Hadler J B.prediction of Power .1966.TRANS

The Prediction of Power Performance
on Planing Craft
By J. B. H a d l e r / M e m b e r
Much of the research effort on planing craft has been devoted to obtaining and predicting
lift and drag of planing surfaces. Virtually no effort has been devoted to the hydro-
dynamics of the planing boat when propelled by marine propellers. This paper brings
together the results of research on the marine propeller with those of the planing surface
to develop a practical method for predicting the power performance of the planing craft
when propelled by conventional marine propeller(s) driven by an inclined shaft. De-
veloped in the paper are the various equations for determining the magnitude, location,
and direction of the various hydrodynamic forces on the system. They are combined in
the equations of equilibrium to establish the operating conditions and the power require-
ments of the boat. Predictions are then made for two different planing boat designs for
correlation with model test results. Finally, the method is used to make a parametric
study of the effect of angle of inclination upon planing boat performance. This study
clearly shows that the drag of the appendages is secondary to the forces of the pro-
pellers and that in optimizing a planing boat design the whole hydrodynamic system
must be considered.
FOR the past forty years an extensive a m o u n t of

characteristics of planing craft, making use of the
fundamental research has been accomplished on information developed on both planing surfaces
the hydrodynamics of planing surfaces. The and propellers.
initial motivation for this research was the hydro- Fortunately, the state of the art is such t h a t
dynamic design requirements of sea planes. More there do exist sufficient data in the literature which
recently the emphasis has shifted to the planing could be used to m a k e reasonably good predictions
boat. Practically all of this research effort has of the power performance and enable us to treat
been devoted to obtaining and predicting the lift as a whole the problem of the propulsion of the
and drag characteristics of planing surfaces and planing craft. This not only meets the immediate
virtually none to the hydrodynamics of the plan- need of providing the profession a procedure for
ing boat when propelled by marine propellers. predicting the perfornlance of planing boats
In the meantime, m u c h work has been done in equipped with marine propellers, but possibly of
the development of propeller theories. These de- even greater significance is t:he insight it gives us
velopments, with the aid of high-speed computers into the interactions between the marine propeller
provide us with an adequate tool for both design and the planing sin-face.
and performance prediction. Thus the various In treating the problem of the propulsion of
forces generated b y a propeller m a y be estimated planing craft it becomes apparent from the equa-
and their characteristics, especially their inter- tions of equilibrium t h a t the analysis of the pro-
action with. the hull surfaces, m a y be studied in pulsion performance is some.what more complex
greater details. I t seemed appropriate then to than t h a t for the displacement ship. Thus the
m a k e some effort to look into tile propulsion propulsive performance concepts developed for
1 Head, Ship Powering Division, David Taylor Model the displacement ship m u s t be modified or even
Basin, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. be discarded. Since the objective of this paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y.,
November 10-11, 1966, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL is to provide a methodology to assist the designer
ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGIN1~ERS. in predicting the power performance of a planing
563
boat, familiar terminology has been retained, but p r e s e n t s a m e t h o d f o r e s t i m a t i n g t h e lift, d r a g ,
it must be recognized that the terms do not always a n d i n t e r a c t i o n f o r c e s of t h e a p p e n d a g e s a s s o c i -
have the same physical meaning. ated with the propulsion and control systems.
I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of p l a n i n g T h e v a l i d i t y of t h e a p p r o a c h will b e e s t a b l i s h e d
c r a f t t h e e q u a t i o n s of e q u i l i b r i u m m u s t b e b y c o r r e l a t i n g t h e p r e d i c t i o n s w i t h a geosim series
balanced. However, before this can be done it of m o d e l a p p e n d a g e s t e s t e d o n a f r i c t i o n p l a n e .
is n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m a g n i t u d e , l o c a t i o n , T h e t h i r d s e c t i o n t r e a t s t h e p r o b l e m of t h e s t e a d y
a n d d i r e c t i o n of t h e h y d r o d y n a m i c f o r c e s a r i s i n g propeller forces, both thrust and normal force,
on the system. T h u s in p r e s e n t i n g t h e m a t e r i a l generated by the marine propeller when operating
in this p a p e r t h e first t h r e e sections are d e v o t e d i n t h e i n c l i n e d flow field u n d e r a p l a n i n g s u r f a c e .
t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of t h e s e q u a n t i t i e s f o r t h e T h i s s e c t i o n a l s o t r e a t s t h e e f f e c t of t h e i n d u c e d
various forces separatelybefore they are combined, v e l o c i t i e s o u t s i d e t h e p r o p e l l e r slip s t r e a m u p o n
w h i c h is in S e c t i o n 4. T h e f i r s t s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s a the planing surfaces. In the fourth section, the
b r i e f r e v i e w of t h e h y d r o d y n a m i c f o r c e s o n a static force and moment equations are presented
prismatic planing surface. The second section t o e s t a b l i s h t h e o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n of t h e p l a n i n g
Nomenclature
Coordinate System S~ = area wetted by spray, sq ft
V~ = mean water velocity over pressure area, fps
x, y, z = rectangular, used with boat geometry 3' = angle of stagnation line with centerline in plane
x, r, v = cylindrical, used with propeller geometry view, deg
u, v , w = axial, radial, and tangential components of )X = mean wetted length-beam ratio = (L~ + L , ) /
propeller-induced velocity in cylindrical coordi- 2b = Lm/b
nate system ACI = friction coefficient allowance for roughness of
planing surface
Planing Boat Geometry AR = effective increase in friction area length-beam
ratio due to spray contribution to drag
b = beam of planing surface, ft 0 = angle of spray direction with centerline in plane
C~ = speed coefficient = V/(gb) u~
d = vertical depth of trailing edge of boat (at keel) view, deg
= angle between the keel and spray edge measured
below l~vel water surface, ft
Fnv = Froude number based on volunm of water dis- in plane of bottom, deg
placed at rest, V/(gVUa) 112
LCG = longitudinal distance of center of gravity from Appendages
transom (measured along keel), ft c = chord length, ft
p = number of propellers D
r = number of rudders C9 = drag coefficient
V = horizontal velocity of planing surface or boat p / 2 V2S
forward velocity, fps L
CL = lift coefficient
VCG = vertical distance of center of gravity above keel 0/2 V~ld
line, measured normal to keel, ft d = diameter of shaft or bossings, ft
/~ = angle of deadrise, deg D = frictional drag force in direction of flow, lb
A = gross weight, lb Dp = palm frictional drag force, lb
e = inclination of propeller shaft line relative to keel hp = wetted height of strut palms, ft
line, deg h~ = wetted height of rudder, ft
r = trim (angle between planing b o t t o m and hori- 1 = total length of shaft and bossings, ft
zontal), deg L = lift force normal to direction of flow, lb
V = volume of water displaced at rest, cu ft S = planform area, sq ft
t~ = maximum thickness of section at water surface, ft
Planing Surface Hydrodynamics t/c = section thickness-chord ratio
frontal width of palm, ft
Ci = Sehoenherr friction drag coefficient xp = distance from stagnation line to point where palm is
k attached to hull, ft
CI.o = lift coefficient, zero deadrise, - p / 2 V~-b~ AD = interference drag
C~ = lift coefficient, deadrise surface 8 = boundary-layer thickness
= frictional drag-force component along bottom
surface, lb Subscripts
L~ = difference between wetted keel and chine
lengths, ft = Lk -- L~ k = keel or skeg
Le = difference between keel and chine length wetted p = strut palms
by level water surface, ft r = rudder
L~ = wetted chine length, ft sh = propeller shaft, bossing, and strut barrel
L~v = center-of-pressure location (measured from aft st = propeller shaft struts
end of planing surface), ft i = induced drag
L~ = wetted keel length, ft
Lm = mean wetted length, ft = (Lk + L~)/2 Propeller
L~JL,~ = nondimensional location of the center of pres-
sure T
CT = propeller thrust coefficient,-p/2V~(TrD2/4)
Re = Reynolds number, VLm/V, VXb/v
S = principal wetted area (bounded by trailing edge, D = propeller diameter, ft
chines, and heavy spray line), sq ft F~ = vertical component of transverse propeller force, lb
564 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

boat. In this section a computational procedure 1 Hydrodynamic Forces ~(Jna Planing Hull
is d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e d e s i g n e r so t h a t h e c a n p r e d i c t
T h i s s e c t i o n of t h e p a p e r will p r e s e n t t h e e q u a -
the power performance prior to model testing.
t i o n s f o r t h e d y n a m i c lift, b u o y a n t l i f t a n d d r a g
The fifth section presents a comparison between
f o r c e s , a n d t h e c e n t e r s of a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e f o r c e s
the results obtained from calculations using the
for hard-chine, prismatic-like planing surfaces
m e t h o d d e v e l o p e d a n d r e s u l t s of e x p e r i m e n t s o n
based primarily upon the work at Davidson
t w o d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of p l a n i n g c r a f t . T h e l a s t sec-
L a b o r a t o r y s u m m a r i z e d b y S a v i t s k y [117 T h e
t i o n s h o w s h o w t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e l f - p r o p u l s i o n
e q u a t i o n s a r e e x p r e s s e d in t e r m s of d e a d r i s e a n g l e ,
tests can be analyzed, and how improvements may
trim, bemn at the chine, and forward speed.
be m a d e to t h e p r o p u l s i o n p e r f o r m a n c e of p l a n i n g
T h e p r i s m a t i c p l a n i n g s u r f a c e is a s s u m e d t o h a v e
craft.
constant deadrise, constant beam, and a steady
O f n e c e s s i t y , t h i s f i r s t e f f o r t is r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e
running trim. These equations are developed for
low-deadrise, hard-chine planing boat equipped
w i t h n o n c a v i t a t i n g m a r i n e p r o p e l l e r s o n a n in- Numbers in brackets designate References at end of
clined shaft. paper.
Nomenclature
J speed coefficients, V / n D Nr = resultant of pressure forces from rudder acting
JT = speed coefficient based upon thrust identity normal to bottom, lb
jQ = speed coefficient based upon torque identity 2V. = resultant of propeller suction forces acting normal
I~Fz propeller vertical force coefficient, F . / p n 2 D 4 to bottom, lb
.KQ = propeller torque coefficient, Q_/pn=D 5
KT = propeller thrust coefficient, T / O n 2 D 4 Moment Arms on Planing Boat
"it propeller revolutions in rps
O = propeller torque, ft-lb e = distance between N and CG (measured normal to N),
R = propeller radius, ft ft
T = propeller thrust, lb e~ = distance between Na and CG (measured normal to
V = speed of advance of the propellers, fps N~), ft
gt = tangential component of the velocity vector or boat e; = distance between propeller eenterline and CO
speed, fps (measured along shaft line), ft
V. = longitudinal component of the velocity vector or ep = distance between N;, and CG (measured normal to
boat speed, fps N v ) , ft
er = distance between Nr and CG (measured normal to
- = nondimensional distance from plane of propeller in N . ) , ft
R X-direction to the center of pressure at a specific e. = distance between N. and CG (measured normal to
r/R N.), ft
-~ = nondimensional distance from plane of propeller in f = distance between shaft line and CG (measured normal
R X-direction to center of pressure of tim planing to shaft line), it
surface fa = distance between D~ and CG (measured normal to
Z = number of blades D.), ft
X = speed coefficient, V / 2 r c n R f~ = distance between Df and CG (measured normal to
l~ = propeller blade circulation DI), ft
fk = distance between Dk and CG (measured normal to
Dk), ft
Subscripts fi = distance between AD~ and CG (measured normal to
Z = when used as subscript is the force on one blade D.), ft
e = angle of inclination of propeller to direction of flow, f~ = distance between D~ and CG (measured normal to
deg D,o), ft
Forces on Planing Boat Self-Propulsion

D. = appendage drag (assumed as acting parallel to keel ehp = effective horsepower, bare hull
line), lb ehpa = effective horsepower, bare hull plus appendages
Dy = viscous component of drag (assumed as acting shp = shaft horsepower measured at the propeller
parallel to keel line), lb t = thrust-deduction fraction
De = skeg or keel drag (assumed as acting parallel to keel w = wake fraction
line), lb we = thrust-identity wake fraction
D~ = wind drag of superstructure (assumed as acting wo = torque-identity wake fraction
parallel to direction of motion), lb r/a = appendage efficiency = ehp/ehpo
AD/ = towing force provided to model to correct between r/D = propulsive coefficient, ehp/shp
model and full-scale frictional resistance, lb ~/o = open-water propeller efficiency
AD~ = augmented drag from the rudder due to propeller r/R = relative rotative efficiency
slip stream, lb r//~ = troll efficienc'y
F= = propeller force normal to shaft and in vertical
centerplane, lb Miscellaneous
2V = resultant of pressure and buoyant forces assumed
acting normal to bottom, lb g = acceleration due to gravity, 32.16 ft/sec -~
N . = lift forces arising from appendages inclined to flow v = kinematic viscosity of fluid, ft2/sec
(assumed to act normal to keel lint:), lb O = mass density of water, 3'/g
Nv = resultant of propeller pressure forces acting normal 3" = specific weight of water, pet
to bottom, Ib A bar over a symbol indicates an. average or centroid.
The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 565

