1

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

r
SHAFT HORSEPDWER

SPEED 55' ROUND

KNOTS
1O
r5
8OTTOM
38
118
44' V~
BOTTOM
68
L7O
--

--
~O/~ ~ //~O00J
/
Jf .......... ~ ....
,3~

2
20 230 280 ~O~///~ /~ 800 E,
25 400 420 ' ~ o
1
55 1060 750 ~ O ~ ."
ao ~580 1000 .
I [ 400- O-

S
1~O I 15
.......
20 25 3,0 35 =0 20
SPEED rN M EH
30 40 5O 6O

FIG. I . - - C o M P A R I S O N OF S H A F T H O R S E P O W E R OF R O U N D FIG. 2.--CHANGES OF T R I M VERSUS S P E E D FOR 4 0 - F O O T

~O~OM AND V-BOTTOM BOATS OF EQUAL DISPLACEMENT V-BoTTOM P O W E R BOATS
658
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS 659

DIRECTION OF MOTION

SECTION
A-A

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.
PLANING SURFACES

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.
paper.
660 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS

"~ 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
-8
curves of resistance coefficient, best trim angle,
wetted length, and center of pressure, all plotted
against speed coefficient. Fig. 6 gives the results
o
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.
Y
The coefficients used in reference [3] are the
same as those used in the analysis of flying-boat
TRIM ANGLE " T
t 4" G* O" IO" It*
hull tests. T h e y conform to Froude's law of
similitude, and are defined as follows:
FIG. 3.--COMPARISON OF MEASURED RESISTANCE OF FLAT
PLANING SURFACES WITH THEORETICAL FORMULA
(FROM REFERENCE [1 ])

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
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.
After the curves were cross- FIG. 4.--SECTIONS OFVARIOUSPLANING SURFACES TESTED BYSOTTORF [2 ]
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS 661
]~

I0 [:t~ L

8
~=~ ~ L
d - Paramet er - load, lb.--
t~
= 6

to

m 4

I
2

5 -- t
0
50 80

40 I

r~
40
\\" \_ \

\ J
x
\

~e

lO
...

0 C

oso
80
60 ~ . , \~,
.~ ~0 40 s'~, "~ "x
tC \ - %x \

~.~

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

FIG. 5 . - - C u R v E S OF RESISTANCE, WETTED LENGTH, AND CENTER OF PRESSURE FOR 10-DEGREE

DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE AT A T r c ~ OF 6 DEGREES (FROM REFERENCE [3])

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

wb8 V'~
where
R
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.
662 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS

.10

.08

.O6
c R W.I.
R = w------.~ b
.04

.0,2

aj

6
c~
b
~4

-~ 2

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

FIG. 6.--NONDIMENSIONAL PLOTS OF RESISTANCE, W E T T E D LENGTH, C E N T E R OF PRESSURE, A N D BEST TRIM A N G L E

VERSUS SPEED COEFFICIENT FOR ]0-DEGREE DEADRISE PLANING SURFACE (FRO/v[ REFERENCE [3])

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
600
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,
400
f it is possible to change the length of a planing sur-
z
face of a planing boat without changing its
hydrodynamic characteristics when operating at
,."I,
high speed.
Shoemaker goes on to present all his results as
curves of A/R, the load-resistance ratio, w.l./b,
TRIM ANGLE-'/"
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,
 Symbol
0.I
.Z
D .3
A .4
o .5

x 10
.x
^ ,I- ~ x

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

~r oo

0
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])
664 HYDRODYNAMICS
L~
K p/2 V2b2" The curves for deadrise angles
of 10 degrees, 20 degrees, and 30 degrees (Fig. 8)
show very well the trends for the whole series.
Diem in reference [5] reviews in detail reference
[3 ], for the purpose of pointing out its usefulness
to seaplane designers. Fig. 9, a reproduction of
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
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
from the standpoint of resistance. For practical
reasons the operating trim of a planing boat is
usually about half the o p t i m u m trim angles
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-
m e n t increases. The flatter the b o t t o m - - t h e
lower the resistance. Some deadrise, however,
is necessary. For flying boats, deadrise at the
main step is necessary to reduce the impact loads
when landing, the usual amount being between
20 degrees and 25 degrees. A still greater dead-
rise forward is necessary to keep down the re-
sistance at low speeds before planing is reached,and
to give satisfactory rough-water characteristics.
In a planing boat, the b o t t o m can be quite flat
aft but it has to have increased deadrise forward
for the same reason as does the flying boat.
Some deadrise aft is necessary if good turning
characteristics are required. For semi-planing
boats, the average deadrise angle is 3 degrees at
the transom and 15 degrees at the mid-length.
Beam, as well as trim and deadrise, often has
an appreciable effect on resistance. If constant
speed and constant load are assumed, the curves
of A/R in Fig. 8 show the variation of resistance
with beam. Average wartime P - T boats had a
beam of 20 feet, a displacement of 100,000 pounds,
and operated at about 40 knots. This would give
a K = 0.055 for the 10 degree deadrise case. If
the boat could operate at "best trim", AIR would
be 7.8 M a x i m u m A/R of 8.5 occurs at K =
0.025 which would necessitate an increase of b e a m
to 29.6 feet. Thus if it were possible to operate
at o p t i m u m trim and with c.p. = 0.3 .beam, a
reduction of 9 per cent in resistance would be ob-
tained. Again, for practical reasons, stepless
V-bottom boats cannot take a d v a n t a g e of this
condition. A later example will show the effect
OF PLANING HULLS
I0
J
f~
J
J
t6 f
J
2
0 5 I0 /5 ~0 25 dO
Angle of deod ri~e~ deg
FIG. 9.--VARIATION OF BEST TRIM ANGLE WITH ANGLE
OF DEADRISE (FROM REVERENCE [5D
of beam for trim angles and centers of pressure
possible in this type of boat.
An extensive study of planing surfaces, started
a few years ago, is now being conducted at the
Experimental Towing T a n k at Stevens Institute
of Technology, under contract with the Office
of Naval Research, D e p a r t m e n t of the N a v y .
This study includes a review of past work on
planing surfaces, a development of the theory
on the subject, and experiments with additional
surfaces as necessary to fill in gaps. References
[7] through [13] are the published reports to
date. Others will be issued later.
Reference [13], " W e t t e d Area and Center of
Pressure of Planing Surfaces," presents in com-
pact form the functional relationship of the five
important variables involved in planing bodies.
Figs. 10 and 11 show these relationships. Use
of these figures will be demonstrated later.
Although for an exhaustive study of planing
surfaces several other papers could be cited, the
ones mentioned here seem to be those most con-
venient for use in the design of planing boats.
P L A N I N G BOATS
The subject of this paper deals with planing
boats. I t has been said t h a t you can make a barn
door fly if you give it power enough. This state-
m e n t might be extended by saying t h a t you can
m a k e a barn door plane if you give it enough
power Actually a barn door can be made to
fly in the air or plane on the water without too
much power if directional stability and trim are
somehow controlled. But who wants to fly
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS 665

