Speed Boat Developments From The Past Into The Future

Morley S. Smith
Abstract
Speed boat development began in the early 1900's with the development of the first gasoline
powered piston engines. These engines were large and heavy. Boat hulls were long narrow round
bottomed displacement hulls.
As engine design improved, the Vee bottomed, hard chined planing hull and the stepped hull were
developed. Drive systems included the direct drive, Vee drive, stern drive, and surface drive.
The performance of each combination of hull type and drive system can be illustrated by a graph
of Performance Factors. (Power Factor vs. Speed Factor) These Performance Factors take into
account the running weight, engine horsepower, and measured maximum speed.
For each combination of hull type and drive system, there is a maximum performance line or
Limit Line. By comparing the Limit Lines of different combinations of hull type and drive system,
we can also see how the efficiency of boats has increased over the years.
The final'-step is to look at combinations and configurations which might produce even greater
improvements in the future. The combination of surface drive and stepped hull will be
significantly more efficient than current pleasure craft.
Morley S. Smith
Performance Plans, Freeville, N.Y. Member
***
The history recorded herein, begins at about 1900 when internal combustion piston engines began
to replace heavy steam engines and boilers. Many of the examples given herein are race boats.
These-boats were the most efficient types of their day. The speeds weights and horsepower are
often recorded.
Displacement Hulls
At the turn of the century when internal combustion engines were physically large and very heavy,
the hulls used were displacement hulls. When a displacement hull moves forward, the sharp
narrow bow pushes or displaces the water out to the sides. As the hull passes, the water closes in
behind it.
Figure 1 shows the lines of
Standard, one of the
fastest displacement hulls
at that time. [1]
Length 60 ft. Beam 7'-6'
110 hp. Speed 30 mph. in
1903
These displacement hulls
were round bottomed
hulls. Viewed in cross
section, the tops of the

sides were more or less

vertical. As the sides move
downward, they curve
gently into a nearly flat
bottom at the keel.
Direct Drive:
The direct drive engine is
located at about mid length
in the hull. The propeller
shaft goes aft from the
engine transmission,
through the bottom of the
boat, to the propeller
which is located aft under

Figure 1. Standard, 1903

the transom.
Refer to Figure 13, for a sketch of Alternate Propulsion Systems.
The performance of a displacement hull is such that the power requirements increase as the speed
increases. At higher speeds, the power requirements increase more rapidly, until a speed is
reached where great increases in power produce negligible increase in speed.
Figure. 2. illustrates the first basic characteristic of
displacement hulls: 'The greater the length, the higher the
limiting speed." If you want to go faster, you build a longer
hull.
Luckily the racing rule makers saw what was about to happen.
Race boats were already getting absurdly long. New racing
rules in 1905 limited the length of Gold Cup and Harmsworth
Trophy boats to 40 ft..
Dixie I Length 40' x Beam 5'-6' [1] 150 Hp. Dry weight =
5,150 Lb.
29.8 Mph in 1904; 32 Mph. in 1906
Designer: Clinton Crane

Figure 2. Displacement Hulls

Showing the effect of of waterline
length
Engine weight = 30 lbs/HP
[Photo of Dixie temporarily not
available]
Figure 3. Dixie, displacement hull

Note how the very sharp bow cuts through the water, rolling
back a nice bow wave. The hull runs level. The ideal
displacement hull. (Figure 3)
Since the length of these hulls had been limited, the only way
to increase the speed further was to reduce the weight.
Figure 4 illustrates the second basic characteristic of
displacement hulls: 'The lighter the weight, the higher the
limiting speed.' As before, power requirements increase more
rapidly as speed increases.
Henry Crane designed and built a large and phenomenally
light 220 Hp. engine for anew boat to be named Dixie II. The
V-8 engine had 2,477 cubic inch displacement, weighing less

than 0.9 pounds per cubic inch. [1] Compare this to modern
automotive engines which weigh about 2 pounds per cubic
inch without transmission or exhaust manifolds. The
extremely light weight of Crane's 1908 engine was a major
engineering achievement. The reason the power output was so
low is because maximum speed of the engine was only 900
Rpm. (about idle speed for a modern automotive engine).
This light weight engine was placed in an extremely light hull.
The 39'-3" hull weighed only 1,130 Lb. It was a huge canoe
with planking of only 1/4" on the sides, and 3/8" on the
bottom. [1]
In running trim this hull and engine weighed about 15 pounds
per horsepower. Less than half of the Weight/Hp. of Dixie I.
Figure 4. Displacement Hulls
Showing the effect of weight
Twenty foot waterline length

Dixie II Length 39'-3" X Beam 5'-4"