L S P RR
OOTA LINE
Y
WATER ~ ~....~ ~"'--"tz~---...._~ r-..-Is

WAKE J,.r LEVEL
SECTION B-B
Fig. 1 W a t e r l i n e i n t e r s e c t i o n for c o n s t a n t d e a d r i s e surface
hard-chine planing forms since considerable re- chine L~ is a function of the trim and deadrise
search has been done on prismatic planing sur- and is defined by
faces.
L2 - b tan ~ (1)
2 tan r
Wetted Surface
Savitsky, based upon the work of Wagner, shows
Savitsky in reference [2] gives a detailed dis- within limitations that the wave rise in the spray-
cussion of the wetted surfaces on both flat planing root area is actually 7r/2 times the wetted width
and deadrise planing surfaces and the limitations defined by the still-water intersection with the
on the validity of the computational methods. bottom ; thus
Only the method developed for deadrise surfaces
will be treated in this paper. Lk -- Lc - b t a n B (2)
In the case of Vee-shaped planing surfaces, the tan r
intersection of the bottom surface with the undis- or in terms of the average wetted length
turbed water is along two oblique lines (O-C) be-
tween the keel and chine, whereas under planing Lk = Lm 3- b t a n J (3)
conditions there is a rise of the water surface along 27r tan r
the spray-root line (O-B), Fig. 1. The wetted Equation (3) is applicable for all deadrise and trim
keel length, L~, is the same for both still water values when the speed coeffcient, C~, is greater
and for the planing condition. This appears true than 2.0. For deadrise surface of 10 deg or less,
up to trim angle of approximately 15 deg beyond equation (3) is applicable to speed coefficients as
which a noticeable pileup of water starts to oc- low as 1.0.
cur.
In the calculation of the dynamic force it is Dynamic Lift
desirable to establish a mean wetted length, Lm. The equations were developed in reference [2]
This is defined for prismatic planing surfaces for the lift and center of pressure for flat planing
as the average of the keel and chine lengths meas- surfaces in terms of the mean wetted length-beam
ured from the transom to the intersection with ratio, X, the speed coefficient, Ca, and the trim
the spray-root line. The difference between the angle r.
wetted keel length and the wetted chine length The lift on a planing surface can be attributed
measured to the still-water intersection with the to two separate effects: the dynamic reaction of

0.05
,/ '/
i l/ l/ ' /
TO TI.I TO TI.1
2 2.14 9 11.21
3 3.35 10 12.59
4 4.59 11 13.98
5 5.87 12 15.39
6 7.18 13 16.80
0.04 7 8.50 14 18.23
// / /
8 9.85 15 19.67
cv,
i,/ ///
I I o/ / , /
/z/ /
0.03 /
/ /,
// // / / 7 , / /
//~
/'28
CLo/rU
/ r
0.02 I //'/'d.~~Y ~
//N
/ / / P"
0.01 A
J
f
/
CI = T LA ( 0 . 0 1 2 0 k 1/z + 0 . 0 0 5 5 ; ~ s / z / ( v z )
'O
o
o 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
X
Fig. 2 L i f t c o e f f i c i e n t o f a flat p l a n i n g s u r f a c e ; /~ = 0 d e g
the fluid against the moving surfaces and the Lc, _ 0.75 -- l (5)
b u o y a n t contribution which is associated with the L,~ 5.21C,2/X 2 + 2.39
static pressure. A t low speeds the b u o y a n t com-
ponent is more significant, whereas at high speeds T h e first t e r m in each of the equations repre-
the dynamic component is predominant. Savit- sents the contribution from the dynamic forces,
sky has developed the following empirical equa- whereas the second term provides the b u o y a n t
tions for the lift and center of pressure for planing component.
surfaces : When deadrise is introduced, this tends to re-
duce the planing lift. This reduction is caused
/ 0.0055X~12 primarily b y the reduction in the stagnation
c~o = ~.~,, o.ol~ox~ ~ + ~ (4)
/ pressure at the leading edge of the wetted area.

0.5
/ - B : I0
--t5
0.4
-20
25:
50
0.5 /
0
02
0.1
j
0.09 - - o 1 I I I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CL o
0.08
0.07
_ CLB=CLo--O.O065 /9 CLoO'60
0.06
0.05
0 ///:o)/'
0.04 - -
/;// "~/
o _
/
0.01 "~"
I I I !
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
CLo
Fig. 3 Lift coefficient of a deadrise planing surface
Savitsky has also developed an empirical equa- composed of the pressure drag developed b y
tion for use in predicting the lift of a surface with pressures acting normal to the inclined !surface
deadrise which corrects the lift equation derived and the viscous drag acting tangential to the sur-
from the flat planing surface, equation (4) : face. For this analysis it will be assumed t h a t
there is no side wetting of the hull. This section
CLt~ = CLo - - 0.0065/3CLo'6 (6) will be concerned only with developing the equa-
The results of equations (4), (5), and (6) are tions for the viscous drag forces.
presented in Figs. 2, 3, and 4 which are similar to The viscous drag forces can be expressed as the
those published b y Savitsky in reference [2]. sum of two components, the wetted surface drag
These figures reduce substantially the numerical and the viscous component of the spray drag, as
work involved in evaluating the equations for follows :
use in design estimates.
D~ = -2P V,~S(C~ + ACs)
Drag p
+ -~ V2S~ cos o(Cf + zxCs) (7)
The h y d r o d y n a m i c drag of a planing surface is

0.8
~ - _...__~_.__ ~ ~ ~'----- ~'--'~-~ ~
f
J
J
-~ o.6 / / / d- ~
/ /
o / / /S
0
0
/ / /I
0"/
~o,
e~
e~ /
/
J
S/ Lcp
- 0.75
Lm 5.21C~,~
0
+ 2. 39
A2
Z
0
o
Q
0
p,
I I
I I 1 i i I
I I I It I I I I I I I I
o; , i , I ~ I , I , , I ~ I I I I
3 4 5 6 7
VELOCITY COEFFICIENT, Cv = V//-g-b-
Fig. 4 C e n t e r of pressure of p l a n i n g surface
(.n
(>.
,0
where conditions are dependent on not only the drag
but also the lift forces and their center of appli-
V - - speed of planing boat
cation. This hints t h a t the planing boat append-
V m = m e a n water velocity over the pressure
ages should be treated in a manner similar to
area
t h a t employed in the design and estimation of
S = wetted surface
the performance of aircraft; t h a t is, estimating
area wetted b y spray
the drag and lift of the various components of
O = angle between the outer spray edge and
the appendages and their interaction effects.
the keel and is measured in a projected
We are fortunate to have a large volume of d a t a
plane which is parallel to the keel and
from the aerodynamic field to assist.
normal to the usual hull centerline
This section presents a method for estimating
CI = Sehoenherr friction drag coefficient
the lift, drag, and interference effects of the append-
ACI = friction coefficient allowance for rough-
ages upon the planing surface. Since appendage
ness of planing surface
design can v a r y radically from one boat to an-
F r o m reference [3 ], we have other, the information provided in this paper m a y
not be sufficient; b u t the methodology is equally
ss cos 0 = (Ax) .b~ (S) applicable. If forms other than those discussed
COS /~ herein are used, the designer is referred to ref-
where erence [5] for information on estimating the drag
of his type of appendages.
AX = effective increase in friction area length- We will t r e a t the lift and drag as a unit, since
b e a m ratio due to spray contribution to the two are interrelated. T h e equations used to
drag calculate the drag are in most instances those
but derived b y Hoerner in reference [5] and will be
identified b y footnotes as to where they appear in
Xb"~ this basic reference. In this section, most of the
COS forms treated are fully wetted; i.e., noncavitating
and not ventilated. Since some appendages,
Therefore, viscous force in the direction of V~ such as rudders on most recent high-speed planing
m a y be simply expressed as boats, are of the wedge t y p e and are frequently
p b2V 2
base ventilated, information will also be provided
- - (C~ + ~Cs) on the drag of this t y p e of rudder.
D I = ~, cos
In calculating the center of application of the
drag on an appendage, it is assumed t h a t most of
the drag arises from the viscous component.
Accordingly, the center of application of the drag
where CI is a function of Reynold's n u m b e r Re is assumed to correspond to the centroid of the
which is defined as wetted area parallel to the flow. If the sections
should be very thick (that is, over 30 percent of
R e - - V m L m _ b XuV (10)
the chord), or base vented, so t h a t the pressure
drag becomes a m a j o r component of drag, then
To solve equation (9) we express (AX) and Vm the centroid of the area of m a x i m u m thickness
as functions of the geometry and load character- normal to the flow is assumed. In m o s t instances
istics of the planing surface. Savitsky and Ross the numerical differences between these two loca-
in reference [4] have developed these functional tions will have a negligible effect upon the trim-
relationships in terms of the trim and deadrise. ming m o m e n t of the hull with the appendages.
T h e results are presented in the form of simple In general, the drag of the appendage is deter-
diagrams, Figs. 5 and 6, which can readily be used mined based upon the drag coefficient, character-
b y the designer. istic dimensions of the appendage, and the veloc-
ity. In all of the cMeulations, the Schoenherr
2 Appendage Lift, Drag, and Interference Effects friction line is used; thus CI, p, and v are readily
obtainable, for example, from reference [6].
I t is usual in naval architectural practice to In Appendix 1, the method of drag estimating
develop from model data the drag of appendages outlined herein has been applied to a geometric
and express t h e m as a percentage of the bare hull series of planing-boat appendages tested at
resistance. This approach is not practical for D a v i d T a y l o r Model Basin ( D T M B ) . This com-
dynamic planing craft because the operating parison illustrates b o t h the methodology and its

1.00
: _( = 20,._...-. ~ ~ 1
-- 6 o l
gmv 0.9 0
8"~~
I0 / /
/ - ioO/C~
{{? o f .
-0.80 I I i I I i I I I -I ~ II I{ IIIIIIII
I00 _T: 40..,.,.---~ " ~ {

_ 6 -'''''-
VIII - , 0 ~ J 2 / I / I
_
V o9o~ ,5o/ _ 15/
B--20 B : 30
o8o-I i i i I I I [ I I I ! I I I I {{ll {{tr {111
,oo 2.oo 300 I.oo 2.0( 3.00
X X
V., = average bottom velocity
V = forward planing velocity
v~ F
V
= -t
L
--
0 . 0 1 2 1 / ~ r 1"I - - 0 . 0 0 6 5 / 3
X cos r
(O.012X'/+-rl't)'+-]V2
J
Fig. 5 Magnitude of average bottom velocity for a planing surface
1,4
//
z / ~
z- [
/
T=I / /
1,2
1.0
/ ../" ~J 4- J
I / 2.5
0.8
AX
0.6
/~" J/ ~ f/ " ~i [2------+
/ ./ ~ ,I- """ -"" ...---- """
0,4
~ i ~ ..._..---.-'- ._..- ~----- _... _7
0.2 -"" ~ ~ I0
00 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
[3, DEADRISE ANGLE, DEGREES
Fig. 6 Effective increase in friction area length-beam r a t i o (z~X) d u e to s p r a y c o n t r i b u t i o n to drag
applicability to a p p e n d a g e design and perform-

ance estimating.
o,~ = p(2&) P;.~G, 01)
where
Skeg
2Sk = w e t t e d surface of sk:eg
M a n y boats are provided with a eenterline skeg C~ = frictional drag coefficient based on
or keel which is frequently provided to insure bet- wetted length of skeg
ter directional stability. T h e drag of this ap-
pendage m a y be estimated b y obtaining the A l t h o u g h the drag equation for the skeg is
wetted area and assuming t h a t the velocity on the given here, it is usually an integral p a r t of the
surface is the same as the average velocity over hull ; thus it is a p p r o p r i a t e l y p a r t of the bare hull
the planing surface; thns drag estimate when m a k i n g design calculations.

Propeller Shaft and Strut Bossing Along the Propeller water surface, spray will be produced. This
Shaft spray formation represents an increment of drag
Planing craft which are propelled by propellers which is given by the following equation :5
on inclined shafts experience both lift and drag Dr = (0.24)}oV2t~ 2 (15)
forces from the propeller shaft, the strut barrel,
and sterntube bossing. These forces m a y be where
estimated if it is assumed t h a t the flow is parallel
tw --- m a x i m u m rudder thickness at water sur-
to the b o t t o m of the hull. Since these forces face, ft
arise largely from the pressure distribution over
the appendage, the point of application of drag Ventilated Wedge Rudder
and lift is more appropriately based at the een-
Recent experience on high-speed craft has led
troid of the shaft, strut barrel, and sterntube
to the use of thin, deep rudders of wedge or
bossing.
parabolic cross section. A t zero and small angles
If 10 a < (Re = Vd/~) < 5.5 X 10 5, the fol- of attack, the base or trailing edge of the rudders
lowing equations a m a y be used : ventilate to the atmosphere. T h e drag of these
rudders when base-vented is composed of fric-
Drag : D~, = p/2 ldV2(1.1 sin a e + 7rCr) (12) tional, pressure, and spray components of drag.
Lift: L~h = p/2 ld V2(1.1 sin ~ e cos e) (13) Tulin in reference [15] developed the equations
for the section pressure drag coefficients for both
where
wedge and parabolic-shaped sections at zero
l=total length of shaft and bossings cavitation number as follows:
d=diameter of shaft and bossing
angle of flow Cd~=2-Tr ( t ) 2 (wedge section)
C s = friction drag coefficient based upon
Re = V l / ,
Cd, = ~ (parabolic section)
If the propeller shaft enters the hull forward of
the stagnation line, it is probable t h a t the shaft
where
is ventilating. If ventilation is assumed to occur,
reference should be m a d e to Chapter 10 of ref- Cd, = pressure drag coefficient based upon
erence [5]. chord length
Rudder and Struts t

- = section thickness-chord ratio
C
Usually the rudder and propeller shaft struts
employ streamlined sections with a m a x i m u m The pressure drag coefficient at finite cavitation
thickness near midchord. Experimental work numbers, r, m a y be approximated b y multiplying
on rudders, for example, reference [7], has shown the foregoing equations b y (1 + r). For the
t h a t the effects of aspect ratio, sweep angle, and ventilated condition, the average effective cavi-
tip ending are small for zero angle of attack. For tation number is:
the purposes of the present work, these estimates ghr
m a y be neglected. O" --
V2
T h e total strut or rudder drag at zero side
loading for nonventilated struts can be expressed where
as follows :4 h, = height of rudder immersed in the water, ft
D, or D.~t = p/2STV'[2C~ T h e spray drag m a y be estimated from equation
X (1 ~- 2t/c -~- 60(t/c)4)] (14) (15).
where Thus the total drag coefficient for base-vented
rudders becomes :
ST or S., = planform area
C = Schoenherr frictional drag coefficient if G,r = 2Cs + ,~2 1+ V2/
Re > 5 X 10 ~ t/c = section thickness-chord
ratio O.24tw:
~- - - (wedge sections)
In the event the strut or rudder penetrates the hrc
(16)
3 Reference [5], p. 3-11.
4 Reference [5], p. 6-6. R e f e r e n c e [.5], p. 1 0 - 1 3 .