CENTER OF PRESSURE O F PLANING SURFACES

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

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

m .E2s + .oo42 a
P- DISTANCE OF THE RESULT_ANT T- ANGLE OF TRIM-IN DEGREES
WATER PRESSURE FROM STEP - ANGLE OF DEAl)RISE-IN DEGREES
MEASURED ALONG THE KEEL..r,~ ,
X - - ~/b.-WE,TTED LENGTH/BEAM RATIO
, - MEAN WETTED LENGTH.

I.I

1.0

.9

K
.8

.7

.6
0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20
1.3

1.2

I.l

1.0

.9

.8

.7

.6
0 .5- 1.0 1.5 2.0 ~2.5 3.0 " 3.5 4.0
FIG. 10.--CHARTS ENABLING DETERMINATION OF CENTER OF PRESSURE OF PLANING SURFACES
(FROM [13])
666 HYDRODYNAMICS OF P L A N I N G HULLS

I, IFT OF PLANING SURFACES

LIFT COEFFICIENT IS DEFINED AS:.
~. =. ,~/.('V'b' = ~'c,,/Cv'
FOR A FLAT PLATE-DEADRISE ZERO:
OLo = r'.'(.ol~o ~"+ .0095 XVGv=1
FOR A VEE SURFAGE-OF DEADRISE /~ ."
GLp = GLo-.OO65,B GLo=
a-LOAD IN LB. V-VELOCITY IN FEET PER SEG. X- RATIO OF MEAN WETTED
P- WATER DENSITY T-ANGLE OF TRIM IN DEGREES LENGTH TO BEAM
b- BEAM IN FEET ~'-DEADRISE IN DEGREES Gv-SPEED COEFR V/gV~"
b

,06 .06
llOi illililllllll
.os Inn
i--/ ,lll~lll~llillil
t l l l l l i l i l t
illl~l~illlilil
llii q l l l l l l l l l l
-lllUili/lllllll
.05
IINI
.04 "==
IIII w~ii, m,-,-,-,
I&Ll/nulnnilll
IIIl~lmllllllll
in
nI ! i H I iui/nnumnl .04
IIIT~ll~mmmmmmi
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
ummnunnuumuunmmnumumnmumnmmuuml~l
.,% unmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm~rdmJ
nnummuummnmnmnmmnmmmmnmmi.~i~in
CLo

TU.O2 Nmmumnnmnmnmnmi
iillmliiini
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
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii11
#I r
I I i,,:/,/l
.3 .3
Y~Z., "." /
~.,')'~Z, i ; "

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

," iI .2 .3 .4
0
FIG. ll.--INTERRELATIONSHIP OF VARIABLES FOR PLANING SURFACES (FROM [13])
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF P L A N I N G HULLS 667

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

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

RATIO

160

ll)
\ I.,
/,,,/
r { .,
.... -i.-~..--..- .
t401

i =5.o
/
)oo~A= N
aoiT=. 20"
i g~_..~===r---.--.:=--~=-= ao~
40
OltAFT Alrl0

140
/\ \
/
[

#-,

//,ri
,; ,.i . ' / , ,
I,; ,
!~ ',.
t ~,
"--"

L. \ ..-:... :._-_.__-:-- . . . . . . . . .
\ ..,~i'f "....
IZO ',.\',.' ._..<:---:-
v,," . . . . :9~ ~ . ' ~
lOG
/ f r
i00~ A" N
/
/
80 f
8oiT= 4."
t f
/
50"
t~
60
'x, \ z

40 If S- 40
~.AM DRAFT RATIO
FIG, 12.--TYPICAL CHART FROM REFERENCE [14] SHOWING CONTOURS OF RESISTANCE PER POUND OF
DISPLACEMENT P L O T T E D O N G R I D S OF D I S P L A C E M E N T - L E N G T H R A T I O A N D B E A M - D R A F T RATIO FOR A
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-
cient, comfortable planing boat many character-
istics need to be considered.
Planing boats can include V-bottom boats
without steps, single-step or multiple-step boats,
inverted V-bottom or sea-sled types, three-point
hydroplanes and hydrofoil boats. The hydrofoil
boat is a complex problem all by itself and will not
be discussed here. I will confine m y immediate
discussion to the more usual V-bottom boat
.without step, and touch on the others later.
I d o n ' t suppose that anyone here is naive
enough to think that planing boats are the answer
to all ship problems, but I have heard of all Sorts
of proposals for their use., including 9.ce.~n~liners.
There is a lower limit i~'sp~ed ~below w}lich plari-
ing boats are not practicable. This speed limit
is not absolute, but is related to the size of the
boat. Below the lower limit of planing, the
water curls up around the sides, adding frictional
and eddy resistance. At very low speeds, the
curling up around the transom creates very serious
e d d y drag.
An examination of Fig. 6 shows the lower limit
of the data at a Cvof 2. This means that for a
beam of 10 feet V will be about 36 feet per second
or 21 knots. T h e u s e of beam as a criterion may
not be very familiar, nor is the seaplane speed
coefficient Cv = V/V~gb. Most naval archi-
tects think of a boat in terms of its length and of
its speed-length ratio, V/W/L, where V is in
knots, and L is load-waterline length. Both of
these speed coefficients, V/'@gb and V/W/L,
are based on a pure form of the Froude number.
Most semi-planing boats have a length of
something like 4 times the beam. If we take
4 as a good average and accept 2:as a,!ower limit
of V/V~gbfor practicable planing, wd'have
v PRELIMINARY RESISTANCE ESTIMATES
2 ( V in feet per second)
~L/4
C=2x __=5.60 ( Vin feet per second)
V X 1.689
5.60 (V in knots)
V 5.60
3.3 ( V in knots)
%/L 1.689
In the writer's experience, speed-length ratio
of 3 is the lowest at which a planing-type boat
should be c o n s i d e r e d . For high displacement-
length ratios, the lower limit is higher.
If anyone is thinking of a planing boat for an
ocean liner, he should consider the following. A
ship 500 feet in length would have a beam of 100
to 125 feet. Its lowest speed for planing would
be 3 X %/L = 67 knots, for which it would re-
quire about 2 million horsepower. A 500-foot
planing boat of usual proportions would have a
displacement of 16,000 tons. Where to put the
power plant would be a real problem. More im-
portant would be how to convert t h e p o w e r to
thrust.
As many of you know, there is not much useful
literature on the design of planing-type boats.
The probable reason is that this is a comparatively
new field in naval architecture. However, there
is o n e b i t of literature that should prove useful to
designers of this type boat. Reference [14] gives
the results of a broad-range~ of tCs~s.~made on a re-
lated series of V2b0ttbm m o t o r b o a ( s ~v~/rying in
beam-draft ratio from 4 to 15, and in displace-
ment-length ratio from 40 to 160. The models are
called " U S E M B Series 50" and the tests covered
three static trims and three loads. This refer-
ence should prove to be useful both to show the
effect of proportion changes and to obtain pre-
liminary estimates of power. A new edition is
now available from the David Taylor Model Basin.
Fig. 12 is a typical page from this report show-
ing contours of resistance per pound of displace-
ment plotted against beam-draft ratio and dis-
placement-length ratio.
Each page gives data for three static trims at
one speed-length ratio. Three load conditions
were considered, normal (designed) load, 110 per
cent normal, and 120 per cent normal. Exami-
nation of Fig. 12 shows that it is possible to select
the beam-draft ratio for lowest resistance per
pound of displacement. Also shown are the
marked reductions of resistance per pound with
increase of static trim. The use of this reference
will be presented later.
The first consideration in most planing boat
designs is size and speed. Rough approximations
of displacement can be determined very quickly.
Quite early in the study a fairly reliable esti-
mate of the power must be obta!ne.d in order to
select, from those that can be obtained, a stiitable
engine. Size and weight of. power plant and
mechanical accessories are necessary for the final
layout of the hull.
The references cited make possible a reasonably ".
accurate estimate of power requirements as well..
as indicate possible ways to reduce resistance. '=~i'-"
Let us suppose we have laid down a prelimS--
nary design for a V-bottom power boat 62-feet
long weighing 60,000 pounds, with the center of
 HYDRODYNAbllCS OF PLANING HULLS 669