220 Hp. Speed = 37 Mph. in 1908

This combination of high power and low weight allowed the

hull to be pushed beyond displacement speeds. At these
speeds the bow wave is pushed to the side so forcefully that the water does not close in behind the
hull. The bow in effect cuts a trough, and the stern sinks into the trough. The bow rises and tries to
climb up on top of the bow wave. The bow is out of the water, and waterline length is no longer
the hull length. This round bottomed hull had been pushed to planing speeds.
Dixie II dominated racing; winning the Gold Cup in 1908, 1909, and 1910, and the Harmsworth
Trophy in 1908. (Dixie II has been restored and is now in the Antique Boat Museum at Clayton
N.Y.)
The next step was to develop a hull shape which would do a better job of climbing up on top of
the bow wave and 'plane'.
Planing Hull Characteristics
Figure 6 shows the lines of
a typical planing hull. A
patrol boat designed by
John Hacker. [2]
(a) Hard
chined hulls
have a sharp
edge between
the hull side
panel and the
bottom panel.
At speed,
Figure 6 The lines of a typical planing hull.
these hulls
tend to throw the bow wave downward rather than push the bow wave
out to the side as a displacement hull does. The hard chine keeps the bow
wave from wetting the side panel, thus reducing the wetted area. Less
wetted area means less hull drag.

Nearly all of the fiberglass planing pleasure boats made today have a vee
bottomed, hard chine configuration.
The concept of the hard chined hull was not new. E. W. Graef published
plans for a hard chined, vee bottomed displacement hull named Dolphin.
(b) It was also discovered at about this time that a flat deadrise or flat
bottomed hull will have less drag than a highly veed hull. [3]
Figure 7 shows the Trim and Drag characteristics of a typical
direct drive monohull. (Running weight = 2,500 lb.)
As the speed of a planing hull increases, the trim angle, or
angle of attack decreases.
(a) This increases the wetted area and greatly
Increases the drag.
(b) The propeller shaft, shaft strut and rudder also
cause drag. Appendage drag. The appendage drag
increases as the square of the speed. Total drag
increases very rapidly as speed increases.
When designing very high speed craft, it is important to
consider all of the lift and drag forces acting on the
appendages.
Figure 7. Trim and Drag
characteristics of a typical direct
drive monohull.

(Propeller, propeller shaft, shaft strut and rudder.) These forces

can greatly affect the position of the center of lift of the hull
and the optimum hull proportions. Procedures and references
for calculating hull drag and appendage forces are given in the appendix.
Planing Hull Limits
Figure (8) Performance Factors for Direct Drive
Planing Hulls
Performance Factors are complex mathematical
expressions which combine running weight, engine
power and measured maximum speed. These
mathematical expressions are derived from model
scaling procedures. By using these complex
expressions, all size effects are eliminated. (A more
detailed explanation of Performance Factors is given in
the appendix.)
The Performance Factors show that as the amount of
applied power is increased, the speed increases. At high
speeds, considerable increases in power produce
relatively small increases in speed.
Figure 8. Performance Factors for Direct
Drive Planing Hulls

By using these complex numbers we can compare the

performance of any size or weight of direct drive
planing hull with the maximum performance possible. [4]

There is a definite limit to how much speed tan be obtained from a direct drive, Yee bottomed
hull. This is called the Limit Line, and this limit depends upon horsepower and weight. The closer
the actual performance comes to the Limit Line, the more efficient the craft.
The graph shows circles which represent test data from actual boats. [5] [6] There are numerous
possible reasons why these data points do not lie on the limit line.
(a) The chine beam of the test boat is not optimum for the power and
weight.
(b) The propeller chosen for the test is not optimum for top speed. It
might be chosen for best cruise efficiency, maximum acceleration or a
compromise.
The engine might not have been producing it's rated power on the day of the test. (d) The data for
running weight is not always accurate.
Nevertheless, I find it surprising that the test data for very different craft is so closely bunched
near the limit line.
The racing rule makers banned stepped hulls from the Gold Cup races in 1920 and limited engine
displacement to ten litres (or 610 cubic inches). Packard Chris-Craft and similar hard chined
monohulls dominated the Gold Cup racing until 1931, when stepped hulls were again allowed to
compete.
Prominant names include, Baby Bootlegger, Imp, Hotsy Totsy, Rainbow IX, Miss Columbia, Arab
VI,and Baby Horace III. [1] The boats listed here have been beautifully restored or replicated and
are in running condition, often appearing at antique boat shows.
The boats were about 25' to 27' long, and averaged about 40 to 45 Mph. around the course. Speeds
changed very little over a 13 year period, and this is to be expected from looking at the Limit Line
on the Performance Factor graph.
Performance Factors and Limit lines can be used to predict the performance of a given, hull with
different amounts of power. Rainbow IX (Length 25'-10', beam 5'-10') is a good example. [7]
Originally built in 1923 as Packard ChrisCraft II, this hard chined, vet bottomed hull was
powered by a 6 cylinder Packard engine producing 250 hp. and achieved a maximum speed of
about 45 mph. This craft has since been restored and repowered with a modern, light weight, 650
hp. V-12 BPM.engine. Even though the craft has about 2 times it's original power, it does not
run much more than 10 mph. faster than it's original speed, (as would be predicted by the limit
line).
How do we overcome the performance limitations of direct drive monohulls? We either change
the shape of the hull, or we change the drive system. Regardless of wether we change the hull or
the drive, one of the goals is to make the hull run at a higher angle of attack at high speeds. (Refer
back to Fig. 7.)
Let us first look at a different hull shape. The stepped hull.
Stepped Hulls
The concept was originally proposed by Rev. Ramus of Sussex England in 1872. He proposed
both a single stop with tandem planing surfaces, and a combination of three pontoons with one
forward and two aft. Indications are that these shapes were derived from model tests.