CDr = 2 e l -}- g
<
1 -k V2 /
with each other and with the planing surface.
The interference effects which are m o s t pro-
nounced are the rudder and the strut with the
q_ 0.24t~ (parabolic sections) planing surface.
h~c T h e component of interference drag on a flat
where plate for streamlined bodies with no side forces is
estimated by the following equation :~
CI = friction drag coefficient based on Re
Vc (AD) = pV2t2[O.75(t/c) - O.O003/(t/c) 2] (20)
P where
t/c = section thickness-chord ratio
h~ = wetted height of rudder, ft t/c = section thickness-chord ratio
& = m a x i m u m rudder thickness at water Fortunately this component of drag is relatively
surface, ft small as shown by the example in Appendix 1.
c = average chord length, ft T h e small drag interference,; between strut barrel
T h e foregoing equations give the drag coeffi- and strut m a y usually be ignored.
cient if the aspect ratio, h~/c, is greater than 2.5.
Recent unpublished test data have shown t h a t 3 Propeller Forces
the drag coefficient increases as the aspect ratio
is reduced. T h e following empirical equation The forces which arise from the propeller can
derived from these d a t a m a y be used to correct be attributed to two separate effects: the forces
for an aspect ratio less than 2.5 : generated by the propeller which are transmitted
to the hull through the shafting and struts, and
C~, = CD~ + ( 2 . 5 - - h/c)2, h#c_< 2.5 (17) the pressure forces induced on the planing surface
150 from the propeller loading. The first results in
Thus the drag of the rudder becomes: the thrust force along the shaft which drives the
planing boat and a force normal to the thrust if
P h~.cV ~ (1S) there is a erossflow component across the propeller
disk such as in an inclined propeller shaft system.
T h e second results in a suction force on the b o t t o m
Strut Palms
of the hull on the upstream or forward side of the
Frequently the propeller shaft struts have the propeller and a pressure force on the downstream
palms m o u n t e d on the hull rather t h a n flush with or after side of the propeller. T h e method for
the hull surface. Even though they are in the estimating each of these forces will be developed
boundary layer they can be a source of large drag. and, where appropriate, simplified charts will be
See the example in Appendix 1. T h e drag m a y presented for the designer in estimating the mag-
be estimated from the following equation :6 nitude of their effects upon the planing b o a t ' s
performance.
Dp = 0.75C~ ~/h~/~ whpp/2 V 2 (19)
T h e last p a r t of this secticm treats the problem
where of the augmented drag on the rudder arising from
the propeller slip stream.
hp = height of palm above the surface
w = frontal width of palm Propeller Performance in Inclined Flow
5 = boundary-layer thickness ~ 0.016 Xp,
When a propeller operates in a nonuniform
where
flow field, the forces (thrust and torque) generated
xp = distance from stagnation line to the point
at any instant of time b y each of the blades v a r y
where the plate is attached.
with angular position and arc'. periodic in character.
If the pahn is rectangular in shape with rounded In the case of the propeller on a planing boat
edges, a value of CDp = 0.65 appears to be satis- where the propeller shaft is; inclined to the flow,
factory. the tangential velocity varies sinusoidally.
T h e thrust and torque forces on each blade v a r y
Interference Drag
periodically with the velocity variations b u t not
In addition to the basic drag of each of the ap- exactly in a linear relationship. This nonlinear
pendages, there are also components of drag variation results in the propeller developing
arising from the interference of the appendages greater mean thrust and torque than from the
Reference [5], p. 5-6. 7 Reference [5], p. 8-10.

11fy
= V cos 6
V T = V s i n E sin v
t - - 0.7"n" n ( ' u ) D
0.Tw nD
=
~]l ~
TM
v
Fig. 7 Velocity diagram at 0.7 radius for propeller in inclined flow

v I
corresponding open-water condition at the same radius we can establish a relationship between the
advance ratio. The periodic variation in force actual rotational speed n and an equivalent speed
also produces a steady force in the transverse pro- n(p), taking into account the tangential velocity
peller plane. produced by the shaft inclination. Definitions
I t is necessary in predicting the performance of of the terms used in Fig. 7 are as follows :
planing boats that a method be available for esti-
mating the magnitude of the normal force as well e = angle of inclination of axis of propeller
as the performance of the propeller in inclined rotation to the flow
flow from the coaxial open-water characterization. = angular position of the propeller blade
We are fortunate to have available the recent work during one revolution
of Gutsche which treats the problem of the marine V= = the propeller axial velocity = V cos e
propeller in inclined flow [8]. Vp = the propeller tangential velocity = V sin
e sin
Gutsche undertook a combined experimental-
theoretical investigation of the steady forces Thus
generated by a propeller in inclined flow. He
n(v) J sin e sin p
tested in open water six model propellers of dif- - 1 (21)
ferent pitch-diameter and blade-area ratios. The n 0.7~
horizontal axis of the propeller was inclined at where
10, 20, and 30 deg to the direction of advance.
]- V
In these tests not only the thrust, torque, rpm,
and speed of advance were measured, but also nD
the normal force. Concurrently, Gutsche de- Since the quasi-steady analysis contains certain
veloped an analytic procedure for predicting these limitations, an empirical factor C is introduced
forces based upon a quasi-steady analysis of the into the variable velocity component, I%, to
propeller action utilizing the normal noninclined bring the experimental and analytic results into
propeller open-water test. This analysis will be agreement.
discussed in some detail as the resulting equations
will be employed here in predicting the per- Thus
formance of the propeller. n(v) _ 1 -- J ' C s i n e s i n v (22)
I t is usual practice in making an analysis of n 0.77r
marine propellers to utilize open-water character-
ization curves and to assume that the blade forces The total force on the propeller is the vector
are concentrated at the 0.7 radius and that the sum of the forces on the blades. For the thrust
velocity field in which they operate is also well and torque, these are the sums of the thrust and
represented by the 0.7 radius. This basic as- torque, respectively, upon each of the blades.
sumption has been made in the ensuing develop- For the normal force, this is the vector sum of
ments. the torque forces. Thus it is necessary to express
From the velocity diagram, Fig. 7, at the 0.7 the forces in each of the blades as a function of the

angular position, ,, and sum over one revolu- The magnitude of this normal force, Fz, may be
tion. determined from the vector sum of the blade
The forces on each blade m a y be expressed as torque forces given in equation (24).
follows
Thus
T~(~) = P n2(t,).D4KrO, ) (23)
Fz = ~1 J'o2" n z ( , ) sin vdv (31)
Dz(v) -- P n20,)DSKQ(v) (24)
0.7 R Z Defining the normal force coefficient as
where KFz -- 17 (32)
on21) 4
Z = number of blades
Kr(~) and KQ(v) = propeller thrust and torque and combining equations (22), (24), and (31), we
coefficients at each angular position in the velocity obtain
field throughout one revolution thus the average KQ 2~
forces on each blade become
L = ~ ~(v)(~ (25)
X (1
-- J ' C s i~nre s i n v ) 2KQ(v)
~ sindv (33)
~. _ 0.35-D2~ z ~ D~(v)d,, (26) This provides us with an equation comparable to

(29) and (30) to calculate the normal force pro-
duced at the same speed of advance.
and the total axial forces on the propeller in in- With these equations, Gutsche correlated the
clined flow are results with the experiments', and found that a
L = L'Z (27) C-value of 2 gave good correlation throughout
the test speed range of the six propellers, with a
#2, = L . z (2s) few exceptions at the low thrust loadings on the
if we represent the average total thrust and high-pitched propellers.
torque of the propeller in oblique flow in terms of Induced Propeller Forces Upon lhe Hull
the thrust, T, and torque, Q, which the propeller
produces at the same advance ratio in axial flow, Hough and Ordway have, in reference [9], pre-
then we obtain the following equations: sented a simple, yet accurate, expression for the
induced velocity components of a free propeller
2P~ _ 1 2~(1 J.C which can be used in determining the pressure
T 27r 0.77r forces induced by the propeller upon the hull.
)
X sin ~ sin v ~ ~ (K-~-
v ) d~ (29)
T h e y have considered a lightly loaded propeller
of arbitrary blade number and circulation distri-
bution operating at zero incidence in a uniform
(~,_ 1 2"( J.C free stream. The propeller is represented b y the
O 2rr 1 0.77r conventional vortex system and the induced
velocities at any field point are determined from
X sinesin u dv (30) the Biot-Savart law'. T h e velocities are then
Fourier analyzed and the zero harmonic or steady
I t is these two equations which permit us to component is used to obtain the induced veloci-
readily establish the propeller characteristic ties.
curves in inclined flow so that we can easily esti- Hough and Ordway have shown that in the
mate the propeller performance on the planing steady velocity field outside the slip stream the
boat. Although integrations are required, Gut- tangential velocity component is zero and the
sche showed that the calculations need be made axial velocity component is; not significantly af-
at only three angular positions--60, 180, and 300 fected by a wide variation in the blade circulation
d e g - - a n d summed to obtain good results. (loading) distribution. The latter conclusion is
The vector sum of the torque-producing forces most important as it indicates that the details
in the plane of the propeller results in a steady of the propeller blade design, do not have a sig-
force which is directed toward the side of the nificant effect upon the indnc.ed velocities outside
propeller slip stream which is turned away from of the slip stream. T h e y have also shown that
the oblique flow; that is, in the vertical direction the field velocities are a function of the disk
for planing boats with inclined propeller shafts. loading and the advance ratio and that outside of

0.06
r/Rl= I I
0.04
0.02
0
cT - 0.02
- 0.04 m
I t I J
- 0.06
I0 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -I0
Aft x/R Fwd
Fig. 8 Steady induced axial velocities outside propeller slip stream at selected radial positions fore and aft of
propeller
0.28
I.O
0.24
[ ~ L2
0.20 - - 1.3
xi~ I 1.4 r'

"o
: R
0.16 - - 1.5
'~ , L6
0: t8
~"~._.._3o 0.12 1.9
2.0
! 2.5
3.08 - -
/ 3.0
0.04
_]/ ,0
5.0
3.5
6.0
8.0
0
~ lO,O
0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 [6 ~8 20
+ x/R
Fig. 9 Contours of integrated values of propeller pressure coefficient outside propeller slip stream for
any position forward or aft of propeller
the slip s t r e a m t h e i n d u c e d velocities are a n t i - c a n now be ascertained, the pressure force created
s y m m e t r i c a b o u t t h e p l a n e of the propeller. I n - on the b o t t o m m a y be o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t too m u c h
d u c e d velocities a t selected radii are s h o w n in difficulty. A s s u m i n g t h e surface is a flat p l a t e
Fig. 8. a n d u s i n g the linearized Bernoulli equation, we
T h e i r calculations ignored thickness effects of o b t a i n the pressure as :
the propeller blades. I t is k n o w n from o t h e r cal-
culations m a d e a t D T M B t h a t thickness effects Po -- P 2~ p V2
V2
are local a n d would h a v e a negligible effect unless
the propeller tips are v e r y close to the hull. where ~2 is the average axial velocitv i n d u c e d b y
Since t h e v e l o c i t y field a r o u n d the propeller the propeller.

./ I0.0
/ ~ / > ...-7.o
t ,/ 6.0
//~//C 7" /5.o

M / / .-I
/ w"" ~ 4.0
z
6 / ////'~ / / .13s
,~ ~ ~ ~,0 R
, / / ~ ..i I- i-
IXl.,~
.....
A /5. / ,..--" .i--/- ___.-<-----'__~__-~,.9
~ _ ~ _ _ - . - - ~ _1-- ,.~
, ~ > . . : . ~ ~ __1 ,.,
A
F
/ I
r
-
0 4 6 8 ,o ,a ,, ~6 ~8 20
_* x/a
Fig. 10 Contours of cemroid of integrated propeller pressure coet~cient in Fig. 9
I n order to maintain the b o u n d a r y condition small percentage of the d y n a m i c pressure on the

on the flat b o t t o m of no n o r m a l velocity, it is nec- planing surface, the fact t h a t t h e y occur over a
essary to assume an image of equal s t r e n g t h and large area makes it necessary to integrate t h e m
distance from the flat surface; thus the velocity over the whole b o t t o m .
is double t h a t obtained for a propeller in free T h e s t e a d y axial velocities as obtained b y the
space. T h e force on a plate forward of a pro- m e t h o d of reference [9] and shown in Fig. 8 are
peller m a y be expressed as : normalized on Cr which is defined as:
]"
N = 2 (Po -- p)clx d y (35) CT --
Y
(p/2) v-'(.,D-V4)
where x and y are the axial and transverse coor- Nondimensionalizing x and y b y R , equation
dinates based u p o n the center of the propeller (35) becomes
as zero reference. +y/R
Since the m a g n i t u d e of the induced velocities N = --2R2pVeCr t"
a - y/R
along the x-axis are a n t i s y m m e t r i c a b o u t the
DT/V x .v
F
x/R
propeller, the integration is performed in two parts : X d d (36)
i.e., the suction forces forward and the pressure
force aft. A l t h o u g h the induced pressures are a To simplify the numerical wc)rk the x-integra-

0.50( I
! I I
1 I
I
f
c
n:l
tzI> " ~
I-
(..)
0,500 t
i
t
l
!
t
i
/
2
O. 2 0 0 1
E