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

o
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 .~

Lul~
~-0
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 -

't
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
6,000
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-
CL~ = 0.0691. FIG. 13.--RBSISTANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANING
SURFAC~
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
COS ~
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].
lb
- - 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].
670 HYDRODYNAMICS OF P L A N I N G HULLS

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
lb
F = ~ V~SC.t where S = cos 13
(.14) is t h e r e s i d u a l resistance, 60,000 )< t a n r
where L = A = 60,000 p o u n d s .
(15) is t h e t o t a l resistance, f r i c t i o n a l plus resid-
ual b y
R = Ltanr + F
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-
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
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 w e e n 4 degrees a n d 5 degrees. I t shows also t h a t
friction r e s i s t a n c e increases as t r i m angle de-
creases ( w e t t e d a r e a increasing), a n d t h a t residual
resistance increases w i t h i n c r e a s e d t r i m angle.
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
of p r e s s u r e v e r s u s r b y use of Fig. 10.
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 .
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
(4)
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e effect of possible changes in
beam.
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.
C h a r t s like Fig. 6, however, give t h e resistance
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,
(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
d a t a (charts like Fig. 5), select t h e a p p l i c a b l e
data, and make a regular model-to-ship extra-
polation.
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
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
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
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
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-
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

~- 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. "
 HYDRODYNAMICS
For the beam-draft ratio and displacement
length ratio calculated, we enter the charts for-
speed-length ratios of 4.5, 5.0, and 5.5, at static
trim angles of 0 degree and 2 degrees, obtaining the
following resistances per pound :
R e s i s t a n c e per lb.
Speed-Length Ratio For r = 0
4.5 0.1775
5.0 0.1920
5.5 0. 2110
Interpolating for a speed-length ratio of 5.08
and a static trim of --0.04 degree, we obtain
0.196 pound of resistance per pound of displace-
ment, or 11,750 pounds. This does not take into
account the scale effect due to skin friction. At
the Experimental Towing Tank, we often mul-
tiply bare-hull model resistance for this type of
boat by 75 per cent and the scale cubed to get
a quick rough estimate of the full-size resistance.
Doing this gives us a value of 8,810 pounds.
After correcting for skin friction b y the method
given in reference [14], the resistance comes
out to 8,390 pounds (see Appendix).
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-
tive horsepower estimates of 1,080 and 1,030.
Doubling the effective horsepower generally gives
a reasonably good estimate of engine horsepower,
taking care of appendage resistance, gear losses,
and propeller losses. If it is suspected t h a t pro-
peller cavitation cannot be avoided, some addi-
tional power is necessary. For this case, the
writer chose to guess t h a t an extra 10 per cent
would take care of the latter. This will then give
us estimates of engine horsepower of 2,700 and
2,580.
In the literature, there are, of course, formulae
and charts for estimating power requirements for
high-speed boats. In Skene's book [16] on page
206 is given a chart for estimating power of step-
less V-bottom boats. According to this chart
the power required for the subject boat is 3,870.
On page 222 of this reference Skene also gives the
following formula:
C paying particular attention to center-of-gravity
where
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
P is engine h o r s e p o w e r
C is a coefficient for w h i c h he gives 180 t o 185 for s t e p -
less h:Cdroplanes.
Transforming this equation, we have
W size boat. If the scale of the model is ~, the scale
P --~ - -
(C/S)
OF PLANING HULLS 671
Substituting our values we have
p _ 60,000 3,810
40 X 1.15]
On page 52 of Lindsay Lord's recent book [17]
is a chart prepared by Paul Tomalin from em-
pirical data collected here and abroad. This
For r = 2
0.1500
chart gives an estimate of 2,800 horsepower.
0.1580 We have therefore several estimates of required
0.1720 power.
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
S ke ne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,870
S ke ne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,810
Lord ..................................... 2,800
Skene's information was based on data derived
from experiences of some years ago when this
type of boat had higher length-beam ratios (indi-
cating higher resistance), and when propellers
were not as good as those of today. I t is safe,
therefore, to throw out or discount those two
values.
From here on in, the design of planing boats is
pretty much an art.
MODBL TESTS
Skene stated in reference [16], "Little accurate
information can be obtained from model tank
experiments on small model hydroplanes . . . . "
He further implied t h a t the difficulty was due to
the inability of accurately measuring the actual
wetted area of the model so as to separate friction
resistance from residual resistance.
Actually, results of model tests on planing boats
might well have been misleading, since such tests
have not enjoyed the attention to detail t h a t
tests of larger, "more important," displacement
vessels have enjoyed. Up to very recently some
model testing establishments have still issued
predicted full-size resistances of planing boats
without corrections for skin friction. We at the
Experimental Towing Tank believe that accurate
predictions of full-size resistance of planing boats
can be obtained only from model tests when proper
attention is given to test details and when fric-
tion corrections are made. The former requires
position and propeller shaft thrust line. The
latter requires reasonably accurate measurement
of actual wetted area and wetted length.
Model tests for determining resistance char-
acteristics are always made according to the
Froude law of similarity. For this purpose, the
part of the model coming into contact with the
water should be geometrically similar to the full-
of the speed will be k ~, the scale of the wetted
672 HYDRODYNAMICS
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
DETERMINING WETTED KEEL LENGTH.
area will be X2, and the scale of the submerged
volume will be k s. If the t a n k water is fresh and
the full-size boat will operate in salt water, the
scale of the weights will v a r y from k s b y the rela-
tive densities of the two fluids.S
If no corrections were necessary for friction,
the scale for resistance under the foregoing condi-
tions would be k s. Actually, however, only
residual resistance (wave making and form re-
sistance) approximates this law. Friction resist-
ance runs to quite a bit less than k s.
T h e usual solution of the problem is to assume
t h a t the frictional resistance of a model is equal
to t h a t of a flat plate having the same immersed
length and the same wetted area as the wetted por-
tion of the model. This assumed frictional resist-
ance is subtracted from the model resistance, and
the remainder, the residual resistance, is multiplied
b y Xs to obtain the full-size residual resistance.
T o this is added the full-size frictional resistance
which is assumed to be t h a t of a fiat plate, X times
the length, and X2times the wetted area of the plank
assumed for the model, moving, of course, a t k ~4
times the model speed. I t is the practice, then, to
m a k e an addition for the surface roughness of the
full-size boat.
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.
OF PLANING HULLS
NOTE GAGES FOR DETERMINING RUNNING TIME
While the stationary wetted area m a y be used
for computing friction for displacement ships, it
is necessary to determine the actual wetted area
and the wetted length of the moving planing-
boat model.
At the Experimental Towing T a n k , planing-
boat models are marked with lines to enable deter-
mination of the wetted length of the chine and
keel. A straight line joining the forward ends of
these lengths is assumed to be the forward
boundary of the wetted bottom. Lines on the
topsides at the transom enable an estimate of
the area of side wetting occurring at low speeds.
T h e running wetted areas are sometimes as little
as 50 per cent of the static wetted area; thus, their
importance in the friction correction is consider-
able.
Figs. 14 and 15 show photographs of a V - b o t t o m
m o t o r b o a t being tested in the E T T tank. T h e
lines, spaced 5 inches apart, enable a r e a s o n a b l y
accurate determination of wetted chine and wetted
keel lengths. T h e arrow on Fig. 14 clearly shows
the point t a k e n as the keel length. T h e deter-
ruination of the wetted chine length takes a little
more "know-how," as this point is fogged b y a lot
of lateral spray. Study of the technique has
shown t h a t the location to select is a t the after
boundary of the f o a m y spray just at the point
 HYDRODYNAMICS
FIG. 1 5 . - - M O D E L OF V-BOTTOM POWER BOAT MOVING AT ~PEED-LENGTH RATIO OF 4.5, ILLUSTRATING METHOD OF
DETERMINING WETTED C H I N E LENGTH
where the main spray blister starts. Fig. 15
shows this location.
In order to check this method, tests were run to
determine the actual running wetted area of the
same model. T o do this, spots of wet paint were
p u t on the model, after which it was run to deter-
mine the flow lines. Fig. 16 is a photograph
of the b o t t o m of the same model as pictured
in Figs. 14 and 15 after running at the same speed.
I t can be seen t h a t a straight line between the
forward ends of the wetted chine and keel de-
fines quite closely the forward boundary of the
wetted b o t t o m .
We have noted previously how i m p o r t a n t the
effect of trim is on the resistance of planing sur-
faces. Therefore, the longitudinal position of
OF PLANING HULLS 673
the center of gravity m u s t be located accurately
so t h a t the model trim is geometrically similar
to the designed trim of the boat. For the same
reason, some account m u s t be t a k e n of the loca-
tion of the propeller shaft.
T h e Experimental Towing T a n k makes a prac-
tice of towing planing boat models from a point
on the designed propeller shaft line and providing
an upward force, F,, to compensate for the up-
ward thrust of the propeller. F~ -- R tan a,
[:'v
where a is the angle of the shaft line with horizon
when the model is moving. T o determine F, a
trial-and-error method is necessary to first ob-
tain reasonably close estimates of R and a.
This does not become a chore, since, with ex-
perience, very accurate guesses for Fo can be
 674 HYDRODYNAMICS OF P L A N I N G H U L L S

F I G . I(;.--PHOTOGRAPI! OF \ : - B O T T O M P)WER I])AT ~HO\VING PAINT ~PI3T -~,~ETIIOD OF I)ETERMINING \VETTED AREA

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

I I I
SMALL MODEL EXPANDEDTO ,""
SIZE OF LARGE MODEL BY . . ,/
FROUDE'S LAW OF COM-
PARISON WITHOUT FRICTION. , "
ADJUSTMENT. .-"
.." ~ i J J

/~/"

, ,.o*" *" t
45

SMALL MODEL EXPANDED TO

/
/
SIZE OF LARGE MODEL BY /
FROUDE'S LAW OF COM-
DESIGNED PARISON WITHOUT FRICTION
SPEED ADJUSTMENT. " ~ ' ~ " ' - - " ~ l)

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

.
118.8 SCALE =:
ii
S M A L L MODEL SPEED
25

4,
/
//

,S .8
SPEED-KNOTS
ip i? ~p Is
2O-

15

/
11 I
i
~LARGE

i a
MODEL

SPEED-LENGTH RATIO, Vl~r'C

2 3 4
i
5
J
i
6

F I G . 1 7 . - - C O R R E L A T I O N OF TESTS OF A LARGI~ AND A FIG. 1 8 . - - C O R R E L A T I O N OF TESTS OF A LARGE AND A

