model tests. The review of the methods
used at the Experimental Towing T a n k shows
the care which needs to be taken, and the results
of the typical tests compared with other models I!
0 to to 30
and full-scale data give the proof of the methods. Per Cent Allowancefor Roughness
are very much pleased to know that Mr. M u r r a y
has taken the time to prepare such a paper on
high-speed planing hulls. For many years we Exclusive of class 2, the remaining types are
have been experimenting with high-speed planing extremely limited in weight-carrying ability.
surfaces and have n o t e d that the planing angles In addition, inherent speed frequently is dis-
which we have found to be most efficient for our counted b y the inability to keep at sea, cruising
3-point hulls are 41/6 degrees trim angle and 6 radius, and high operation costs. Up to the
degrees of deadrise angle: In Fig. 9 Mr. Murray commercial speed limits it is usually possible to
shows for a deadrise angle of 6 degrees the best design 'a double ctiine or round bottom displace-
trim angle to be approximately 4a/~ degrees. ment hull t h a t will out-perform a V-bottom semi-
Although we arrived at our figures through the planing hull. Where it seems possible to use the
"trial and error" method, we are gratified to latter type, it is usually necessary to go far higher
note t h a t these angles are substantiated b y test in A/.OL 3 ratios than covered by the' hull data
data. given in Mr. Murray's paper or accompanying
PROFESSOR L. A. BAIER, Member: Mr. M u r r a y We should like to emphasize that proper hull
has presented an excellent survey of the hydro- form is only half the problem in a successful de-
dynamics of medium-speed planing hulls. The sign. From the lowest speed to the highest
data collected at Stevens form a convenient speed three-point full-planing type, the efficiency
source of preliminary design information. of the vessel depends on the wheel design. In
The choice of a vessel for a given function falls one of the recent Gold Cup boats the speed was
in the following types: increased from 80 miles per hour to well over 100
1. Sub-surface (military). miles per hour through a successive change in
2. Surface (commercial). wheels. Model tests for speeds above 60 miles per
hour have little merit and frequently are entirely
3. Semi-planing (passenger and express cargo).'
4. Full-planing (racing). misleading. At top speeds the wheel is often
5. Flying boats (personnel and passenger only two-thirds submerged and the lift force and
service). torque of the wheel are most important. Our
experience has tended to indicate t h a t speed is
In the transition from water to air borne there not over-sensitive to shaft angle, and radical
are regimes of speed which limit commercial changes in tow line angle fail to show much evi-
operation. Only military or sport requirements dence of effect in resistance. On the other hand
permit design and powering above each profitable we have seen a loss in speed of some 3 k n o t s due
speed' limit. to a very slight departure in construction from the
7 President, Ventnor Boat Corporation, Atlantic City, N. J. designed after buttocks.

One interesting feature of model tests at low for the purpose of proving the practicability of
speeds on V-type hulls is the manipulation of the this device. I wonder if the owner ever started.
speed at which the resistance levels off, to meet Perhaps some New England member can tell me.
the design speed, by varying the transom immer- In closing this discussion I would like to con-
sion. gratulate Mr. M u r r a y for producing a p a p e r
We note that Mr. M u r r a y uses an allowance of which I predict will become a well-thumbed
0.0004 on the friction drag coefficient Cy to ac- adjunct of every office where planing-hull design
count for surface roughness. While this m a y is carried on. I also think the New England
help to cover air resistance, our trial data indi- Section deserves great praise for selecting .and
cate the value is too high for these small vessels sponsoring a paper of such high technical merit.
where the surface is often as smooth as the model.
Fig. 26 shows a curve of roughness allowance MR. G. GILBERT WYLAND, Member: Mr.
based on trial analysis, which we believe to be M u r r a y ' s paper is an outstanding contribution to
more helpful than an arbitrary fixed value which the design literature on planing boats.
is more suitable for large steel vessels. The analysis which uses the basic design data of
Figs. 10 and 11 is perhaps the most useful in de-
MR. C. H. HANCOCK,Member: I have read Mr. veloping the preliminary design of a new boat.