Unfortunately, the heavy steam power plants of that day could not push a hull fast enough to
plane, and take advantage of the new concept.
As early as 1906 there were published drawings for small stepped hulls with hard chines. William
Henry Fauber [8] obtained a U.S. patent for hulls with multiple steps in 1908, but could find few
people in the U.S.A. interested, so he moved to Europe.
Two small boats Solair (12') and Flapper (15') demonstrated the potential of stepped hulls as did
the Harmsworth challenger Pioneer (5 steps) in 1910. (See Data Chart, Figure 12.)
The stepped hull began practical development about at the same time as the hard chined planing
hull. A step in the bottom of a hull, raises part of the bottom surface so that it is no longer
touching the water. Less wetted area. At the same time, the planing surfaces meet the water at a
near optimum angle of attack over a wide range of speeds. The stepped hull is very efficient
hydrodynamically.
Refer to Figure 9 : Sketch of Hard Chined Planing
Hulls
In the early days of stepped hulls, it was not certain
just how many steps should be incorporated. Pioneer
had 5 steps in 1910. Maple Leaf IV had 5 steps.
Maple Leaf IV: Length 39'-11' x Beam 8' . Two V-8
engines 350 Hp. each.
In 1912, Maple Leaf IV came over, from England,
won the Harmsworth Trophy, and took it home. She
had no less than five steps, and the driver sat on a
pedestal high above the transom in order to see over
the bow.

Figure 9. Planing Hulls - Hard Chine

Some hulls had so many steps that they were called

"shingled'. Rainbow IV (12 steps);

Eventually, model tests showed that a single step would be most efficient if you could locate it in
the right position and give.it the proper depth.
The lines shown in
Figure 10 are typical of
stepped hulls in the
1920's. Note the very flat
bottom. This boat raced
in a class limited to
engines with 1.5 litre
displacements.
Gar wood brought the
Harmsworth Trophy back
Figure 10. Newg
to United States in 1920
with the first of his Miss America's. These single stepped craft so dominated the Gold Cup and
Harmsworth racing that few other boats attempted to compete. The Miss America series were not
really efficient boats, just big boats with huge amounts of power from multiple V-12 Packard
engines.

Between about 1915 and 1940, a great many motor torpedo boats and fast patrol boats were built
world wide, with stepped hulls. [10] The performance of these craft varied considerably, with
some being very inefficient.

Stepped Hull Limitations

The stepped hull maintains a nearly optimum angle of attack over most of the speed range. The
hydrodynamic hull drag is almost constant. The drag of the propeller shaft, shaft strut and rudder,
(appendage drag) increase as the square of the speed.
Figure 11: Performance Factors for Racing Stepped Hulls.
The graph of Performance Factors shows actual speed data
of different prominent racing stepped hulls. The data points
are numbered and refer to numbers on the data chart Figure
12. The boats are numbered in sequence according to the
year when the speeds were established. The sequential
increases in power factor reflect engine development and not
hull development. Notice that most of these boats perform
almost on the limit line. Gar Wood's Miss Americas were
really quite inefficient. Many stepped hulls from England
were significantly more efficient and often faster. They failed
to win races because of a lack of strength and mechanical
reliability. The very streamlined Alagi was slightly more
efficient than the others.

Figure 11: Performance Factors for

Racing Stepped Hulls.

Stepped hulls are difficult to design. There are many design

variables compared to the design of a Vee bottomed
monohull. I do not know of any accurate method available to
optimize stepped hull design other than by model testing.

Stepped hulls dominated race boat design until about 1938 when Adolph Apel patented the three
point hydroplane configuration. Ventnor three point hydroplanes dominated small limited class
racing, yet stepped hulls were running competitively in Unlimited class racing up until 1949. In
1950, Slo-Mo-Shun demonstrated 'prop riding' and boosted the world speed record significantly.
(More on 'prop riding" later.)
Stepped hulls definitely have the potential of being significantly more efficient than rnonohulls.
Compare the Limit Lines on the Performance Factor graphs. There are a number of reasons why
stepped hulls did not become popular for pleasure boats.
(a) Complexity of design, and the costs of development.
(b) Stepped hulls were banned from gold cup racing from 1920 to 1931.
Wealthy race boat owners were not investing in stepped hull
development.
(c) There were quite a few relatively small stepped 'gentleman's racers'
built, but few of these were really efficient.