SMALL M O D E L OF A H I G H - S P E E D V-BOTTOM P O W E R BOAT SMALL M O D E L OF A H I G H - S P E E D V-BoTTOM BOAT
 HYDRODYNAMICS
., .., . [
FIG. 19.--PRESSURE D I S T R I B U T I O N OF 1 0 - D E G R E E
The real pro9f of the pudding, however, would
be comparison of model predictions with the full-
size performance. T h e difficulties in getting
accurate measurements of power delivered t o the
sliaft of a small high-speed boat, together with the
possibility of propeller cavitation, are only two of
the m a n y problems cofinected with a satisfactory.
comparison.
Model tests have been made of the 62-foot
power boat previously considered. At 40 knots
the predicted effective horsepower was ,1,120.
This compares with 1,080 from planing-surface
data and 1,030 from the Series 50 report. The
client estimated 12 per cent for appendage re-
sistance. As cavitation was expected, a liberal
3,000 horsepower was installed. The boat made
40 knots with 2,600 horsepower; wide open, she
did 41. The trial results indicated a drop of pro-
pellet efficiency due to cavitation from 61 per cent
to 47 per cent.
This story indicates not much difference be-
tween estimates obtained from the literature and
from model tests. One might a r g u e - - w h y a
model test? A prominent naval architect has
said, " I t is very difficult to design a boat much
better than existing good ones but it is very easy
to designone 10 per cent worse."
Model tests often indicate how improvements
OF PLANING HULLS 675
CROSS SECTION I
D E A D R I S E P L A N I N G S U R F A C E (FROM [ 2 ] )
can be made in a hull. In five alterations of the
previously mentioned design, the 40-knot ef-
fective horsepower was reduced from 1,2~I0 to
1,120. Several years ago, the writer worked on a
series of model tests which eventually reduced the
resistance of a certain design to less t h a n 60 per
cent of t h a t of the first trial.
I t is often possible to obtain reductions of re-
sistance b y local changes in design. In general
most planing boats operate at less than the trim
for o p t i m u m resistance, and it is not possible to
increase the trim b y locating the center of gravity
farther aft. In the pressure distribution curve
shown in Fig. 19, we note t h a t the greatest pres-
sures exist near the entl:ance of the b o t t o m into
the water. If the b e a m is increased in this local-
ity, increased running trim m a y be obtained.
Lowering the chine at the water entrance, and
thereby decreasing the deadrise, accomplishes the
same end r e s u l t . Rocketing the b o t t o m at the
transom or decreasing the b e a m at the transom
will often increase trim and decrease resistance.
N o t enough is known at present to set up general
rules for these changes. In fact, changes like
the latter have on a few occasions resulted in in-
creased resistance. Unless checks can be m a d e
by model tests, such suggestions must be carefully
considered.
676 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS

o , // /

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

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

,o - - .

,;>:'..i..~
~-"

,ll~. / ~ / ~ "r

SPEED-LENGTH RATIO, v"C

-Y--
2 $ 4 5

FIG. 20.--CuRvES OF RESISTANCEPER POUNDOF DISPLACEMENTFORA NUMBEROF PLANINGBOATSOF DISPLACE-

MENT-I~ATIOFROM140 to 160

A great m a n y tests of 'planing boats have been
made at the Experimental Towing Tank. When-
ever time permits, an a t t e m p t is made to correlate
the results. In a n y such investigation, the im-
portant variables, length, beam and trim, m u s t
be considered. At present, curves of resistance
per pound of displacement for the full-size boats
have been worked up; such a group of curves for
displacement-length ratios of 140 to 160 are shown
in Fig. 20. As can be seen, there is a great spread
in resistance above speed-length ratios of 31/~.
Similar curves have been prepared for lighter and
heavier boats. B y drawing in an envelope below
each group of curves, minimum resistances for re-
cently developed boats can be obtained. Fig.
21 shows these minimum resistance envelopes for
four groups of displacement ratios. This figure
can be used for preliminary resistance estimates.
For a close comparison of these various boats,
they should all be reduced to a common length to
correct for Reynolds effect. For the boats con-
sidered here, running in length from 23 feet to
85 feet, reduction to a mean length would intro-
duce variations of resistance per pound of up to
6 per cent. T h e curves, therefore, can be used
only for an ' a p p r o x i m a t e power estimate. The
lack of the correction for length does not materially
alter the trend with displacement-length ratio.
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS 677

"I _ ::. ' '" '

o. /7/ I .