I
O.tO0
i
I
I
0 I t I
-0 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Fwd x/R Aft
Fig, 1 1 Average axial velocity in propeller slip stream for any position forward or aft of propeller
tion has been carried out for selected radii, r/R, positions over the width of the surface and to inte-
and the results are presented in Fig. 9. Thus, grate them to obtain the total suction or pressure
knowing the length of the surface forward or aft force.
of the propeller, the value at t h a t length repre- The center of application m a y be determined
sents the quantity as:
x/R 2~ "C d x_
L ~IT R 2 a - y / R ,Io ~7 d~d~
(38)
Since the dimensions are nondimensionalized R ;+y,R d xd
on propeller radius an expression for the trans- !a - y m J o CT R R
verse position, y / R , in terms of the distance of where Y:/R is the distanee from the plane of pro-
the propeller axis from the planing surface, a/R, is pellers to the center of pressures at any radius
required. With the assistance of the following r / R which has been determined as a continuous
diagram, equation (37) m a y be derived. function of x / R for this same radius.
T h e same approach can be used for performing
the integrations as was used for the induced pres-
sures. The results of the x-integration in the
n u m e r a t o r are presented in Fig. 10. Thus it is
necessary to perform only the integration in the
y / R direction along with the force to obtain the
r/R fore-and-aft positions of the centroid in relation
to the propeller plane.
Propeller Augmented and Induced Rudder Drag
y l R = [(r/R) 2 -- (a/R)2] '/2 On m o s t planing craft the rudder is placed
= [(r/R + a / R ) ( r / R -- a / R ) ] '/~ (37) behind the propeller to improve the effectiveness
of the rudder, particularly at low speeds. The
Since the propeller position is known in relation propeller's action creates in the slip stream an
to the planing surface, it is now a simple m a t t e r increase in the axial component of the velocity
with equation (37) to obtain the values at various and a rotational component. Consequently, the

rudder experiences an augmented drag from the where
velocity increase and also an induced drag. The
CL = lift c.oefficient and is assumed = ~-a/90
work of Hough and Ordway provides us with
(angle of attack in degrees)
adequate information to estimate these additional
A = aspect ratio, span/chord, of rudder in
drag forces.
slip stream
T h e y have shown in reference [9] that within
the slip stream the radial velocity distribution is Thus
a function of the load distribution. In general,
the load distribution of most marine propellers Co~ - 8100,4
will not deviate, for practical purposes, too far
The total drag coefficient, CD, for the rudder at
from t h a t used in their study. The axial velocity
an angle of attack is
distribution has been averaged for a number of
positions aft of the propeller and the results CD, = co + G), (44)
plotted in Fig. 11. I t should be noted that the
where Co is obtained from the bracketed part of
values are normalized on Cr, the propeller loading.
equation (14).
T h e y also provided the equations for obtaining
The added drag on the rudder, AD,, 1hen be-
the rotational or tangential component of veloc-
comes
ity, z~, inside the slip stream and behind the
propeller. AD~ = l p S ( V + fv)2C~ - pSV2C~
or
Cv - Z r ( r ) (39) ,.0
2 rrr AD~ = p V2S (C~)
where
Z = number of propeller blades
x d(r/R)C~ + 1 (Co + Co,) - C,, (45)
r(r) = propeller blade circulation
where S = planform area of rudder in slip stream
For their propeller and
F = I Z R A ( r / R ) ( 1 -- r/'R) '/~
where
is obtained from Fig. 12 for the centerline dis-
.4 -- 105 7rX Cr
32 Z tance between rudder and propeller.
The preceding development is for the rudder
I/-
k- which has an airfoil section. For the rudder with
27mR a wedgelike section there is relatively little in-
Thus formation. T h a t which is available shows a very
small rise in drag with angle of attack until
ICr - 105 J (1 - r / R ) V= (40) separation occurs at the leading edge and ven-
V 64
tilation takes place on the reduced pressure side.
Assume a nominal value of r / R = 0.60; then A discontinuity occurs in the drag coefficient
( ( v / V ) / C r = 0.33J. With the two velocity com- curve at this point and the drag coefficient in-
ponents established, the angularity of flow can be creases more rapidly with increase in angle of at-
calculated. tack.
tan a - ~/V
1 + u/V 4 Equilibrium Equations
0.33JC~, The preceding sections have discussed the vari-
= (41)
ous components of the bydrcdynamie forces
1 + 17 I C r d CT acting upon a planning boat hull and how they
can be estimated. The results have been sum-
I t is now relatively easy to obtain the drag marized in the forms of equations and charts.
using the procedure of Section 2. Again re- To be of use to the designer, they must be com-
ferring to reference [5] in this case for the induced bined to formulate computational procedures for
drag Co~ for an airfoil section s predicting the power requirements. This section
Co, = CL21rrA (42) of the paper presents a procedure for computing
the running trim, wetted length, resistance, and
s Reference [5], p . 7 - 2 . power requirements of a given planing hull and

A
WATER
LEVEL
Forces and Momen'l's on o Planing Surface
v
-el.
\ ~ {~ ~o / - ~ ~ ~ WATER
LEVEL
Do
Appendage Forces and Moments on a Planing Hull
e~
ADf
WATER
41"'~- t
LEVEL
~of
Propeller Forces and Moments on o Planing Hull

Fig. 12 Force and moment diagrams
its propeller(s) for a wide speed range and for ruination of the running trim, resistance, and
arbitrary locations of the propeller and inclina- propeller thrust which will provide for equilibrium
tions of the propeller shaft line relative to the conditions of the hull at a given speed, load, and
center of gravity of the hull. center-of-gravity location. The accompanying
The computational method involves the deter- sketches, Figure 12, show the forces and moments

Table 1 Bare Hull Calculation
Line Quantity Source or equation 7" = 3.0 deg r = 4.0 drg

1 Given or assumed: Displacement, lb 588.0 588.0
2 LCG Given or assunle(t: Longitudinal cent~'r of ~ravity f,rward of 3.85 3.85
transom, ft
3 VCG Given or assumed : Vertical center of gravity above kecl line, ft O. 55 O. 55
4 b Given or assumed: Beam of planing surface, ft 2. 786 2. 786
5 Given or assumed: Inclination of thrust line to keel, deg 11.0 I1.0
6 Given or assumed: Deadrise, deg 0 0
7 f Given or assumed: Distance 1)etween shaftlinc and CG, ft 0. 335 0.3:35
8 V (fps) V = 1.689 Vk 30.32 30.32
9 C, Cv = W l ( g b ) 1/2 3.21 3.21
10 r ~.~ Assumed value of r 3.35 4.95
A
11 CLB 0. 0851) 0. 085f1~'
CoO = ]oV2b ~
12 CLo CLa = Cx,o -- 0.00653 CI,o~-GoFig. 3 0. 0850 0. 0850
13 CLo/T1 .t 0. 0254 0. 0254
14 X Coo = rl'i(0.0120X~/~ + O.O055XV'-'/C,/2) Fig. 2 2.62 1.64
15 v.,IV Mean velocity--Fig. 5 O.98 , 0.97
L_
Vm VbX
16 Re Re - 2.0(l X 107 l .24 X 107
V v
17 Cf Schoenherr friction line 0. 00263 0. 00284
18 ACf Roughness allowance 0 0
19 &X Spray drag--F!ig. 6 0 0
20 Df Ds = 0/2 c~S~i (Cs + ~Cs) x + AX 46. (/ 30.4

21 fs f l = VCG -- b/4 tan 3 (ft) 0.55 0.55
1
22 L~p/Lm Lp/L,, = 0.75 -- 5.21 C,2/X 2 + 2.39 Fig. 4 0.65s 0. 707
23 e e = LCG -- L:p/L,~bX (ft) --0.96 0.62
24" fk Given : Distance between center of keel and V(2G. ft 0 0
25 c Given: Distance between keel ending and transom, ft 0 0
26 w Given: Average keel width, ft (1 I)
27 Lk b tan 3 (ft)
28 Re
20 O Schoenherr
30 Dk Dk = C I p / 2 2W(LK -- c ) V 2 0 0
31 Moment :l: = ,_X [ e cos(r ? ~) f sin r ] + D: ~./': -- taue "
bare hull
--55O +3.I,q
+ DI, ~I d -- e tan e f ] (It lb)
t_ COS e A
32 r(operating) Linear interpolation to find equilibrimu r 3.61
33 Resistance R -- cos@ -'}- e) [A sinr + DS -1- D,:] (11,)
bare hull 72.5
COS
34 ehp ehp = R V/55(] 4.00

a If keel is not installed, omit steps 2,[ through 30.
b Based on fresh water at a temperature of 68 F.
acting on a planing boat. T h e first s h o w s t h e A = (N + P'Na + r.N, + p . N v - - p . N , ) c o s ~-

s t a t i c h y d r o d y n a m i c f o r c e s oi1 t h e p l a n i n g s u r - + (p.7' + A D , ) sin ( r + ~) - - ( D r + p . D ,
face; the second, the hydrodynamic force from
+ r.bDr) slur + p-F:cos(r + e) (46)
the appendages; and the third, the propeller
f o r c e s . T h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e f o r c e s a n d m o -
For the horizontal forces:
m e n t s will b e t a k e n u p in t h e s a m e o r d e r a s s h o w n
in t h e s k e t c h e s ; i.e., f i r s t b a r e hull, s e c o n d h u l l (/). 7 ' + ~D~) cos (~ + ~)
with appendages installed, and finally self-pro-
= ( D , + p.D,, + r. ADr) cos r + D~
pelled.
T a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t all t h e f o r c e s d i s c u s s e d , w e + (N + p.N,, + r'Nr + p. Np
establish the three static equilibrium equations -- p'N.O sin r + p'~sin (r + ~) (47)
as follows :
For the vertical forces : For the pitching moments"

N . c + p "Naea + r. N , er + p - Npep -- p . N~es include the spray and keel drag, if present, and
+ Dff~ + p .Dafa + &Dr.fi -- (p. T that an inadvertent omission in his equation (35)
+ A D I ) f + p . Fzes-- Dwfw = 0 (48) has been corrected. In order to satisfy the mo-
ment equation (51), a linear interpolation can be
All analytic solution of these equations for the made between the assumed values and the running
operating trim angle is very cumbersome; hence a trim established. Any other information, in-
numerical computational procedure is used. In cluding the drag, in the bare hull configuration
order to put these equations into a more tractable can then be readily determined.
form, they m a y be rearranged as follows :
Combining equations (46) and (47) and elimi- Appendage Resistance
nating the pressure forces on the planing surface The appendage resistance can be easily esti-
leads to : mated using the method and equations outlined
(p.'l'+ ADi) cose = A s i n r + D I + P'D~ in Section 2 and numerically illustrated in Ap-
pendix 1. Table 2 is in parallel form to that used
+ r. AD~ + D w c o s r + p . F , sin~ (49)
for the bare hull resistance calculation, but of
Substituting equation (49) into (46) and solve necessity will vary from one configuration to an-
for N other. The moments produced by the appendage
requires a rebalaneing of equation (51). Again
N = p.N~ -- p . N p -- p . N ~ -- r ' N r
linear interpolation m a y be made between the
+ - ~s -i n&r s fI i1n-- @ c o s rcose + ~)] assumed r value to establish the running trim.
Once this is established and the new forces in-
-- [ D 1 + p ' D ~ + r ' & D ~ ] t a n e troduced, the appended resistance can be deter-
--D~sin(r + e) p.F: (50) mined by equation (47).
COS ~ COS Propulsion
Substituting (49) and (50) into (48) leads to the Before proceeding with the propeller calcula-
moment equation (51) : tions outlined in Section 3, it is necessary to es-
tablish the propeller design to be used for the
A F e c s ( r + e) fsinrl calculations. This requires that the usual pre-
/ COS 6 COS ~ J liminary design studies be made to establish the
approximate propeller diameter, rpm, blade area
+ D z [ f z -- e t a n cosf ] ratio to meet the cavitation criteria, propeller tip
clearance from the hull to keep the oscillating
+ p ' D a l f a -- e t a n e cosf ]e propeller hydrodynamic forces within acceptable
limits, and so forth. It is not the intent of this
-- Dw [ f~ + e sin (r e+ +feoSr]cos~_j paper to treat the problem of design trade-offs,
but rather to provide a method of prediction
which will permit determining magnitudes such
+ p. F, ez cos e co~e _1 that these traee-offs can be made with more factual
and less heuristic arguments than heretofore pos-
+ p ' N s ( e -- e,) + p.Nj,(e, -- e)
sible. The assumption is made that open-water
-1- p'Na(ea -- e) -1- r'N~(er -- c) curves are available of the desired propeller. If
none are available, the open-water characteristic
+p'AD~[f~-- etane cosf =]0 ~ (51) curves of the Troost propeller series [10 ] are recom-
mended. Experience at D T M B has shown that
\Vhen equation (51) is satisfied, the planing hull commercially available small boat propellers have
is in equilibrium and the resistance and power are open-water test characteristics comparable to
then easily evaluated. those contained in reference [10] for the appro-
priate number of blades, blade area ratio, and
Bare Hull Resistance pitch ratio at the 0.7 radius.
The first calculation which must be made is the Once-the open-water curves are available for
bare hull resistance of the prismatic planing sur- the desired propeller(s), it is necessary first to
face at the design CG location. Steps 1 through obtain the open-water performance curves in
34 in Table 1 provide the numerical procedure for inclined flow at the angle of inclination of the
determining the bare hull resistance. The pro- propeller shaft to the planing surface. The
cedure is almost identical to that given by Savitsky method outlined by Gutsche in Appendix I of
in reference [1 ], except that provision is made to reference [8] should be used. The procedure is