(d) There were many huge war-surplus aircraft engines available after the
first world war, at reasonable prices, and few light weight marine engines
available. It was easier, (and possibly cheaper) to buy a big engine for a
monohull, than to develop an efficient stepped hull.
Fig.12
RACING HULLS
NAME
YEAR

LENGTH

BEAM

RUN
POWER SPEED POWER
WEIGHT
HP
MPH
FACTOR
LB

SPEED
FACTOR

DISPLACEMENT HULLS (Round Bottomed)

(a)

Standard

04

60'

7'-6"

5400

110

30

15.38

22.65

(b)

Vingt et Un II

04

38-9"

4-7"

4500

75

24

12.97

18.68

(c)

Chip

05

27'-3"

2230

15.3

20.7

6.0

18.1

(d)

Dixie

05

40'

5'-6"

5725

150

27.4

19.59

20.48

(e)

Dixie II

08

39-9"

5'-4"

4020

220

35.8

43.4

35.8

14

25

7.92

23.04

HARD CHINED PLANING HULL

(1)

Vida IV

07

15'

1630
STEPPED HULLS

(1)

Solair

10

12'

1255

70

46

53.7

44.29

(2)

Flapper

10

15'

680

40

47

62.7

50.1

(3)

Miranda IV

(4)

Dixie IV

(5)

26'

5-11"

3500

115

40.3

26.67

32.

11

39'-6"

6'-11"

7854

440

45.2

39.74

32.06

Newg

25

18'-6"

4-10"

1785

90

45

45.78

40.86

(6)

Amer VI

28

6450

2200

80

249.9

58.64

(7)

Estelle IV

29

35'

9'-6"

9350

2000

105

147.4

72.34

(8)

England II

30

38'-6"

10'-6"

14150

3600

99

163.59

63.66

(9)

England III

32

35'

9-6"

10500

4400

120.5

283.2

81.43

(10)

Amer X

33

38'

9-8"

14150

7600

125

345.35

80.37

(11)

Delphine IX

33

26'

8-6"

4600

550

75

92.7

58.16

(12)

Britan III

33

24'

4397

1375

110

244.3

85.94

(13)

Blue Bird

37

23'

5925

2150

120

269.75

89.2

(14)

Alagi

38

20'

2600

450

91.4

147.6

77.9

(15)

Canada III

39

25'

3250

1000

100

252.8

82.2

(16)

Canada III

3800

1650

120

347.6

96.1

(17)

Canada IIIR

3250

450

77

113.8

63

(18)

Canada IV

50

33'

5500

3000

143

410.5

107.6

(19)

Pepsi

50

36'

12430

2x
3500

160

185

105.

Aerodynamics

12'-6"

Three point hydroplanes and other more modern hull configurations such as tunnel hulls, use
aerodynamic lift to improve the efficiency of the craft. Any weight supported by air, does not have
to be supported by the water. Air has much less drag than the water. In order to obtain significant
aerodynamic lift, it is necessary to have light weight and to run at very high speeds. (Race boats
with modified engines or outboard motors.)
Aerodynamics of high speed boats is an extensive subject all it's own and will not be dealt with
further in this paper. [11]
Drive Systems
Let us look at the different drive systems and see how they affected the performance of planing
hulls. We have seen how stepped hulls increased the angle of attack of the hull at high speeds,
(compared to the direct drive monohull). An increase in trim angle can also be achieved by
moving weight, (the engine) aft, or by changing the direction of propeller thrust. This is what
alternate drive systems do.
Figure 13 shows Alternate Drive Systems
Direct Drive
Engine weight is at about mid length in the hull. Propeller
thrust is upward.
Having the engine weight forward on a monohull, helps the
boat get up onto plane more quickly, as does the lifting
component of propeller thrust. The direct drive layout is still in
use today on boats which specialize in towing water skiers. At
high speed, the forward weight and upward propeller thrust
reduce the angle of attack and increase the hull drag.
The direct drive is the least expensive of the drive systems.
Vee Drive
Figure 13. Alternate Drive Systems

The engine is located aft in the hull. The output shaft runs
forward to a gear box, and then aft from the gear box, through the hull bottom to the propeller
located aft under the transom.
(a) Some early stepped hull race boats were equipped with Yee drives
and located the crew aft of the engine. Liberty The Second, Miss
Daytona, Miss Minneapolis, Arab Iv, Prowler Jr., [1] (These boats have
been restored or replicated.) and most of Gar Wood's Miss America's..
(b) Other layouts put the engine right back against the transom. The drive
shaft runs forward between the crew which sits forward of the engine.
This was a common layout for English stepped hulls such as Miss England II, Miss Britain III,
Delphine IX, and Bluebird I. [1] [2] [3]
The use of a Vee drive in a stepped hull shows no increase in performance compared to a direct
drive stepped hull.
Vee drive systems were common on many modern flat bottomed racing monohulls and drag boats.