V
SPEED-LENGTH RATIO,
2 5 4 5
FIG. 21.--MINIMIDI ~BSISTANCES PER I~OUND OF DISPLACEMENT FOR PLANING HULLS

I t is not intended that this paper deal with pro-
pellers; however, some mention of them should
be made. Intelligent selection is necessary to
prevent unbalance between the boat, the engines,
and the propellers. For planing boats the selec-
tion of engines is, in large part, based on what is
available. Often the selection of propellers is
based on pulling two or three off the shelf and
trying them out to 'see which is best. Propeller
manufacturers often do a good job furnishing
wheels from stock. However, with the propeller
information available in Taylor's "Speed a r i d
Power of Ships" and in the "Principles of Naval
Architecture," it is possible to determine closely
what characteristics ought to be used.
In the early part of this paper, a single required
design speed was chosen for illustration. In de-
signing a planing boat, this is not enough--a
full curve of resistance versus speed should be
estimated. At lower than design speed, this type
of boat can have resistances higher than t h a t at
the design speed. In any event, the curve of re-
sistance versus speed is very much flatter t h a n
l~hat of displacement boats. Against the curve
of resistance should be plotted the available thrust
from the engine-propeller cominbation. Racing
the engine to carry the boat over the resistance
hump m a y result in cavitation with great loss of
thrust and inability to get over the hump.
The only excuse for a planing boat is speed;
and, when speed is desired, propeller cavitation is
a problem. Cavitation can often be avoided by
installing gears to change the shaft speed, which
may involve gear losses and increases of append-
age resistance. I t can be avoided also by increas-
ing blade width. In any event, the problem
should be attacked intelligently by determining
just what the conditions are. When cavitation
cannot be avoided conveniently, it is possible
to operate with a certain amount of it by increas-
ing the engine size and propeller size to com-
pensate for.the loss in propeller efficiency. For
high-spee d boats cavitation definitely should be
taken into account when selecting engines and pro-
pellers.
OTHER CONSIDERATIoN's
Resistance is only one important hydrodynamic
characteristic of a planing boat. Often some-
 678 HYDRODYNAMICS
thing else is the deciding factor in laying down the
final lines. Other characteristics are maneuver-
ability, porpoising tendency, diving tendency,
pounding in a seaway, and spray throwing. A
good deal is known about this subject but, un-
fortunately, not much has been published Use-
ful information has been obtained by model tests
on all of these characteristics in connection with
P~T boat design where the investment is high.
Smaller boats apparently cannot afford the benefit
of such study.
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-
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
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 ~
uncomfortable and sometimes can be disastrous.
Porpoising is a self-sustaining oscillation involv-
ing an interaction of vertical and pitching motions
The sketches in this section indicate what happens
in a physical sense. Let us suppose that at a
certain time, condition (a) exists with the re-
sultant water force forward of the center of
gravity. This creates a trimming moment which
raises the bow and results in the water reaction
moving aft. In moving aft, if it remained at the
position shown in condition (b), no porpoising
would exist. However, the resultant water force
OF PLANING HULLS
continues moving aft resulting in a condition like
(c). This results in a negative trimming moment,
forcing the bow down. This in turn tends to
move the resultant forward to a condition like
(a). The cycle keeps repeating.
A considerable amount of study has been made
of this phenomenon in connection with flying-
boat work. Fig. 22 is a typical chart showing
unstable porpoising regions for a seaplane hull.
Flying boats are always designed to operate in the
stable region between lower limit and upper limit
A~ 0~$r41tt"l"
SPEED
FIG. 2 2 - - U N S T A B L E "PORPOISING" 'REGIONS OF A FLYING
BOAT HULL
porpoising with a speed-trim curve like-A. Plan-
ing boats generally operate below the "island"
of lower limit porpoising, in a region such as 23.
Increasing speed w i t h o u t change of trim or in-
creasing trim without change of speed in direc-
tions indicated by the arrows will put the boat
i n t h e unstable range.
When static trim angle was increased, pot-
poising was present at high speed for most of the
hulls reported in reference [14]. The limiting
speeds for various cases are shown in this reference.
A great deal of work on porpoising of flying
boats has been done by m a n y investigators.
 HYDRODYNAMICS
Much of this would be useful for a basic study of
porpoising of planing boats.
A tendency to dive in a high-speed boat is a
condition that has resulted in the loss of boats.
This condition, which is caused b y the suction
effect of high velocity flow over the forward
sections, is aggravated in close turns and in a sea-
way, often leading to broaching. I t can be
avoided completely by increasing the flare under
the chine forward so that sufficient dynamic lift
is produced to overcome any sucking-down tend-
ency. T h e application of spray strips will also
reduce diving tendency. Reference [18] briefly
describes tests made to obtain quantitative in-
formation on the "diving tendency."
Pounding and slamming in a seaway is a con-
dition difficult to avoid in V-bottom planing boats.
The condition is so uncomfortable and so damag-
ing to the hull structure that such boats must
be slowed down considerably when the going is
very rough. Round-bottom German E boats
could almost always outrun potentially faster
V-bottolfi motor torpedo boats in the North Sea
during World War II. Any rounding of the
forward sections seems to cut down the severity of
pounding, but probably with danger of increased
diving tendency and spray throwing. However,
a compromise m a y very well be possible. This
has led to forward sections similar to an inverted
oxen yoke, like the sketch, which have been used
by some designers with success. Such a shape
does not add much to the resistance, but it does
ease the pounding. In an informal test at the
Experimental Towing Tank, such a design was at