Table 2 Appended Hull Calculation
Line ~uantity Source or equation r = 3.0 deg r = 4.0 deg
1 d Given or assumed: Shaft diameter, ft 0.050 O. 050
2 l Given or assumed : Shaft and strut barrel, and bossing length, ft 3.0 3.0
3 Re Re = V d i f 103 < Re < 5.5 X 105 use equations (12), (13) 1.40 X 10~ 1.40 X 10s
4 Re Re = --Vl 8.37 X 10~ 8.37 X 10~

It
5 C] Schoenherr friction line 0. 00302 0. 00302

6 D~h D,h = p/2 ld V2(1.1 sina e -I- 7rCf) (lb) equation (12) '2.30 2.30
7 N~ N~ = p/2 ld V2(1.1 sins e cos e) (lb) equation (13) 5.29 5.29
8 f~,h Distance between D,h and VCGf, = VCG + 1sin e (when 0.836 0.836
/3 = 0) (ft)
9 e~ Distance between L,h and LCG, ft 2.51 2.51
10~ D~ Rudder drag, lb 5.30 5.30
11 f~ Distance between D~ and VCG, ft 0.877 0. 877
12 N, Rudder pressure force, lb 32.2 32.2
13 e~ Distance between N, and LCG, ft 3.22 :3.22
14 D~ D, = D~h + D~ (line 6 + line 10) 7.60 7.60
15 f, f~ = D~'f"*h + D~f~ (lb) 0.864 0.864
D~
16 S~ Given or assumed: Hull and superstructure cross-sectional 5.45 5.45
area, sq ft
17 CD~ Given or assumed : Hull and superstructure drag coefficient 0.86 0.86
18 f~ Given or assumed : distance between Dw and VCG, ft 0.44 0.44
p(air)
19 D~ D~ = CD~. ~ S w V 2 5.14 5.14
20 Moment
appended hull M, = M(tine 31, Table 1) + p'Da Ef. -- e tan e ------ecos
f _~ --24, +53,
D~ rf,~ -b esin (r -k e) q- f c s r 7 -k r-N~(e, -- e)

L7 c o s e _1
-t- p.Na(e~ -- e) (ft-lb)
21 r(operating) Linear interpolation to find equilibrium r 3.32
22 appendedResistanCehull R~ - COScos(r+e e) [A sinr + Df + Dk + Dw cost + p.D~] (lb) 95.4
23 ehp~ ehp~ - R,
550V 5.25
Steps 10 through 13 were special calculations made on a digital computer in view of the unusual type rudders used
on Model 5032.
also t a b u l a t e d in A p p e n d i x 2 of this paper. T h i s 5 Correlationwith Model Experiments

c a l c u l a t i o n should be m a d e for a t least three ad-
v a n c e ratios in t h e expected ran~:e of o p e r a t i o n of T h e v a l i d i t y of a t h e o r y or c o m p u t a t i o n a l
the p l a n i n g boat. m e t h o d can o n l y be verified b y correlation with
I t is n o w necessary to calcu]tate the i n d u c e d experiments. I n m a n y i n s t a n c e s the t h e o r y can
propeller forces u p o n the p l a n i n g surface a n d ob- o n l y be developed c o n c u r r e n t l y with t h e experi-
t a i n t h e n o r m a l i z e d s u c t i o n a n d pressure coeffi- m e n t s , each g u i d i n g the other. F o r the analysis
cients for use in the p e r f o r m a n c e calculations. developed in this p a p e r such a c o n c u r r e n t in-
T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s are o u t l i n e d i n A p p e n d i x 3. v e s t i g a t i o n was m a n d a t o r y . T w o different plan-
I n b o t h of the preceding propeller c a l c u l a t i o n s ing configurations, b o t h provided with twin-screw
the a s s u m p t i o n is m a d e t h a t t h e flow u n d e r the propulsion, were used. One:, Model 5032, was a
p l a n i n g surface is parallel to t h e p l a n i n g surface simple f l a t - b o t t o m e d hull. T h e other, M o d e l
a n d a t the v e l o c i t y of a d v a n c e of the boat. W h e n 5048, was a c o n v e n t i o n a l high-speed p l a n i n g b o a t
the curves a n d coefficients are available, the pro- with a fairly u n i f o r m deadrise over Lhe a f t e r b o d y
pulsive p e r f o r m a n c e c a l c u l a t i o n s of t h e b o a t a t t h e of 9 deg a n d with the chine w i d t h decreased a
desired speed c a n be made. T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s small a m o u n t from amidships to the t r a n s o m .
are similar to those m a d e for the bare a n d ap- T h e l a t t e r b o a t had c o n v e n t i o n a l shaft a n d s t r u t
p e n d e d hull resistance. A r a n g e of v a l u e s of r a r r a n g e m e n t s and wedge-type rudders representa-
m u s t be a s s u m e d a n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of equa- tive of c u r r e n t high-speed b o a t practice. T h e
tion (51) m e t b y a s s u m i n g linear i n t e r p o l a t i o n . p r i s m a t i c p l a n i n g surface was e q u i p p e d with an
T a b l e 3 shows the n u m e r i c a l procedure. u n u s u a l propulsion s y s t e m in t h a t the propeller
The Prediction o f Power Performance on Planing Craft 583

i
J j l
Fig. 13 I n b o a r d profile o f M o d e l 5 0 4 8
Table 3 Propulsion Calculation

Line Quantity Source or e q u a t i o n r = 3.0 deg r = 4.0 deg
1 p Given: N u m b e r of propellers 2 2
2 D Given: Propeller d i a m e t e r , ft 0.583 0.583
3 Kr,Ko vs J Given: Propeller o p e n - w a t e r c u r v e s Fig. 26 Fig. 26
4 ey Given: D i s t a n c e a l o n g s h a f t line f r o m propeller p l a n e to 3.40 3.40
CG
5 K'T,, KQ~, A'F: Calculate: M e t h o d of A p p e n d i x 2 Fig. 26 Fig. 26
v s fl
1
6 T T~--[Asinr-t-Df+p.Da+Dwcosr]Eq.(49)(lb) 48.6 45.8
p'cos e
7 -f~ A s s u m e v a r i o u s v a l u e s of J~ over e x p e c t e d r a n g e of opera- 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2
tion
T
8 KT KT pD~V 2 J,2(for each a s s u m e d v a l u e of J , ) 0.0966 0.1150 0.0910 0.1084
9 P l o t KT/J~ 2 c u r v e f r o m line 8 -- --
10 J~ (first a p p r o x ) I n t e r s e c t i o n of KT,/J~ 2 c u r v e w i t h KT,: c u r v e 1. 144 1. 154
11 KTe I n t e r s e c t i o n of K T / J , a c u r v e w i t h KTe c u r v e 0. 104 0.099
12 KFz F r o m line 5 u s i n g J , o b t a i n e d in line 10 0.0420 0.0424
13 F~ F , = K F , / K T . T (lb) 19.6 19.6
T
14 ~ CT CT = p/27rDa/4 Va O. 203 0. 191
15 ~ ~D~ Fig. 11 a n d e q u a t i o n s (41), (43), a n d (45) 1.44 1.44 b
1
16 T(final) T = - - [4 sin r + D I + p.D. + r.ADr + Dw cos r + 53.8 51.1
p'cos e
p . F , sin e]
17 J , (final) ] 1. 125 1. 132
18 KT~ (final) f 0. 112 0. 109
19 F~ (final) R e p e a t s t e p s 7 t h r o u g h 14 19.8 19.6
20 CT (final) 0. 224 0. 213
21 C.v~ F r o m i n d u c e d propeller force c a l c u l a t i o n - - m e t h o d of 3.172 3.172
Appendix 3
(D'~ a 1
22 N, N, = C.vrCT. \ ~ 2 ~ pV a (lb) 54.2 51.5
23 e, M o m e n t a r m f r o m i n d u c e d propeller force calculation, ft 2.02 2.02
24 CNp F r o m i n d u c e d propeller force c a l c u l a t i o n 1. 076 1. 076
(DV 1
25 Np Np = CNfCT. \ ~ ] 2 p V a (lb) 18.4 17.5
26 ep M o m e n t a r m f r o m i n d u c e d propeller force calculation, ft 3.60 3.60
27 Moment E q u a t i o n (51), ft-lb --265 +604
28 r(operating) L i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n to find e q u i l i b r i u m 7 3.30
29 J, Linear interpolation 1.127
30 KT~ F r o m c u r v e s of line 5 0. 111
31 KQe F r o m c u r v e s of line 5 0. 0259
6O V
32 rpm r p m = 60n = - - - 2805
J~D
33 T(perpropeller) T = KT,onaD 4 (lb) 54.4
34 Q (per propeller) Q = KQepn~D5 (ft-lb) 7.38
35 shp shp 2~'p.Qn 7.9
55O
T h e s e two s t e p s m a y be o m i t t e d if r u d d e r ( s ) a r e n o t b e h i n d t h e propeller(s).
b B a s e d on r u d d e r 2.4 propeller radii a f t of propeller a n d no i n d u c e d d r a g for t h e t y p e r u d d e r sections e m p l o y e d .

Fig. 14 View of stern appendages--Model 5048
UrMB MODEL 5 0 3 2
:l
i
f ,'J
Fig. 15 Inboard profile of Model 5032

0 2 4 6 8 l0 ~2
shaft was supported b y the rudder without a n y check the developments of this paper. Only a
intermediate struts. This permitted testing with representative number of the results from the
the propeller in three different positions along the planing boat will be presented to show the applica-
shaft. In this model the rudders are not movable bility of the methodology developed for use in
and are fixed rigidly to the hull with no gap be- practical boat design and performance predic-
tween the top of the rudder and the b o t t o m of tion.
the hull. The rudder sections were slightly wedge
shaped with a cylindrical leading edge. Figs. 13 M o d e l 5032
through 16 show photographs and sketches of the T h e experiments on the prismatic planing
models and their appendages. surface were conducted at the Langley Field
An extensive amount of testing was done on Station towing tank, employing the usual test
both models. Most of the results from the flat- techniques. T h e model was towed with a so-
bottomed hull, Model 5032, will be presented, as called " a u t o m a t i c tow gear" which maintains the
these tests were done exclusively to both guide and tow force along the propeller shaft line, within

MODEL 5032 - RESISTANCE
BARE HULL 7 APPENDED 7
~---Et~ec~ o~ 1
~ . ~ Omltt ing Rudd0 r)
6 Pressure Force 6
5 5
T-"
3 ~ 3
120 -- I i
2 2
100 C{" i
z
60 I
- - - -P e ~ ,
'n

~. 40 I
," I I I
/
E0 7 z - - F r l c g l n -
I I I
i0 12 14 16 18 20 O~o ~2 ~ ;0'1'~ 2o
V(knots) ~/(~:nots )
Fig. 17 Predicted and experimental results of resist.

ance tests o n Model 5032
Fig. 16 V i e w of Model 5032 with appendages

Table 4 Estimated Accuracy of Model Measurements
m e c h a n i c a l limits, as t h e hull rises a n d changes LCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.5in. or 0.04 ft

VCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 in. or 0.08 ft
trim. T h e tow force was m e a s u r e d along t h e Rise of bow and stern . . . . . . . . . 0.1 in. or 0.01 ft
s h a f t line. T h e self-propulsion t e s t s were con- Initial trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 deg, Model 5032
=1=0.05deg, Model 5048
d u c t e d in a similar m a n n e r e m p l o y i n g t w o 5-hp, Change in running trim . . . . . . . =1=0.05deg
100 in-lb, v a r i a b l e - r e l u c t a n c e electronic t r a n s m i s - Carriage speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.06knot, Model 5032
sion d y n a m o m e t e r s a n d t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d r e c o r d i n g =1=0.01 knot, Model 5048
Model weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=3lb
e q u i p m e n t . Since these results were to be used Angle of tow to shaft line . . . . . . =1=1.5deg, Model 5032
d i r e c t l y a t m o d e l scale, t h e r e was no a u x i l i a r y 4-1.0 deg, Model 5048
t o w force, AD~, i n t r o d u c e d to t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.1lb
Transmission propulsion
t h e difference in the viscous d r a g f r o m m o d e l to dynamometers
t h e full-scale boat. T h e m o d e l L C G was care- Calibration (Repeatability) =1=0.5 percent of maxi-
mum torque or thrust
f u l l y d e t e r m i n e d w i t h all t h e e q u i p m e n t a n d Thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=2 percent of maxi-
b a l l a s t weights i n s t a l l e d b y b a l a n c i n g on a knife mum thrust
edge. T h e V C G was e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e usual Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=2 percent of maxi-
mum torque
inclining e x p e r i m e n t technique. M e a s u r e m e n t s Rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.02percent
were m a d e of hull d r a g b o t h b a r e a n d w i t h ap-
p e n d a g e , t h r u s t , torque, a n d r p m when p r o p e l l e d
o v e r a r a n g e of speeds in t h e p l a n i n g c o n d i t i o n T h e results of t h e e x p e r i m e n t s , a l o n g w i t h t h e
until porpoising instabilities commenced. For p r e d i c t e d p e r f o r m a n c e , are shown in Figs. 17, 18,
all tests, t h e rise of t h e b o w a n d s t e r n were care- a n d 19. T h e first figure p r e s e n t s t h e r e s i s t a n c e
fully m e a s u r e d . Visual o b s e r v a t i o n s were m a d e d a t a for b o t h t h e b a r e a n d a p p e n d e d hull. Also
of t h e e x t e n t of side w e t t i n g . I n general, t h e i n c l u d e d are t h e v a r i o u s c o m p o n e n t s of t h e d r a g
m o d e l was free of this a d d i t i o n a l d r a g a b o v e 13.5 force. T h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m e a s u r e d
knots. Since t h e m o d e l h a d a r a t h e r l a r g e box- a n d c a l c u l a t e d forces a t t h e h i g h e r speeds is as
like hull, it was n e c e s s a r y to e s t i m a t e t h e w i n d good as c a n b e expected, a b o u t 2 p e r c e n t . T h e
drag. T a b l e 4 p r o v i d e s e s t i m a t e s of t h e m e a s u r e - c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e n o t v a l i d a t t h e lower o r h u m p
m e n t a c c u r a c y of t h e i n s t r u m e n t s used on this speed, as e x t e n s i v e side w e t t i n g o c c u r r e d in this
m o d e l a n d on M o d e l 5048 which was t e s t e d a t region. I t s h o u l d also be n o t e d t h a t a t t h e l o w e r
DTMB. speeds t h e p r e s s u r e d r a g is t h e l a r g e s t c o m p o n e n t .