Engine weight is aft of mid length, and the propeller shaft angle is less inclined than with a direct
drive. Having the weight aft tends to lift the bow of the boat, as does the more level thrust line of
the propeller. The hull becomes more efficient at high speed than the direct drive monohull.
Stern-Drive
The engine is aft against the transom with the drive shaft going aft through the transom above the
water line into a right angle gear box mounted aft of the transom. The drive goes down into
another right angle gear box which contains the propeller shaft.
Engine weight is full aft, and the propeller thrust line is basically parallel to the keel. Modern
designs are hydraulically adjustable so that the propeller shaft angle can be varied up or down.
Upward thrust of the propeller helps a monohull get up on plane. Downward thrust of the
propeller helps to lift the bow at high speeds. (More efficient for this hull.) The stern drive is the
most common drive system (with inboard engine) for modern planing pleasure craft. A hard
chined monohull with a stern drive, is almost as efficient as a stepped hull. (With the same
deadrise and a practical power range.)
The monohull is much easier to design than a stepped hull. When we consider that the number of
designers of good stepped racing hulls in the past was probably no more than a half dozen, we can
understand why the large volume boat manufacturers of today avoid such complex designs.
Figure 14, shows Performance Factors for Stern Drive
Pleasure Boats The small circles represent data points from
actual boat tests published in 1992. The limit line is also
shown. The boats tested in 1984 and prior years were
significantly less efficient. The limit line was further to the
left. [3]
The general characteristics of the Limit Line are similar to
what we have seen for direct drive monohulls and direct
drive stepped hulls. As the speed increases, the power
requirements increase.
Surface Drives
A surface drive is one in which only the lower half of the
propeller is in the water. This was tried by Albert Hickman
on his Sea Sleds in the late teens and on Rainbow IV in
Figure 14, shows Performance Factors 1924. [1] In these applications, the propeller shaft went aft
from the engine and through the transom just above the
for Stern Drive Pleasure Boats
bottom of the boat. As the propeller rotates, only one half
of the blades are in the water at a time. A three or four bladed propeller is used in order to reduce
the vibrations caused by blade impacts. It is a characteristic of surface piercing propellers to shoot
a great plume of water out behind the boat.
The 'Roostertail' is evident in photos of Rainbow IV (1924) and of Hickman's SeaSleds (1920- ).
[l] Surface piercing propellers must have a larger diameter than submerged propellers because not
all of the blade area is working at any one time.
The advantage of the surface drive is that It eliminates the drag of the propeller shaft and shaft
strut, and part of the rudder area. Neither craft just described exhibited any really significant gains
in speed. (This will be explained later.)

Modern Developments
The surface piercing propeller was rediscovered almost by accident by three different race boats,
in three different countries in the late 1940's.
(A) Bluebird
In 1939 Sir Malcolm Campbell set a world speed record of 141.7 mph. in a three point hydroplane
designed by Adolph Apel of Ventnor fame. [12] [13] In 1949, his son Donald began testing the
same boat, and found that at 145 mph. the transom started to lift. The transom mounted engine
cooling water pickup would come out of the water and the engine would overheat. With the water
pickup relocated to a forward sponson, a speed of 160 mph. was achieved. When the stern lifted,
the propeller came part way out of the water and became a surface piercing propeller.
As the propeller rotates, the blades come out of the water, travel through the air, and then come
down out of the air and into the water with considerable impact force. This impact force is seen as
a lifting force on the propeller shaft. It is this lifting force which supports the aft end of the boat.
The aft end of the boat rides on the propeller force, thus the name 'Prop Rider'.
The propeller shaft, shaft strut and part of the rudder are lifted out of the water. This eliminates
much of the appendage drag and allows a considerable increase in speed.
The angle of the Bluebird's sponson bottoms was then changed so that they would have an
efficient angle of attack after the stern lifted off the water. A speed of 170 mph. was reached
before the craft hit a floating log and was too badly damaged to rebuild.
(B) Miss Canada.IV
In 1948 Harold Wilson established a North American record of 138 Mph. in a two step hydroplane
designed by Doug Van Patten. [14] Almost the same speed that Malcolm Campbell had achieved
with a three point hydroplane in 1939.
With some changes in propeller, this boat achieved 173 mph. before the propeller shaft broke.
Photos of this run show a distinct roostertail. The boat was prop riding but no one seems to have
been aware of it.
Harold made one more try and exceeded the 170 mph speed, but an overspeeding engine
destroyed the gear box before speed measurements could be made. The expense of rebuilding the
equipment to withstand these significantly higher speeds prompted Harold to retire from racing.
(C) Slo-Mo-Shun IV
The story of how this boat was developed by designer Ted Jones and owner Stanley Sayers has
not been revealed in detail. It just seemed to appear in June 1950, and set a world speed record of
160.3 mph. Again, the roostertail revealed that this boat was 'prop riding'. After having the angle
of the sponsons adjusted, Slo-Mo boosted the record to 178.5 mph in 1952.
Here we have three boats which exhibited almost 40 mph. (or 29%) increase in speed as a result of
prop riding. These three boats demonstrate the gains to be had by combining a surface drive with a
stepped hull.
Why not apply a surface drive to a pleasure boat ?
In recent times, manufacturers such as Arneson and Dan Arena have packaged surface drive
systems which locate the engine back at the transom and put the propeller about 30" aft of the