one time compared in head seas with a V-bottom
and a round-bottom boat. The V-bottom boat
pitched a great deal more than the round-bottom
boat. The "oxen-yoke" boat had pitching char-
acteristics about halfway between those of the
other two.
If a fast boat is to operate a large part of the
time in rough water, a round-bottom boat having
a quite wide flat bottom aft, a moderate bilge
OF PLANING HULLS 679
radius, and equipped with spray strips might be a
better answer than a V-bottom boat. It would
not be as fast in smooth water b u t it might well
make a faster average speed in rough going, and
it would certainly be more comfortable.
Spray throwing can be controlled by the same
means as diving tendency is reduced--proper
beam width forward and spray strips. Spray
strips almost always improve V-bottom boats
with regard to speed as well as maldng a drier,
more comfortable boat. Reference [19] gives
some of the experiences of the Experimental
Towing T a n k in this respect and should be in the
library of all small power-boat designers.
In addition to the single-step V-bottom boat
which is much in the lead for semi-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
optimum beam. The study on planing surfaces,
now going on at the Experimental Towing Tank,
will give information on the wake contours be-
hind the surfaces so t h a t information will be avail-
able on the best angle of attack for the trailing
surfaces.
Before a complete scientific method can be used
for designing planing boats, a great deal of re-
search will be necessary. I t is hoped that the
present work being carried out on planing surfaces
can be continued and extended to include sur-
faces with changing deadrise, with c u r v e d sec-
tions, with longitudinal curvature, and other de-
tails that approach the configuration of a prac-
tical boat. Such a study ought to be useful to
flying-boat designers as well as to small surface-
boat designers.
The "other considerations" brought out in the
foregoing contribute to the "sea-keeping" quali-
ties of a boat which is a measure of its ability to
operate safely and comfortably at a useful speed.
The Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers has a committee on "sea-keeping"
which undoubtedly will consider this general
characteristic with reference to planing boats as
well as for displacement ships.
680 HYDRODYNAMICS OF P L A N I N G HULLS
REFERENCES
[1] Sottorf, W., "Experiments with Planing
Surfaces," National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics Technical Memorandum No. 601,
1932.
[2] Sottorf, W., "Experiments with Planing
Surfaees," National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics Technical Memorandum No. 739,
1934.
[3] Shoemaker, James M., "Tank Tests of
Flat and V-Bottom Planing Surfaces," National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Technical
Note No. 509, November 1934.
[4] Sambraus, A., "Planing Surface Tests at
Large Froude Numbers--Airfoil Comparison,"
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
Technical Memorandum No. 848, February
1938.
[5] Diehl, Walter S., " T h e Application of
Basic Data on Planing Surfaces to the Design of
Flying Boat Hulls," National' Advisory Com-
mittee for Aeronautics Report No. 694, 1940.
[6] Locke, F. W. S., Jr., "Tests of a Flat
Bottom Planing Surface to Determine the In-
ception of Planing," Navy Department, Bureau
of Aeronautics Research Division DR Report
No. 1096, December 1948.
[7] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V., and Chabrow,
Faye R., "The Discontinuous Fluid Flow Past an
Immersed Wedge," Sherman M. Fairchild Pub-
lication Fund Paper No. 169, Institute of the
Aeronautical Sciences, New York, October 1948.
[8] Pierson, John D., and Leshnover, Samuel,
"An Analysis of the Fluid Flow in the Spray Root
and Wake Regions of Flat Planing Surfaces,"
Sherman M. Fairchild Publication Fund Paper
No. 166, Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences,
New York, October 1948.
[9] Pierson, John D., "On the Pressure Dis-
tribution for a Wedge Penetrating a Fluid Sur-
face," Sherman M. Fairchild Publication Fund
Paper No. 167, Institute of the Aeronautical
Sciences, New York, June 1948.
[10] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V., Savitsky,
Daniel, and Lehman, William F., "Wave Con-
tours in the Wake of a 20-degree Deadrise Plan-
ing Surface," Sherman M. Fairchild Publication
Fund Paper No. 168, Institute of the Aeronautical
Sciences, New York, June 1948.
[11 ] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V., Savitsky,
Daniel, and Lehman, William F., "Wave Con-
tours in the Wake of a 10-degree Deadrise Plan-
ing Surface," Sherman M. Fairchild Publication
Fund Paper No. 170, Institute of the Aeronautical
Sciences, New York, November, 1948.
[12] Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V., Savitsky,
Daniel, and Lehman, William F., "Wake Profile
of a Vee Planing Surface, Including Test Data
on a 30-degree Deadrise Surface," Sherman M.
Fairchild Publication Fund Paper No. 229, In-
stitute of the Aeronautical Sciences, New York,
April 1949.
[13] Korvin-Kronkovsky, B. V., Savitsky,
Daniel, and Lehman, William F., "Wetted Area
and Center of Pressure of Planing Surfaces,"
Sherman M. Fairchild Publication Fund Paper
No. 244, Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences,
New York, August 1949.
[14] Davidson, Kenneth S. M., and Suarez,
Anthony, "Tests of Twenty Models of V-Bottom
M o t o r Boats," Navy Department, David Taylor
Model Basin, Report R-47, Revised Edition,
March 1949.
[15] "Uniform Procedure for the Calculation
of Frictional Resistance and the Expansion of
Model Test Data to Full Size," Bulletin No.
1-2 of The Society of Naval .Architects and
Marine Engineers, New York, August 1948.
[16] Skene, Norman L., "Elements of Yacht
Design," Dodd, Mead & Company, New York,
1944.
[17] Lord, Lindsay, "Naval Architecture of
Planing Hulls," Cornell Maritime Press, New
York, 1946.
[18] Davidson, Kenneth S. M., "The Growing
Importance of Small Models for Studies in Naval
Architecture," Transactions of The Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, page 98,
Volume 49, 1941.
[19] Ashton, Randolph, "Effect of Spray
Strips on Various Power-boat Designs," Experi-
mental Towing Tank, Stevens Institute of Tech-
nology, Technical Memorandum No. 99, 1949.
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS 681