Calculated i
O Position i __
O Position 2 . . . . . .
Position 3 - - - -
Side Wetting O b s e r v e d
3000
T-
4
2
14C
/,
2
/
12C 2000
12 //
-7
i0
E RPM
,-4 8C 8
SHP I000
~. 6c 6 o___. . . .
.//I/"
40 "4
7
2C 2 0
9 ii 13 15 17 19 21 0'7 9 ii 13 15 17 19 21
V(knots) V(knots)
Fig. 18 Predicted and experimental results of sel~propulsion tests on Model 5032
At the top speed of 20 knots, tile appendages con- of a two-dimensional foil with a cross section of tile
tribute about 17 percent and the :air drag on the type used on this rudder and then using Ber-
hull about 6 percent of the total drag. noulli's equation to obtain the pressure inte-
The predicted and measured values of trim grating these pressures over the planing surface,
are shown in the same figure also. Again in the we obtain the pressure force. The magnitude of
higher speed range the agreement is quite good, this force is shown in. Fig. 19. The effects on the
within the range of experimental error. trina and total drag of ignoring this force are
These experiments brought forth the significance shown by tlm dashed lines in Fig. 17. These
of the pressure force that the rudders can produce results anake clear that the location of the rudder
upon the bottom of the planing surface. I t m a y and its clearance from the hull can have an im-
be noted in Fig. 15 t h a t the rudder is mounted on portant bearing upon the running attitude of the
a small plate flush with the bottoin of the planing boat.
surface; thus the bottom of the boat acts as an The results of the propulsion tests and calcula-
end plate. The leading edge of the rudder is in tions are presented in Fig. 18. The good agree-
line with the transom. The rudder is also quite ment between the predicted and measured trims
thick with a cylindrical leading edge. Conse- for the various propeller positions indicates that
quently, a large pressure force on the planing the estimates of the propeller forces are quite
surface is induced which results in a reduction good. The calculated values of thrust and shp
of the trim angle. The magnitude of this force for propeller position 1 agree with the experi-
is estimated by two steps: First utilizing airfoil mental values within the limit of the experimental
theory to obtain the field point velocities g forward error. For propeller positions 2 and 3, the agree-
9 The computer program contained in :reference [11] was ments are not as good. For position 3, there is
used to make this calculation. good agreement on thrust, but the predicted slip

APPENDAGE ~ PROPELLER FORCES -160 A P P E N D A G E 4 P R O P E L L E R M O M E N T S
120
I00 -120
f
~Posltlon 1
(D
80 -80
o
o
120 60 g -40
".. P o s l t l o n 2
i00 40
C
80 20 z 4o Appendage ~" ~
,-4
60 80
", \ \
40 IEO
\ '
\
20 160 \\
0
7 9 ii 13 15 17 19 21 2007 9 ii 15 15 17 19 21
V(knots) V(knots )
Fig. 19 Calculated forces and moments from appendages and propellers on Model 5032
is about 7 to S percent lower; for position 2, the extensive test program for the Bureau of Ships on
thrust prediction is higher by about 8 percent, conventional high-speed planing boats. The
whereas the shp is a few percent lower. An results from these model tests provided an ex-
analysis of the torque and thrust-identity wakes cellent opportunity to show the applicability of
(l -- w) of the model experintents shows the vari- the methodology for predicting the performance
ations in these quantities are between 2 and :3 of conventional planing boats with inclined pro-
percent. This indicates that there may be more peller shafts.
scatter in the experimental data than desirable The tests were performed on the No. 2 carriage
or that in positions 2 and 3 where the tip clear- at D T M B , employing the newly devdoped towing
ances are smaller there are interactions between equipment. In principle, the procedures are the
the planing surface and the propellers which have same as those described for the Langley tank.
not been accounted for in the predictions. in this instance, the towing force is maintained
Fig. 19 shows the magnitudes of the normal along tile shaft line but only the horizontal com-
forces and the trim moments produced by the ap- ponent is measured. The maximum speed was
1)endages and the propellers to give some idea of limited to that of the carriage, :20 knots. The
their magnitudes. These curves show clearly same propulsion dynamometers were used to meas-
how the fore-and-aft position of the propeller can ure the propeller forces.
affect the net suction forces and the trimming In the course of the test program, additional
moment on the boat. tests were incorporated to ascertain the effect
of tile appendages upon the performance. As a
Model 5 0 4 8 basic test, bare hull tests were conducted at a
The tests on Model 5048 were done as part of an number of LCG locations. Self-propulsion and

BARE HULL ~ RUDDERS APPENDED
[3" -k
q--o
-F-
fD\ 3 dd .... ~< - - - .3

I
80 OC~BSlde
a r e Wetting
Hull Rudders2 80 --2
[DBare Hull and
Hull and Appendages
70 8!e1 Hull,nd!u
t 1 i7~
iJ 70
60 1 1
Bare
I
Hull
I
Y[ 6O
_~a2 //--
z ~n ,, 2 / //--_
" i- "[/~r"i I :ceek O9
~
40
//Bare Hull
t Pressure // , /_Including Wind Drag
30 . . . .
i
1,///
~.,z/
2o [ /// 20
Friction
t
i0 , 10
! I
lO
t 12 14 16
T
18 20
0
6 8 i0 12 14 16 18 20
V(knots) V(.Knots)
Fig. 20 Predicted and experimental results of resistance tests on Model 5048
r e s i s t a n c e tests w i t h all a p p e n d a g e s installed c a l c u l a t e d p r e d i c t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d in Figs, 2t)

were c o n d u c t e d a t a n u m b e r of l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n s alld 21.
a n d C G locations. Speeial r e s i s t a n c e t e s t s were Fig. 21) gives a c o m p a r i s o n of the results of two
m a d e a t one l o a d i n g a n d C G position, first with resistance tests, run c o n s e c u t i v e l y - - t h e first b a r e
o n l y t h e r u d d e r s i n s t a l l e d and t h e n with t h e r u d - hull and t h e second w i t h o n l y t h e r u d d e r s in-
d e r s r e m o v e d a n d o n l y t h e shafts a n d s t r u t s installed. "l'hese were c o n d u c t e d to check the
stalled. T h e p r o p e l l e r s h a f t s were o p e r a t i n g a t v a l i d i t y of t h e d r a g p r e d i c t i o n for w e d g e - s h a p e
2000 a n d 3000 r p m to a s c e r t a i n if p r o p e l l e r s h a f t r n d d e r s of the type. e m p l o y e d o11 this m o d e l and
r o t a t i o n m o d i f i e d t h e lift or drag. No measur- to a s c e r t a i n t h e possible :magnitude of the
a b l e effects were n o t e d on e i t h e r t r i m or drag. pressure forces from t h e r u d d e r u p o n t h e hull.
T h e results of t h e e x p e r i m e n t s along with t h e In this instance, t h e r e are large gaps b e t w e e n the

4000
' Calculated
Experiment 0 0 0
4Z-~ o" o" a"
b
--)_Side We%tlng
f
2
/
/
9O
3000
.e0
RPM /
/ IO
70
Thrue% / /
/
/
/
6O
oo/ 0
2000
RPM
d d~
~2 50 d
,/ 5
/
SHP
40 6 /
/ SHP
i000
30 --.
_ /
-- e//
lO --0
~l 8 i0 12 14 16 18 20 6 8 i0 12 14
I 16 18 20
V(knots) v(knots)
Fig. 2 l Predicted and experimental resuhs of self-propulsion tests on Model 5048
rudders and the hull; thus it was assulned that sistance tests, as well as the thrust measurements
pressure forces would be negligibly small. The from the propulsion tests, showed this tendency
,uodel trim measurements tend to confirm this to overpredict above 17 knots when the trim
assumption. angle was below about 3.5 deg.
Also shown in this figure are the various com- The second part of the figure shows the total
ponents of resistance. The spray, keel, and wind appended resistance over a wide speed range.
drag contribute significantly at the higher speeds : Again at the higher speed, the predictions of
at 20 knots about 9, 5, and 1.5 percent, respec- trim and drag are within experimental limits.
tively. Although there is excellent correlation The calculations shout that the appendages at
between the predicted and experimental results top speed increase the drag by about 16 percent.
at the higher speeds for both of these resistance The drag predictions at lower speeds are somewhat
tests, this was not true for the other resistance low as was true for Model 5032. I t m a y also be
tests, the results of which are not included in this noted that the predicted trim in the hump speed
paper. The predicted results were distinctly region is out of position, implying that both the
high for speeds above about 17 knots. The agree- magnitude and center of application of the
ment in the speed range of 14 to 17 knots seemed buoyant forces are not treated with sufficient
to be good for all tests. This would indicate precision in the equations of Section 1.
that the empirical equations of lift, drag, and The results of the self-propulsion tests are shown
center of pressure are in doubt at low trim angles. in Fig. 21. The trim results are somewhat erratic
I t is not at all clear why these two resistance tests although they clearly demonstrate that the pre-
should not show this trend when the other re- dicted trend is correct except in the hump region.

Table 5 Table 6
Bare Change in ~-Experimcntal~ ~Calculated - ~
hull Appended Append- resistance Model No. Speed l -- W z 1 - W Q 1 -- W T 1 - - W e
resist- resist- age due to 5032 (Pos 1) 19.95 0.97 0.97 0.959 0.958
Model ante, anee, drag, appendage 5032 (Pos 1) 16.60 0.98 0.98 0.960 0.959
No. lb lb lb lift, lb n. 5032 (Pos 2) 20.17 0.99 0.97 0.959 0.968
5032 85.47 108.60 18.83 +4.30 0.787 5032 (Pos 2) 16.68 1.01 0.98 0.960 0.959
5048 67.64 78.48 10.46 +0.38 O.863 5032 (Pos 3) 19.75 1.01 0.99 0.959 0.958
5032 (Pos 3) 16.51 1.01 1.00 0.960 0.959
5048 20.00 0.95 0.98 0.950 0.947
18.50 0.96 0.98 0.951 0.947
The predicted thrust is in good agreement in the 17.00 0.96 0.98 0.951 0.948
intermediate speed range, 14 to 17 knots, as has
been commented on earlier. The predicted rpm to demonstrate the usefulness of the prediction
in the intermediate speed range tend to be low, method in improving a planing boat design.
whereas the shp tends to be high. This is due The measurement of the effectiveness of a pro-
primarily to the method used to predict the in-
pulsion system is the ratio of the o u t p u t power to
clined open-water performance of the propeller
the input power. In naval architectural terms
outlined in Section 3. In developing the quasi- this is the propulsive coefficient, nD, which is de-
steady equations to predict the forces, it was
fined as ehp/shp, where ehp is the effective horse-
necessary to introduce the empirical constant C ~
power based upon the appended resistance and
to achieve good correlation between the ex-
the velocity of advance and the shp is the horse-
perimental and predicted normal forces. A
power at the propeller. Using the usual notation,
careful examination of Figs. 4 through 9, in ref-
we write:
erence [8], which correlate the results of all of
the measured forces with the predicted, shows that ehp~ 1 -- t
for the higher pitch propellers operating at the ~u- shp - 70'~R'~u = 7o"~R' 1 - - w
high advance ratios the thrust and torque predic-
where
tions are higher than the experimental. This
results in underpredicting the rpm. I t m a y also 7o = open-water propeller efficiency
be noted that the predicted propeller efficiency ~n = relative rotative effieiiencv
is lower in relation to the experimental results, ~i~ = hull efficiency
thus resulting in overpredicting the shp. Unfor- t = thrust deduction
tunately, the propeller used in this model falls w = wake fraction
into the range where the predictions tend to be
On displacemenl2 ships, where the various effects
somewhat unreliable.
due to propeller forces are small in relation to the
displacement of the ship, and where only one
6 PerformanceAnalysis means is used to 1Lransmit the power to the pro-
peller, this definition is quite practical. On
One of tile prime benefits to be derived from a
planing boats, where all components of force
rational prediction method is the insight it pro-
arising from both the appendages and the pro-
vides as to the relative roll t h a t each of the factors
peller are significant, and where there is more than
plays in the overall performance. This is par-
one means for transmitting power to the propeller
ticularly true in the case of the planing boat. In
(Z and right-angle drives) as well as other forms
analyzing the power performance, the normal
of propulsion (waterjet or air-screw), this ap-
tendency is to apply the customary methods used
proach does not l?ermit a reasonable means for
with surface displacement ships. To a limited
measuring the elTeetiveness of the propulsion
extent this can be useful; however, the hydro-
system. In this case it is more meaningful to
dynamic characteristics of planing craft introduce
use the bare hull ehp at the same loading, that is,
other problems which are not usually encountered
A and CG location, as for the propeller condition.
in the displacement ship. Thus it is necessary to
The propulsive coefficient based on the bare
examine this relationship in some detail.
hull resistance is defined as :
In this section the various propulsion factors
will be examined and their numerical significance (7/D)bare = @/D)app'T/a
will be shown by using the results of the calcula-
where ~/~, which will be called "appendage ef-
tions made on the two models. In addition, a
ficiency," is defined as follows:
parametric study will be made on Model 5048
'bare hull resistance
10 See equation (22), Section 3. ~ appended resistance