transom. On the Arneson system the short propeller shaft is pivoted about a vertical axis for
steering. These drives exhibited some speed increase when installed on Offshore racing tunnel
hulls, but nothing near the speed increases seen on three point hydroplanes. Rainbow IV and the
Seasleds did not exhibit great increases in speed in their day either.
Modern surface drives use supercavitating propellers. On a supercavitating propeller, the water
separates from the suction face of the blade and leaves an air cavity between the water and the
blade face. The cavity extends aft of the trailing edge of the blade. Sometimes the trailing edge of
the blade is made very blunt or flat. These are called cleaver propellers.
Future
It all goes back to the factors which limit the performance of any vee bottomed planing hull. The
angle of attack of the hull planing surface relative to the water surface.
The surface drive has two factors working against the monohull. The propeller lift forces (which
are well aft of the transom on the Arneson drive), and the propeller thrust line which is high and
near the bottom of the hull. Both these factors tend to push the bow of the hull down, flatten the
trim angle and make the hull less efficient. Any gains from reduction in appendage drag are offset
by an increase in hull drag. The boat does not travel significantly faster. The reduction of one set
of drag forces is offset by the increase in another set of drag forces.
The idea is to combine the efficiency of the surface drive with a hull that will have maximum
efficiency, in spite of the prop lift of the surface drive. This requires a stepped hull.
I call the combination of surface drive and stepped hull, a Surf-Step. The potential gains from
such a combination are considerable.
Now you can see why a study of hull design history is desirable. It enables us to look at the overall
advance of technology without getting buried in minute details.
Performance Comparison
Figure 16 shows the potential speeds for four different
types of boat in the 18' to 20' length range. The hull
weight is fixed. The running weight is adjusted for
engine size, and drive type weight. 8y using a single
boat size, the numbers should be more meaningful to
the average reader.
The Surf-Step is about 8 mph. faster than a stepped
hull, or 12 mph faster than a stern drive with the same
power. This magnitude of gain is worth pursuing.
Surf-Step
General design Characteristics On modern surface
drives, the propeller is located 30' or more aft of a hull
planing surface. At low speeds, especially when the
Figure 15, Performance Factors of Different boat is 'getting up onto a plane', the hull assumes a
steep angle of attack. This submerges the aft located
Configurations
propeller more completely so that more blade area is
working. The pressure loading per square inch of blade

area is reduced and 'runaway cavitation' is less likely to

occur.
I prefer to extend the hull bottom aft on either side of
the propeller to reduce hull drag during the process of
getting up onto a plane. This should further reduce
propeller loading at that critical speed.
A further enhancement would be to place a shroud
around the upper section of the propeller. A lip on the
shroud aft of the propeller will help pressurize the
water at the propeller diameter.
If the shroud extends out to the hull side extensions,
the propeller will be operating in a truncated tunnel.

Figure 16, Horsepower vs. Speed for

different configurations.

The designer must be aware of the fact that a propeller

draws in water from a disc area which is significantly
larger than the propeller diameter.

The primary hull step must be located forward of the effective center of pressure in order to
prevent porpoising.
The large lifting forces produced by the surface piercing propeller, move the center of pressure
well forward of the static center of gravity.
Dual Deadrise
Consider the cross section of the hull at the primary step. This portion of the hull will be running
at near optimum trim when at maximum hull speed. A conventional vee section would be running
chine-dry. The outboard portions of the bottom near the chine provide no lift, but are wetted by
spray. I prefer to cut away that portion of the bottom which is not working. The wetted area is
given a relatively low deadrise of about 10 degrees. Research has shown that wave impact forces
are greatly reduced when the beam is reduced. [15] [17] The edge of the wetted area is defined by
a spray fence. Model tests have shown that spray fences can reduce the drag of a stepped hull by
as much as 10 percent. Lift strakes do not have this effect.
The portion of the hull outboard of the spray fence will have a much higher deadrise. (Thirty
degrees is shown.) In rough water, the craft can be expected to operate at lower speeds. There will
be more wetted area. The outboard portions of the hull with their high deadrise will be operating at
much less than optimum trim. These portions of the hull will contribute very little to wave impact
forces.
An alternative to a dual deadrise surface is a convex hull section. The continuous curvature will be
more rigid than a dual deadrise surface. The spray fence which defines the beam of the high speed
wetted area can be moved depending upon the power and loading of any given particular
application.
Summary
The performance of any combination of hull type and drive system has definite Performance
Limits. In order to increase performance beyond the limits of presently common boats, we must
develop new combinations of drive and hull.