APPENDIX

CORRECTION FOR SKIN FRICTION FOR "SERIES 50" PREDICTION

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.

DISCUSSION

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
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
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
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
very able paper.
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
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
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
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-
signed n e a r l y t w e n t y y e a r s ago. On' h e r one
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
w i t h a n e s t i m a t e d 356 horsepower. A f t e r a
~ 35
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.
:682 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS

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-
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS
ment. N o One can foretell definitely .whether or
not the rudder 'design is satisfactory until the boat
is finally tested full scale. This is easily under-
standable when it is considered t h a t the rate of
change in heading of the boat is a function of the
hull form, the area of the rudders, the cross-sec-
tion of the rudder itself, the location of the rudder
with regard to the 'centerline of the propeller
shaft, the center of gravity of the area, and what
happens to the center of pressure at various
speeds. Actually, very little dependable data are
available regarding the behavior of rudders on
high-speed boats.
A similar story m a y be told for propellers, as
stated b y Mr. Murray. T h e convention is to
assume a propulsive coefficient of 50 per cent.
This m a y v a r y anywhere between 40 and 65 per
cent depending on a' number of variables. I t is
almost axiomatic t h a t the first set of propellers
put on a boat Ere never quite right.
I could ramble on and on and have mentioned
b u t a few of t h e : m a n y problems which face the
planing hull designer. I know t h a t the subject
will provoke a lively discussion and I am very
much disappointed t h a t I will be unable to take
part in person.
In closing, I should like tolstate t h a t there is all
too little reliable information available to the de-
signer a n d I believe t h a t 'Mr. M u r r a y ' s - p a p e r
has filled one of the gaps.
Planing hull
Seaplane hull for same beam, length, and displacement
Fxd. 24
683
DR. K. S. M. DAVIDSON, Member: I t seems to
me t h a t Mr. M u r r a y has succeeded v e r y well in
showing in this paper, first t h a t an immense
amount of d a t a applicable to the design of plan-
i n g boats has recently become available, second
t h a t to a large extent the designing of such boats
can be put on a rational basis.
He mentions t h a t the field is a relatively new
one and t h a t this m a y account for the lack of
general appreciation of the availability of material
relating to i t . . More i m p o r t a n t t h a n this is, I
think, t h a t it has received less concentrated atten-
tion. Falling between the fields of ship design
and seaplane or flying boat design, in both of
which there have been stronger incentives and
more compelling reasons for intensive study of
technical problems, it-has received less than its
'needed share-of attentionl
NevertheLess, I believe t h a t a large measure
of understanding of the interrelation Of the major
controlling variables has now been gained and
t h a t the time is close when rational methods of
design will be formulated. I t will .be necessary
to draw on the methods of b o t h naval architecture
and seaplane designing, but the result will differ
somewhat from both.
One thing should be kept clearly i in mind in
reading the paper; namely, t h a t it applies mainly
to what are really moderate-speeds for planing
boats, say, 40 knots for a 60-foot boat ( V / X / L - - =
1
I
684 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS

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
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS 685

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

~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
 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS 689

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-
tude.
%-~3
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
MR. ARNO A. APEL, 7 Visitor: At Ventnor we FIG, 26.--ALLOWANCEFOR ROUGHNESS, NORMAL CLEAN
BOTTOMS
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
references.
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.
690 HYDRODYNAMICS OF PLANING HULLS