Table 7
Appended Propeller
~ - T h r u s t deduction item: Gain ( + ) or Loss (--), l b - ~ resistance, thrust,
Model No. No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 Net lb lb (1 -- t) (1 -- t) exp
5032 (Pos 1) --3.40 --11.10 +5.20 --1.90 --1.64 --12.84 108.60 121.44 0.895 0.91
5032 (Pos 3) --3.48 --10.96 +2.54 --3.30 --3.29 --18.49 108.60 127.09 0.854 0.89
5048 --2.92 --9.60 +2.77 --0.50 --2.37 --12.62 78.48 91.10 0.872 0.90
Table 8
V, ~ ~o - - ~ ~ ~H -~ - - ~ ~-~D A p p e n d e d - ~ l ) Bare hull~
Model No. knots Cal Exp Cal Exp Cal Exp Cal Exp Cal Exp Cal Exp
5048 17 0.878 0.85 0.690 0.68 0.920 0.93 1. 010 1.08 0.643 0.69 0.564 0.59
5032 (Pos 1) 20 0.787 0.78 0.750 0.76 0.934 0.93 1. 003 0.98 0.702 0.69 0.552 0.54
5032 (Pos 2) 20 0.787 0.78 0.750 0.76 0.910 0.95 1.000 0.90 0.681 0.65 0.536 0.51
5032 (Pos 3) 20 0.787 0.78 0.750 0.76 0.890 0.88 1.003 0.92 0.669 0.62 0.527 0.48
T h e v a l u e s of b o t h of t h e s e resistances in t h e a n d p o s i t i o n 1 of M o d e l 5(132 shows t h a t t h e basic

expression of ~a a r e o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e hull a t t h e a s s u m p t i o n is r e a s o n a b l y good for a first a p p r o x -
s a m e l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n as a t rest, t h a t is, s a m e A i m a t i o n when t i p clearances are large a n d t h e t r i m
a n d C G location. angles a r e low. Since t h e c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e s a r e
Since t h e a p p e n d a g e s c r e a t e a lift force as well lower, t h e r e is a m e a s u r a b l e p o t e n t i a l flow effect
as a d r a g force, i t b e c o m e s r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t which should be a c c o u n t e d for in f u t u r e work.
t h a t t h e r e are two effects w h i c h d e t e r m i n e t h e P o s i t i o n s 2 a n d 3 on M o d e l 5032 c l e a r l y show t h a t
m a g n i t u d e of this r a t i o : t h e d r a g of t h e ap- t h e r e a r e i n t e r a c t i o n a n d p o t e n t i a l flow effects
p e n d a g e s a n d t h e c h a n g e in hull r e s i s t a n c e d u e to which are q u i t e significant a n d m u s t be a c c o u n t e d
t h e c h a n g e in r u n n i n g trim. T h e c a l c u l a t i o n s for if a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n s a r e to be m a d e . T h e
for t h e t w o m o d e l s given in T a b l e 5 c l e a r l y d e m - large differences in t h e m e a s u r e d a n d c a l c u l a t e d
o n s t r a t e t h e m a g n i t u d e of these t w o effects. T h e t o r q u e - i d e n t i t y wakes, p a r t i c u l a r l y M o d e l 5048,
c a l c u l a t i o n s are m a d e a t 20 k n o t s w h e r e t h e effects p r o v i d e f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e per-
a r e m o r e p r o n o u n c e d b e c a u s e of t h e low r u n n i n g f o r m a n c e a n a l y s i s m a d e in t h e p r e c e d i n g section
t r i m angles. on precision of t h e p r e d i c t e d o p e n - w a t e r c u r v e
T h e definitions of t h e o t h e r efficiency e l e m e n t s inclined to t h e flow.
a r e t h e s a m e as for d i s p l a c e m e n t ships; however, T h e f a c t o r of t h r u s t d e d u c t i o n , t, which e n t e r s
we m a y e x a m i n e t h e m s o m e w h a t m o r e closely the hull efficiency e l e m e n t as 1 - t is sensitive on the
t h a n h e r e t o f o r e possible for p l a n i n g b o a t s . p l a n i n g b o a t d u e to m a n y influences a n d w a r r a n t s
T h e p r o p e l l e r efficiency, 70, is t h e o p e n - w a t e r a d e t a i l e d analysis. B y definition 1 -- t = R/T
p r o p e l l e r efficiency b a s e d u p o n t h e inflow v e l o c i t y where R is t h e a p p e n d e d hull r e s i s t a n c e a n d 27
a t t h e p l a n e of t h e p r o p e l l e r a n d needs no f u r t h e r is t h e t h r u s t in t h e s h a f t line. I t t h e n b e c o m e s
comment. o b v i o u s t h a t t h e following i t e m s are i m p o r t a n t
Since t h e basic a s s u m p t i o n was m a d e t h a t t h e to this r a t i o :
flow u n d e r t h e p l a n i n g surface is p a r a l l e l to t h e 1 T h e t h r u s t in t h e s h a f t line m u s t be resolved
b o t t o m a t t h e v e l o c i t y of a d v a n c e of t h e craft, i n t o its h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e r t i c a l c o m p o n e n t s .
t h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e t h r u s t a n d t o r q u e i d e n t i t y T h e h o r i z o n t a l c o m p o n e n t is a c c o r d i n g l y a func-
w a k e s is tion of t h e s h a f t angle a n d t h e r u n n i n g t r i m a t
a p a r t i c u l a r speed.
J~
1 -- I'V~ - 2 T h e n o r m a l force f r o m t h e p r o p e l l e r c r e a t e s
a n e g a t i v e t h r u s t . T h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e n o r m a l
and force is p r i m a r i l y a f u n c t i o n of t h e s h a f t inclina-
tion, e. T h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e n e g a t i v e t h r u s t
1 - l,Vo = Jo Jo since Jo~ = JT~ c o m p o n e n t is a f u n c t i o n of b o t h t h e s h a f t inclina-
a n d t h e r u n n i n g trim.
which m a y b e c a l c u l a t e d f r o m t h e p r e d i c t e d in- 3 T h e p r e s s u r e force c o m p o n e n t on t h e hull,
clined a n d n o r m a l o p e n - w a t e r curves. T a b l e 6 i n d u c e d b y t h e propellers. T h e s u c t i o n forces
gives a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e t o r q u e a n d t h r u s t - f r o m t h e p r o p e l l e r u p o n t h e p l a n i n g surface aug-
i d e n t i t y w a k e v a l u e s d e r i v e d f r o m t h e experi- m e n t t h e t h r u s t , w h e r e a s t h e p r e s s u r e forces f r o m
m e n t s a t t h e h i g h e r speeds w i t h t h o s e c a l c u l a t e d . t h e slip s t r e a m a f t of t h e p r o p e l l e r r e d u c e this
T h e a g r e e m e n t oll t h e t h r u s t w a k e on M o d e l ;5048 t h r u s t a u g m e n t a t i o n . T h e m a g n i t u d e of these

Table 9 Inclined Shaft Study on Model 5048 at :20 Knots
Apparent
Shaft Trim Appended Appendage Propeller Propeller prof eft shp
angle, angle, hull drag, drag, Thrust, normal suction J KT, (shp)
e deg deg lb lb lb force, lb force, lb ep, 27r KO~ shp 12 deg
16 2.30 84.06 11.66 103.42 51.81 67.29 0.754 8.41 1. 102
12 2.42 80.34 10.46 91.10 38.40 59.40 0. 729 7.65 1. O00
8 2.50 78.99 10.68 83.90 25.39 54.59 0. 708. 7.24 0.947
5 2.57 78.48 11.41 80.55 15.74 52.41 0.697 7.06 0. 924
MODEL 5048 - SELP-PROPULSION

forces is a function of the propeller loading and
5
propeller position in relation to the planing sur-
face. T h e magnitude of the vector component
which provides a thrust is of course a function of
5
the trim angle. 7-o
4 Since the appendages h a v e been treated as a 2
specific efftciency element, it is necessary to con- II0 I
sider the effect of the propeller upon the ap- 0

pendages. T h e rudder in particular, being in the
propeller slip stream, experiences both an aug- i00
mented velocity and an induced drag from the ro- SH[

tational component in the propeller slip stream. 90
T h e magnitude of this component of augmented
drag is a function of propeller loading and ad-
vance ratio. The interaction between rudder and 80
propeller is considerably more complex than the m

relatively simple explanation given irl the fore-
going, b u t it is suspected t h a t this m a y be a major 70
influence.
5 T h e other m a j o r component is the change in
g0
appended hull resistance due to the effect of the
propeller upon the running trim of the boat and - - - 1 6 "
the augmented loading upon the boat due to the 5O
. . . . 12"
----8*
suction forces. This component can be either .... 5
positive or negative b u t more likely negative.
At low running trim angles where the boat is 4O
12 14 16 18 20 12 14 16 18 20
operating below the o p t i m u m lift-drag ratio of the
V(knots) V(knots)
hull, the propeller suction forces tend to increase
the trim angle favorably, b u t this gain is offset Fig. 22~ Predicted performance of Model 5048 with
by the added a p p a r e n t load of these forces to the different propeller shafts inclinations
hull. At high trim angles both effects are del-
eterious to the performance.
The significance of these various components also to illustrate how this method of analysis m a y
of 1 -- t, are shown in T a b l e 7 for the two models be used to improve planing boat design. In mak-
when operating at 20 knots. T h e calculated ing this parametric study, of t]he shaft angle, it was
values are in all instances somewhat lower than assumed t h a t the propeller shaft diameter did not
the experimental. change. I t was al,;o assumed t h a t in the arrange-
In Table 8, all of the efficiency elements have m e n t of the boat the same load and CG would be
been tabulated to give an overview of their sig- maintained. Calculations were made at shaft
nificance upon the h y d r o d y n a m i c performance angles of 16, 12 (design), 8, and 5 (minimum prac-
of the systems. tical on this hull) degrees. At the lower shaft
F r o m the analysis of the thrust deduction it angles, an intermediate strut, was introduced to
becomes obvious for a given boat design t h a t the maintain bearing spacings comparable to the
shaft angle can be one of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t criteria contained in the nomograph of reference
elements in the propulsive performance. This [12]. T h e 8-deg ,,shaft angle required an inter-
parameter has been investigated for Model 5048 mediate strut as did the 5-de.g. The results are
not only because of its obvious importance but presented over a speed range from 12 to 20 knots

in Fig. 22. These results indicate t h a t it is de- marked an influence upon the design of the pro-
sirable to use as small a shaft angle as possible; pulsion system as the operating or m a x i m u m
however, the gains are small for angles less t h a n 8 speed. I t is clear from the two examples in this
deg. Thus, on this hull, a shaft angle of 7 to 8 paper t h a t current theory is not satisfactory.
deg appears attractive, the gain being 4 to 5 2 T h e method used for predicting the forces
percent overall reduction in shp in the higher part created b y the appendages appears to be satis-
of the speed range. factory as long as the appendage configurations
T o assist in understanding the interrelationship are similar to those for which data are well docu-
which is occurring in the various force components mented in the literature. T h e availability of
of the foregoing study, some of the more signifi- computer programs such as the Douglas program
cant components are t a b u l a t e d for 20 knots in [11] provide a ready means for calculating the
T a b l e 9. pressure field around the body as well as the lift
F r o m Table 9 it m a y be noted t h a t the drag of if circulation is present. T h e greatest lack is
appendages represents a small effect and t h a t it is sufficient drag data on ventilating shapes em-
near a m i n i m u m at the design inclination of 12 ploying wedge-shaped sections.
deg. The effects of the propeller forces are the 3 The fundamental assumption has been made
most significant. Their change in magnitude t h a t the flow under the planing surface is parallel
due to shaft angle is large. These forces also to the planing surface and the velocity is t h a t of
change the running trim which at the higher boat the forward speed of the boat. F r o m the com-
speeds results in a reduction of the hull drag. parisons in this paper, this assumption is adequate
This rather clearly demonstrates that, in achiev- for a first approximation, particularly at the
ing high-performance boats, design optimization higher speeds where the trim angle is low. A
m u s t be done on the whole system rather than method should be developed for predicting the
any of the components. velocities under the planing surface at various
loadings and trim angles.
Conclusions 4 T h e other major assumption t h a t interaction
T h e developments of this paper m u s t be viewed effects are of secondary importance should also
as an initial step in treating the problem of the be examined. I t is known from model studies
propulsion of planing craft. Although the limited on propeller-rudder interaction [13] t h a t the pro-
objective of providing the profession with a propeller and rudder interaction results in an improve-
cedure for predicting the power performance of a m e n t in propeller efficiency which can be sig-
specific t y p e of planing craft has been achieved, nificant under certain circumstances. T h e solu-
m u c h effort is still required for greater precision tion of this problem is of m a j o r importance to all
and a wider range of application. T h e present ships employing rudder-propeller combinations.
work is restricted to the low-deadrise planing I t is also suspected t h a t the interaction of the
hull propelled b y noncavitating propeller(s) propeller with the planing surface m a y have an
driven b y an inclined shaft. I t should be ex- effect upon the propeller, particularly when tip
tended to include both the high-deadrise boats clearances are small.
and other forms of propulsion. 5 Gutsche's work on the propeller performance
The parametric design studies on shaft angle in in inclined flow was one of the keystones to the
Section 6 clearly show t h a t the drag of the ap- developments in this paper. T h e weakness of the
pendages is secondary to the forces of the pro- quasi-steady theory in accurately predicting all of
peller. The study indicates t h a t in optimizing the propeller force for the higher pitched propeller
the design of high-performance planing craft the at the high advance ratios indicates the need for a
whole hydrodynamic system must be considered. more rational propeller theory. Current ad-
The analysis and comparisons m a d e during the vances in propeller lifting-surface theory should be
course of this work d e a r l y indicate t h a t much helpful, although they will have to be modified
research needs to be made in the following areas: to account for the erossflow component.
1 Although an extensive research effort has 6 T h e possible importance in certain instances
been directed to planing surfaces, m u c h of this of the pressure field from the rudder upon the
is at the high trim angles appropriate to sea plane planing attitude indicates t h a t simplified pro-
application. Further effort is required at the cedures for estimating its effect should be de-
low trim angles of planing craft. Further effort veloped.
is also needed at low speed in the region where 7 Lastly and m o s t importantly, the restric-
transition from b u o y a n t to dynamic forces tion on noucavitating marine propellers should be
occurs. This transition results in the so-called removed so t h a t this work can be applied to high-
"resistance h u m p " which frequently has as performance vehicles using advanced propeller