Some combinations do not promise significant improvements in Performance Limits. A stepped

hull with a stern drive is only slightly better than a rnonohull with a stern drive. The monohull
with a surface drive is only slightly better than a monohull with a stern drive.
It is the combination of surface drive and stepped hull which can produce significant
improvements in efficiency for pleasure craft. (Up to 40% less power required.)
The task of designing an effective Surf-Step craft will require the combined ,effort of hull designer
and propulsion system designer. Much of the technology is available. The drive system is
complex. Stepped hulls are much more difficult to design than monohulls, and some of the design
secrets which have passed on with the old designers might have to be relearned. Don't expect the
first prototype to perform at the Limit Line. The potential gains are still substantial.
References
[l] D.W.Fostle, 'Speedboat' Mystic Seaport Museum, 1988
[2] Lindsay Lord, 'Naval Architecture of Planing Hulls', Cornell Maritime Press. 1954
[3] Daniel Savitsky, 'Hydrodynamic Design of Planing Hulls' Marine Technology, October, 1964
[4] Morley S. Smith 'How Fast Will It Go ?' Society of Small Craft Designers, 1986
[5] Powerboat Magazine, Gerald Christian Nordskog Publisher
[6] Trailerboat Magazine Poole Publications
[7] William T. Campbell Jr. 'A Speedboat Scrapbook' Mystic Seaport Museum, 1992
[8] Kevin Desmond, Power Boat Orion Books (Crown Publishers)1988
[9] Uffa Fox, 'Sail And Power' Peter Davies Ltd., 1936
[10] 'Fast Fighting Boats'
[11] Morley S. Smith 'The Aerodynamics of High Speed Boats' S.N.A.M.E. Oct.1985
[12] Leo Villa & Kevin Desmond, 'The World Water Speed Record', Pitman Press., 1955
[13] Donald Campbell, 'Into The Water Barrier', Odhams Press. 1955
[14] Harold Wilson, 'Boats Unlimited' Boston Mills Press., 1990
[15] Savitsky, 'On The Seakeeping of Planing Hulls', Marine Tech. April, 1968
[16] Ward P. Brown & R.L.Van Dyk 'An Experimental Investigation of Deadrise Planing Surfaces
with Reentrant Vee Step', Davidson Lab Report 664, Stevens Inst. Dec. 1964
[17] Eshbach, 'Handbook of Engineering Fundamentals', John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1952
[18] Eugene P. Clement & James D. Pope 'Stepless and Stepped Planing Hulls' Hydrodynamics
Lab R & D Report 1490, 1961
[19] Daniel Savitsky, 'Procedures for Hydrodynamic Evaluation of planing Hulls in Smooth and
Rough Water' Marine Tech. Oct. 1976

[20] Donald L.Blount & David L. Fox, "Small-Craft Power prediction" Marine Technology
January, 1976
Appendix
Performance Factors
Performance Factors were developed so that the performance or efficiency of one boat design can
be compared to that of another. Performance is expressed in terms of maximum speed, rated
power and running weight. These are factors which are usually readily available for existing boats.
Factors such as overall length and maximum beam have very little to do with the actual
performance of a boat. Factors such as location of the center of gravity, chine beam at the center
of gravity, or deadrise at the center of gravity are seldom known.
Performance Factors are derived from model scaling relationships. When a prototype hull design
is scaled down to produce a model for tank testing, the proportions of the model must maintain a
fixed relationship to the proportions of the prototype. These relationships are controlled by the
"Rules of Similarity'. [17]
All length dimensions (length, beam, location of center of gravity etc.), must be decreased in the
same proportions. (The length scale factor.)

Areas - decrease as the square of the length scale factor.

Volumes - decrease as the cube of the length scale factor.
Weights - decrease as the cube of the length scale factor.
The model is towed and the drag is measured at different speeds. Because the model has been
scaled according to the rules of similarity, the model drag and power requirements art scaled also.
Horsepower - decreases as the length scale factor to the 3.5 power (Mathematically)
Speed - decreases as the square root of the length scale factor, or the length scale factor to the 1/2
power (mathematically)
Naval architects usually plot the hull drag against a speed factor. The speed coeff. is commonly
expressed as a speed/length ratio or a speed/beam ratio.