Murray's paper with great interest but am some- The chart, Fig. 13, based on this method shows
what horrified to learn that the price we have most clearly the variation of frictional, residual,
paid for the present state of excellence of planing and total resistance with trim.
hulls is "two world wars and prohibition." Per- I t is somewhat of a surprise t h a t the formula
haps some small comfort can be gained by con- for residual resistance can be set down in such
vincing myself that the purchase price included simple form when the associated wave making
other advantages in addition to this--higher is taken into account.
taxes perhaps. On page 672 the determination of frictional area
Seriously though, this paper, in m y opinion, from a study of flow lines on a model is discussed.
marks a definite milestone in the literature on The effective area is directly aft of a relative
planing hulls. I t is a very painstaking job that broad area of diagonal cross-flow due to the initial
Mr. M u r r a y has done and the comprehensive wave or spray. Should not this area where the
coverage of his own work at the Stevens tank as spray or diagonal wave velocity is quite high also
well as the work of other tanks makes this paper be included in the running wetted area ?
of great value to those who must use these re- In connection with scale effect, has the Stevens
suits. Perhaps one of the greatest obstacles in T a n k found good correlation on running trims?
planing-hull design has been the lack of a basic On full-size boats we have found these agree-
consideratibn of all recent work in this field with ments to be generally good but there have been
the accent placed on direct application. Mr. exceptions to this rule.
M u r r a y has given us exactly this and his numer- In reference to cavitation on the boat, page 675,
ous sample calculations do much to clarify the we should like to add that the propulsion co-
t e x t . f o r the newcomer to this type of naval efficient dropped 2 per cent in the last 8/10 knot.
architecture. The comparison with Series 50 is a good check
The method of obtaining a close approximation with the other estimates on power, but experience
of the true wetted surface of a planing hull is with this report requires that a great deal of
another example of the skill and ingenuity of the caution be used in its application. Unfortunately,
Stevens Towing Tank staff. some of the factors in this report wh!ch are taken
In regard to the author's statements regarding from displacement boat practice are not as use-
planing hulls for ocean liners I would like to cite ful or basic 'as those presented elsewhere in Mr.
one small attempt in this direction, in the hope M u r r a y ' s paper.
that some member of the New England Section of On the charts in Series 50 which compare the
the Society can supply an answer. I t concerns model data for nine conditions, the midsections
a planing hull about 60 feet long which I observed for the B/H = 4 condition are the only ones
anchored near shore on the outskirts of Neponset. which bear reasonable resemblance to a normal
This hull had an extensive glassed-in cabin to the planing boat wherein due allowance is made for
top of which was attached an airplane wing of performance in other than smooth water. These
about Piper Cub size. Newspaper accounts in sections are apparently drawn for "normal" dis-
Boston at t h a t time (about 1928) were to the placement so t h a t 10 per cent and 20 per cent ex-
effect t h a t this new combination of boat arid cess of normal will involve a relatively large chine
plane was to a t t e m p t a crossing of the Atlantic immersion amidships.

I t is not entirely clear from Series 50 how the people get together on theory and design, the bet-
increased displacement affects the block coefficient ter for both.
and therefore the ]3/1t ratio. Mr. Parkinson's equation for the reduction of
A s t u d y of Mr. M u r r a y ' s comparison indicates velocity over the ~)laning surface b o t t o m is one of
t h a t the derived midsection's deadrise is con- the m a n y items t h a t are necessary for a complete
siderably flatter than the actual boat. This dissertation on this subject. I can emphasize his
is in p a r t because the Series 50 data do not con- suggestion t h a t the m a t t e r of seaworthiness and
tain factors which properly evaluate deadrise dynamic impact behavior deserves added atten-
angle. Some formulas have been worked out to tion.
provide for this, but when applied to this problem The suggestions made b y Messrs. Pierson and
required a condition of N -- 20 per cent dis- Curry t h a t trim control would serve to re.duce
placement which was not covered in the tests, planing resistance are correct. However, often
although this particular craft is perfectly normal the drag due to the device'or method of trim con-
for its type. This emphasizes the caution which trol is greater than the saving in resistance. But
m u s t be exercised in the use of these data in order if the m a t t e r is carefully pursued for a particular
to avoid misleading comparisons. application, gains m a y be realized.
Series 50 has nevertheless been extremely use- The comments of Messrs. Curry and Wyland
ful, but does not seem to place directly sufficient with reference to the inadequacies of the Series 50
i m p o r t a n c e on deadrise. Mr. M u r r a y ' s ex- hulls are analogous to comments relating to T a y -
planation of other methods helps to bring this to lot's Standard Series. Very few people will de-
light. A further extension of the series to sign a displacement ship like the Taylor form, but
bracket completely the more usual type of craft a great m a n y use the-charts for preliminary esti-
and an entirely new method of presenting the mates and as a yardstick. T h e author believes
data using fundamental variables as outlined in t h a t reworking the Series 50 data in coefficients
the paper would be of real help. However, the utilizing beam, trim, and deadrise, as well as load
presentation in Mr. M u r r a y ' s paper permits of and speed, would be a distinct advance.