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.
 HYDRODYNAMICS
I t is not entirely clear from Series 50 how the
increased displacement affects the block coefficient
and therefore the ]3/1t ratio.
A s t u d y of Mr. M u r r a y ' s comparison indicates
t h a t the derived midsection's deadrise is con-
siderably flatter than the actual boat. This
is in p a r t because the Series 50 data do not con-
tain factors which properly evaluate deadrise
angle. Some formulas have been worked out to
provide for this, but when applied to this problem
required a condition of N -- 20 per cent dis-
placement which was not covered in the tests,
although this particular craft is perfectly normal
for its type. This emphasizes the caution which
m u s t be exercised in the use of these data in order
to avoid misleading comparisons.
Series 50 has nevertheless been extremely use-
ful, but does not seem to place directly sufficient
i m p o r t a n c e on deadrise. Mr. M u r r a y ' s ex-
planation of other methods helps to bring this to
light. A further extension of the series to
bracket completely the more usual type of craft
and an entirely new method of presenting the
data using fundamental variables as outlined in
the paper would be of real help. However, the
presentation in Mr. M u r r a y ' s paper permits of
a so m u c h broader study t h a t there might be
some question as to the merits of such a move.
MR. MURRAY : The number of discussions of this
paper confirms the great interest in the subject of
planing boats, and suggests a wide, though not
readily available, a m o u n t of. knowledge of the
subject. The limitations placed on the length of
the paper made it necessary to omit much perti-
nent information, b u t the papers listed in the refer-
ences will lead to a great deal of literature for any-
one who has the energy and the time to pursue the
subject further.
Professor Baler's discussion serves very well to
place planing boats in their proper perspective and
defines the limitation of this type of vessel. I
cannot argue with the professor on the m a t t e r of
roughness. Use of the arbitrary fixed value sug-
gested by the American Towing T a n k Conference
is not m a n d a t o r y ; anyone who has reliable infor-
mation on the subject should certainly make use of
it.
Mr. Locke's comparison of planing action with
the lift-drag relationship of airfoils is well taken.
Airfoil theory has been used for the design of ma-
rine propellers and for explaining the action of a
sailboat keel. The lift-drag ratio of a displace-
m e n t ship is a useful measure of its efficiency and,
if its value is compared with t h a t of a cargo plane,
one will see why we will h a v e s u r f a c e ships for a
long time to come. The sooner marine and air
OF PLANING HULLS 691
people get together on theory and design, the bet-
ter for both.
Mr. Parkinson's equation for the reduction of
velocity over the ~)laning surface b o t t o m is one of
the m a n y items t h a t are necessary for a complete
dissertation on this subject. I can emphasize his
suggestion t h a t the m a t t e r of seaworthiness and
dynamic impact behavior deserves added atten-
tion.
The suggestions made b y Messrs. Pierson and
Curry t h a t trim control would serve to re.duce
planing resistance are correct. However, often
the drag due to the device'or method of trim con-
trol is greater than the saving in resistance. But
if the m a t t e r is carefully pursued for a particular
application, gains m a y be realized.
The comments of Messrs. Curry and Wyland
with reference to the inadequacies of the Series 50
hulls are analogous to comments relating to T a y -
lot's Standard Series. Very few people will de-
sign a displacement ship like the Taylor form, but
a great m a n y use the-charts for preliminary esti-
mates and as a yardstick. T h e author believes
t h a t reworking the Series 50 data in coefficients
utilizing beam, trim, and deadrise, as well as load
and speed, would be a distinct advance.
Mr. Peters mentions as an example the case of
an actual boat which made over 43 knots, whereas
model data expanded without friction correction
indicated only 40 knots as the top speed. The
difference in power from 40 to 43 knots can be con-
siderable. This sometimes has been credited er-
roneously to improved propeller performance.
Mr. Clement's criticism is much appreciated.
The numerical error mentioned b y him and b y Mr.
Peters has been corrected. There is justification
in the criticism t h a t use of Fig. 8 as suggested in
the original draft of the paper was misleading
when used in connection with planing boats. This
section has been revised in the present edition.
Fig. 9 is no more t h a n a curve of best trim angle
against deadrise angle based on minimum resist-
ance. As mentioned in the paper, it is unfortu-
nately not usually possible to make use of the
"best t r i m " in stepless boats except possibly b y
some method of trim control.
Dr. Davidson's comparison of flying-boat and
planing-boat hulls shows some of the problems
cropping up with suggestions relating to stepped
hulls such as those of Messrs. Locke and Curry.
Mr. Wyland and Mr. Locke question the
method used b y the E T T in determining the oper-
ating wetted area of planing-boat models. We
have two reasons for using the method now in
practice.- First, we do not know enough about the
velocities of the water forward of the stagnation
line to enable a reliable determination of the longi-
692 H Y D R O D Y N A M I C S OF P L A N I N G HULLS
tudinal component of velocity. Second, the
method used makes possible the determination of a
much more reproducible chine wetted length t h a n
that suggested b y Mr. Locke. One of the prob-
lems of E T T is to devise a reasonably reliable test
method of small boat models that will not be pro-
hibitive from the cost standpoint. Figs. 17 and 18
demonstrate that the method is sufficiently accu-
rate for practical application, certainly much more
satisfactory than expansion without friction cor-
rection. For a critical analysis of lift and center
of pressure, it is surely necessary to consider what
occurs forward of the stagnation line.
Problems involved in self-propelled model tests
of high speed-length ratio boats are formidable.
Concentration on reliable and convenient methods
of measuring all of the necessary factors on full-
size experimental boats should be an easier method
of getting reliable data.
Mr. Simpson's discussion supports the author's
premise with regard to round-bottom boats found
in the last page of the paper.
Mr. Locke suggests that it would be well to con-
sider some of the other forces acting on the boat if
it is necessary to know the trim angle to such close
tolerance as the author uses. The art has not
reached the point where we can even begin to ana-
lyze the individual forces acting on a planing hull.
Trim angle by itself cannot be important as it
would be very difficult to know just what it is on
an actual boat. The main purpose of the paper
is to point out t h a t some scientific data pertain-
ing to the subject are available, and that the ma-
terial can be used to make some reasonably close
approximate preliminary estimates of power re-
quirements. Although the estimates are approxi-
mate, they are much better than nothing, and par-
ticularly where experience is lacking they can be of
great value. Trim as used in this paper is a refer-
ence point only, between such requirements as
load, center of pressure, and speed. I t is in a
sense somewhat remarkable t h a t three unlike
forms such as a prismatic planing surface, a Series
50 boat, and an independent design differ by less
than 10 per cent in effective horsepower with
speed, load, longitudinal center of gravity constant.
I wish to make m y appreciation known to the
New England Section for the opportunity to pre-
sent this paper, and to thank the many discussers
for their criticisms and complimentary remarks.