Speed Coeff.

or

Where g is the acceleration due to gravity. (32.2 ft/sec2) The introduction of g makes the speed
coefficient non-dimensional.
The model and the prototype run at the same speed coefficient.

The problem with such coefficients is that they do not allow the comparison of the performance of
two different hulls with significantly different proportions. Consider a hypothetical example. Two
identical hulls. Same weight, same drag versus speed curve. same power and same top speed.
One hull is given flared sides so that. the measured beam at the shear is greatly increased (without
any increase in weight) If these hulls are compared on the basis of drag versus a speed/beam
coeff., the performance will not be comparable. The wide hull will appear to have more drag at the
same speed/beam ratio. In reality, the speed performance of the two hulls will be exactly the same.
Similarly, a long raked stem can upset a speed/length comparison.
It is because of these disparities that other speed coefficients needed to be developed.

Froude Number = F

= volume of the water displaced at rest

This is close to the Speed Factor which I use. I divide the weight by a factor of 1,000 just to
produce more manageable numbers.
Drag/Lift Ratio
Naval architects commonly express the efficiency of a planing surface in terms of the drag
produced in order to hydrodynamically support a given amount of weight. The drag/lift ratio. The
amount of drag is roughly equal to the component of propeller thrust which is parallel to the keel.
The thrust is proportional to the driving horsepower (and speed).
Because the horsepower of an existing hull is known, and the actual hull drag is not known; it is
logical to express the hull efficiency as a power/weight factor.
Power - varies as the 3.5 power of the length scale factor.
Weight - varies as the 3rd power of the length scale factor.
Power - varies as the (3.5 / 3.0) power or the 1.1667 power (mathematically) of the Weight scale
factor.
Speed - varies as the square root or power of the length scale factor.
Weight - varies as the 3rd power of the length scale factor.
Speed - varies as the ( divided by 3) or the 1/6 power of the Weight scale factor.
Figure [18] Shows weight raised to these two power levels.
System Design
At low planing speeds, the appendage drag, the aerodynamic drag, and the appendage lift forces
are small compared to the hydrodynamic drag. The usual procedure for designing a low speed boat

is to optimize the hydrodynamic drag of the hull. There is little to be gained by trying to improve
or optimize anything but the hydrodynamic drag. [3] [18] [19]
On high speed boats, the appendage drag, aerodynamic drag, and appendage lift forces can be very
large. (These forces increase as the square of the speed.) Lift produced by the angled propeller
shaft of a direct drive system shifts the effective center of gravity (or center of hydrodynamic
pressure seen by the hull), forward. The angle of attack of the hull decreases, and the hull drag
increases. The real optimum chine beam for this high speed hull will be different than it would be
if shaft lift were ignored in the calculations. The whole system must be considered during the
design stage of high speed boats. [20]
Limit Lines
The limit lines shown on the graphs are mathematical expressions which are valid for the
particular combination of hull type and drive system being investigated. One equation should
cover all of the craft of a given combination.
The naval architect can develop a mathematical equation which will closely approximate the limit
line. The basis of the equation is that the horsepower put out by the engine equals the total of all of
the losses and drag forces in the system. This equation includes factors such as: transmission
losses, propeller slip, aerodynamic drag, hull drag, appendage drag, (rudder, propeller shaft, strut,
etc.)
By using such equations, the naval architect knows where the horsepower goes and which losses
are greatest.
When calculating the hydrodynamic drag of a planing hull, the designer must take into account the
lift forces on the inclined propeller shaft and rudder, and the suction forces produced by the
propeller on the hull.
Consider a direct drive hull. The aerodynamic drag, propeller shaft drag, strut drag and rudder
drag all increase as the square of the speed. Individual drag coefficients can be developed using
methods outlined in [18]. When the effects of propeller shaft and rudder lift, and propeller suction
are taken into account, it was determined that the hull drag also increases as the square of the
speed - (in the power range for which I have data).
Horsepower is calculated at different speeds using this equation. This data is then converted to
Power Factor and Speed Factor for plotting on the graph.
Similar procedures can be used to establish the mathematical equation for the limit line of other
configurations.
Stepped Race Boats
The data collected usually provides total weight of hull and engine. I have estimated crew and fuel
weight to arrive at an approximate running weight. The hull hydrodynamic drag is assumed to be
constant at maximum speed. Equal to the drag of the step deadrise at optimum trim plus ten
percent.
Most of the boats recorded, used an aft propeller shaft bearing mounted in the rudder. This
essentially eliminates the drag of the shaft strut.
Reference [4] shows test data and limit lines for offshore performance boats, outboard powered
vet bottomed hulls and outboard powered tunnel hulls.

(Reprinted from Speed Boat Developments from the Past Into the Future by Morley S. Smith,
Freeville, NY)
Hydroplane History Home Page
This page was last revised Thursday, April 01, 2010 .
Your comments and suggestions are appreciated. Email us at wildturnip@gmail.com
Leslie Field, 2001