a so m u c h broader study t h a t there might be Mr. Peters mentions as an example the case of
some question as to the merits of such a move. an actual boat which made over 43 knots, whereas
model data expanded without friction correction
MR. MURRAY : The number of discussions of this indicated only 40 knots as the top speed. The
paper confirms the great interest in the subject of difference in power from 40 to 43 knots can be con-
planing boats, and suggests a wide, though not siderable. This sometimes has been credited er-
readily available, a m o u n t of. knowledge of the roneously to improved propeller performance.
subject. The limitations placed on the length of Mr. Clement's criticism is much appreciated.
the paper made it necessary to omit much perti- The numerical error mentioned b y him and b y Mr.
nent information, b u t the papers listed in the refer- Peters has been corrected. There is justification
ences will lead to a great deal of literature for any- in the criticism t h a t use of Fig. 8 as suggested in
one who has the energy and the time to pursue the the original draft of the paper was misleading
subject further. when used in connection with planing boats. This
Professor Baler's discussion serves very well to section has been revised in the present edition.
place planing boats in their proper perspective and Fig. 9 is no more t h a n a curve of best trim angle
defines the limitation of this type of vessel. I against deadrise angle based on minimum resist-
cannot argue with the professor on the m a t t e r of ance. As mentioned in the paper, it is unfortu-
roughness. Use of the arbitrary fixed value sug- nately not usually possible to make use of the
gested by the American Towing T a n k Conference "best t r i m " in stepless boats except possibly b y
is not m a n d a t o r y ; anyone who has reliable infor- some method of trim control.
mation on the subject should certainly make use of Dr. Davidson's comparison of flying-boat and
it. planing-boat hulls shows some of the problems
Mr. Locke's comparison of planing action with cropping up with suggestions relating to stepped
the lift-drag relationship of airfoils is well taken. hulls such as those of Messrs. Locke and Curry.
Airfoil theory has been used for the design of ma- Mr. Wyland and Mr. Locke question the
rine propellers and for explaining the action of a method used b y the E T T in determining the oper-
sailboat keel. The lift-drag ratio of a displace- ating wetted area of planing-boat models. We
m e n t ship is a useful measure of its efficiency and, have two reasons for using the method now in
if its value is compared with t h a t of a cargo plane, practice.- First, we do not know enough about the
one will see why we will h a v e s u r f a c e ships for a velocities of the water forward of the stagnation
long time to come. The sooner marine and air line to enable a reliable determination of the longi-

tudinal component of velocity. Second, the tolerance as the author uses. The art has not
method used makes possible the determination of a reached the point where we can even begin to ana-
much more reproducible chine wetted length t h a n lyze the individual forces acting on a planing hull.
that suggested b y Mr. Locke. One of the prob- Trim angle by itself cannot be important as it
lems of E T T is to devise a reasonably reliable test would be very difficult to know just what it is on
method of small boat models that will not be pro- an actual boat. The main purpose of the paper
hibitive from the cost standpoint. Figs. 17 and 18 is to point out t h a t some scientific data pertain-
demonstrate that the method is sufficiently accu- ing to the subject are available, and that the ma-
rate for practical application, certainly much more terial can be used to make some reasonably close
satisfactory than expansion without friction cor- approximate preliminary estimates of power re-
rection. For a critical analysis of lift and center quirements. Although the estimates are approxi-
of pressure, it is surely necessary to consider what mate, they are much better than nothing, and par-
occurs forward of the stagnation line. ticularly where experience is lacking they can be of
Problems involved in self-propelled model tests great value. Trim as used in this paper is a refer-
of high speed-length ratio boats are formidable. ence point only, between such requirements as
Concentration on reliable and convenient methods load, center of pressure, and speed. I t is in a
of measuring all of the necessary factors on full- sense somewhat remarkable t h a t three unlike
size experimental boats should be an easier method forms such as a prismatic planing surface, a Series
of getting reliable data. 50 boat, and an independent design differ by less
Mr. Simpson's discussion supports the author's than 10 per cent in effective horsepower with
premise with regard to round-bottom boats found speed, load, longitudinal center of gravity constant.
in the last page of the paper. I wish to make m y appreciation known to the
Mr. Locke suggests that it would be well to con- New England Section for the opportunity to pre-
sider some of the other forces acting on the boat if sent this paper, and to thank the many discussers
it is necessary to know the trim angle to such close for their criticisms and complimentary remarks.