propulsion such as ventilated or supercavitating Planing Hulls," Marine Technology, vol. 1, 1964,
propellers. pp. 71-95.
The author is continuing his effort to include 2 B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky, D. Savitsky,
more of the interaction effects into the calcu- and W. F. Lehman, "Wetted Area and Center of
lations as well as examining the velocity field under Pressure of Planing Surfaces.." Stevens Institute
the planing surface. He is also extending the of Technology, Davidson Laboratory Report
methodologT to other propulsion schemes as well No. 360, August 19.'-1:9.
as to the higher deadrise boats. The methodology 3 E . P . Clement and J. D. Pope, "Graphs for
will be adapted so that it can be used in con- Predicting the Resistance of Large Stepless
junction with resistance tests on planing hulls Planing Hulls at High Speeds," DTMB Report
With special features such as spray strips, to 1318, April 1959.
predict the self-propulsion performance. It is 4 D. Savitsky and E. W. Ross, "Turbulence
hoped that a sequel to this paper will be possible Stimulation in the: Boundary Layer of Planing
which will broaden the range of applicability and Surfaces, Part II[, Preliminary Experimental
increase the effectiveness of the analysis. Investigation," Report 444, Experimental Towing
Tank, Stevens Institute of Technology, August
Acknowledgment 1952.
Although this work is presented as that of the 5 S . F . Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag, pub-
author, it would never have been possible without lished by the author, Midland Park, N. J., 1965.
the efforts of many who have or are devoting their 6 F. H. Todd, "Tables of Coefficients for
efforts to improving our capabilities for designing A.T.T.C. Model-Ship Correlation and Kinematic
more effective planing craft. Through the ref- Viscosity and Density of Fresh and Salt Water,"
erences, the author hopes to have adequately S N A M E TECHNICAL AND RIgSEARCH BULLETIN,
acknowledged the efforts of those who have No. 1-25, May 1964.
preceded him and provided the building blocks on 7 L. F. Whicker aJld L. F. Fehlner, "Free-
which he started his work. Correspondingly, the Stream Characteristics of a Family of Low-Aspect-
assistance of many colleagues at DTMB was Ratio, All-Movable Control Surfaces for Applica-
equally important to the development of this tion to Ship Design," DTMB Report 933, May
work. The assistance of Messrs. A. L. Boyle, 1958.
H. 1VS.Cheng, and E. E. Harley, and W. D. Bau- 8 F. Gutsche, "Untersuchung yon Schiffs-
man of the Bureau of Ships in developing com- sehrauben in Schrager Anstromung," Sehiffbau-
ponents of the various computer programs was an forschung, March 4, 1964:, Translation in DTMB.
essential first step. The timely assistance of 9 G. R. Hough and D. E. Ordway, "The
Mr. Boyle and Mr. G. H. Smith made possible Generalized Actuator Disk." Proceedings of the
the multiplicity of calculations required. The Second Southwestern Conference on Theoretical
assistance of Messrs. D. H. Blount and P. K. and Applied Technology, Atlanta, Ga., 1964.
Spangler and their staffs in carefully conducting 10 L. Troost, ':Open Water Test Series with
the required model experiments to verify the Modern Propeller Forms," a paper read before the
validity of the approach developed in this paper North East Coast Institution of Engineers and
was another major key. The assistance of Mr. Shipbuilders in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England,
E. P. Clement based upon his long experience in December 15, 1950.
this field was most helpful in leading to the most 11 J. P. Giesing, "Extension of the Douglas
useful literature and acquaintance with the state Neumann Program. to Problems on Lifting, In-
of the art. The professional stimulation of the finite Cascades," Douglas Aircraft Report No.
author's colleagues Drs. P. C. Pien and W. B. LB 31653, dated July 2, 1!)64.
Morgan has helped to achieve the insight required 12 P. G. Tomalin, "Marine Engineering as
to make the analysis contained herein. The Applied to Small Vessels," TF~ANS. SNAME, vol.
support of the management, particularly Dr. 61, 1953, pp. 590-634.
Cummins, is gratefully acknowledged. Lastly, 13 "The Influence of Propeller Clearance and
the author would like to acknowledge the editorial Rudder Upon the Propulsive Characteristics,"
help of Dr. Morgan and Messrs. Cheng and Cle- Published by the Swedish State Shipbuilding
ment and his secretary, Mrs. Pat Snyder, who Experimental Tank, Goteborg, Sweden, No. 33,
have helped make this paper more readable and 1955.
hopefully more useful. 14 E . P . Clement, "Scale Effect on the Drag
of a Typical Set of Planing Boat Appendages,"
References D T MB Report 1165, August 1957.
1 D. Savitsky, "Hydrodynamic Design of 15 M. P. Tulin, "Supercavitating Flow Past
The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Croft 595

Fig. 23 Appendage sets tested, and starboard side of friction plane with 1/2-scale
appendages in place
I0 13.17" I
S 26.34"
131 4s.as" [
2 I 63.85"~
MODEL 4343
A
PLANI~ ' / PLANE
0.25"R "~--PROP.
SCALE IN INCHES FOR 1/10 SGALE
0
Fig. 24 Drawing of 1/10-scale appendage set
Foil and Struts," published in proceedings of a of those used on planing boats and employ shapes
symposium on "Cavitation in H y d r o d y n a m i c s , " which are well documented in the literature.
held at the National Physical Laboratory, Sep- T h e planning of the experiment also insures t h a t
tember 1955. high accuracy was achieved in the drag measure-
ments. T h e experiments cover a wide range of
appendage sizes, varying from 1/2, 1/3, 1/5, and
Appendix 1 1/10 those of the full-scale P T boat. Fig. 23
is a photograph of the four pairs of appendages
Appendage Drag Calculations and of the friction plane with the 1/2-scale ap-
At D T M B , Clement conducted scale-effect pendages installed. Fig. 24 is a sketch of the
experiments on a geometric series of P T boat appendages.
appendages mounted on a friction plane [14]. Resistance tests were first conducted on the
This series provides an ideal media for evaluating bare friction plane up to a speed of 18 knots.
the effectiveness of the method of drag estimation A pair of appendages was installed, one on each
outlined in Section 2. T h e appendages are typical side of the friction plane and the drag measure-

ments made over the same speed range. This Table 10
w a s d o n e for e a c h p a i r of a p p e n d a g e s . The
Scale 1/2 1/3 1/5 1/10
difference between the two measurements at the
Rudder, percent 23.0 24.3 26.4 28.6
s a m e s p e e d p r o v i d e d t h e d r a g of a p a i r of ap- Strut, percent 9.5 10.2 11.0 12.0
pendages. Shaft and bossing, percent 30,6 3 l. 1 3 i. 6 32.2
Aft pahn, percent 17,6 16.6 15.2 14.1
T h e m e t h o d o u t l i n e d in S e c t i o n 2 h a s b e e n Fwd pahn, percent 15,0 13.6 11.7 9.2
e m p l o y e d t o ' e s t i m a t e t h e d r a g of t h e s e a p p e n d - Interference, percent 4,3 4.2 4.1 3.9
ages. T h e c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e o u t l i n e d in d e t a i l in Total drag, pound 33.0 14.92 5.49 1.44
t h e f o l l o w i n g for t h e 1 / 2 - s c a l e a p p e n d a g e s , to Measured drag, pound 31,92 15,45 5.98 2.10
Calculated/measured drag 1,03 0.96 0.92 0.69
i l l u s t r a t e t h e m e t h o d in d e t a i l a n d to s h o w t h e
d e s i g n e r h o w t h e m e t h o d h e l p e d in d e t e c t i n g t h e
components which provide the greatest drag. D = (}.01095 I zo-
Calculation of Drag for 1~2-Scale Appendage for D r a g of S t r u t P a l m s :

PT8 Tested on a Friction Plane
Given :
Rudder Drag:
Aft pahn Fwd palm
G i v e n : t / c = 0.14, S = 0.875 sq ft, c = 0.834 Height, hv . . . . . . . . . 0.48 in. 0.35 in.
Width, w . . . . . . . . . . 5.23 in. 5.20 in.
ft, V = 30.4 fps Distance from L.E.
of plane, x~ . . . . . . 65.75 in. 30.00 in.
Re= __Vc = 30.4fpsX0.884ft = 2,5X 1()G CDr, assumed . . . . . . . 0.65 0.65
u 1.01 X 10 -~ sq f t / s e c = 0.016 xp . . . . . . . 1.053 in. 0.48 in.
Dp = . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.110633 V2 0.00541 V~ Eq. (19)
CI = 0.00372
I n t e r f e r e n c e Drao- :
F r o m e q u a t i o n (14)
Given :
CD~ = 2 X 0.00372 [1 -1- 2 X 0 . 1 4
Rudder Strut
+ 60 X (0.14) 4] = 0.00972 t/c = 0.14 0.14
t = {).117 ft 0.0625 ft
1.94
D = p/2SV 2 C. t - -- X 0.875 1.94 [
2 (AD) = ~ [(0.117):~ -t- (0.0625)':J (3.75 M 0.14
X 0 . 0 0 9 7 2 V " = 0.00825 V ~- 0.0003 -] iz2 iz~
(-~.1~).2] = 0.00153 equation (20)
Strut Drag :
Given: t / c = 0.14, S = 0.324 sq ft, c = (/.460 Percent
ft Drag summary of total
Rudder 0. 00825 V'-' 23.0
Vc 80.4 X {}.46 Struts 0.110340 I/'2 9.5
Re . . . . 1.38 X l{V' Shaft and strut barrds 0.111095 V2 30.6
1.01 X 10 -~ Aft strut pahn 0.00633 V" 17.6
Fwd pahn 0.00541 V~ 15.0
CI = 0.00415 Interference 0.00153 V-~ 4.3
0.03587 V2 100.0
D = 0.00340 V 2 Total drag = 33.0 lb
Shaft and Bossing Drag:

The summary clearly shows that the two strut
G i v e n : s h a f t d i a m e t e r = 0.104 f t ; s t r u t b a r r e l p a l m s n e e d l e s s l y i m p o s e a l a r g e d r a g l o a d (ap-
a n d f a i r i n g d i a m e t e r = 0.167 f t ; s h a f t l e n g t h p r o x i m a t e l y 30 p e r c e n t of t h e a p p e n d a g e d r a g )
= 3.12 f t ; s t r u t b a r r e l a n d f a i r i n g l e n g t h = 1.69 f t which can be easily reduced by fairing the pahns
Vd 3O.4 X 0.167 i n t o t h e hull. O n t h e a c t u a l b o a t , t h e d r a g
Re= - - =
p e n a l t y m a y n o t be so large, as t h e r e is a g r e a t e r
v 1.01 X l O -5-
w e t t e d l e n g t h a h e a d of t h e a p p e n d a g e s to e s t a b -
= 5.02 X 10 s use e q u a t i o n (12) lish a t h i c k e r b o u n d a r y layer. T h e s e r e s u l t s also
_ _V/ _ 3 0 , 4 X (3.12 + 1.69) s h o w t h a t t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g is q u i t e small, in
Re- -- = 1.44 X 107 this instance approximately 4 percent.
P 1.01 X 10 -s
T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s h a v e also b e e n m a d e a t 18
C~ = 0.00277 k n o t s for t h e o t h e r size a p p e n d a g e s . A compari-
D = 1.94 son of t h e r e s u l t s w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t s is g i v e n in
3 . 1 2 X 0.104 q- 1.69 T a b l e 10. T h e re.sults of the: c a l c u l a t e d q u a n t i t i e s
a r e g i v e n as p e r c e n t a g e s of t h e t o t a l so t h a t t h e
X 0.167)[1.1 (sin 12) a -F 7r 0.110277]V-" effect of R e y n o l d s n u m b e r c a n m o r e r e a d i l y b e
The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing (:raft 597

Table 11
Row Item or equation Values for propellers 4214, 4215
1 ~ 60 deg 180 deg 300 deg
J-C .
2 0.7~sm esinv; C = 2 0.172 0 --0.172
3 n(v) 1 J- Csin esin v 0.828 1.000 1. 172
n 0.7~
4 O. 685 1. 000 1. 376
5 f~ = d.cose n. 1.240 1.026 0.876

n(~)
6 A j = j~ _ d 0.190 --0.024 --0. 174
dKr
7 AKT = ~ j .AJ --0.092 0.012 0. 084
dKo
8 AKQ = ~ - .AJ --0.0146 0.0018 0.0134
9 KT(V) = 1 + &KT 0.370 1.082 1.575

KT KT
AKo
10 K Q@__)= 1 + 0.579 1.0.52 1. 386
KQ KQ
11 " ]~T 0. 253 1.082 2. 165
12 ("(~)'~'-'
, , ~ - / . ~Q(~)
~ 0.a96 1.052 1. 906
13 k-~-t / " ~ sin v 0.343 0 -- 1. 650
KT e
Kr - ~ [(Line 11)~=~o o + (Line 11)~=isoo + (Line l l ) ~ = : m o ]
= } (0.253 + 1.082 + 2.165) = 1.167
K r . = 0.170
Ko~ _ [(Line 12).=6o o + (Line 12)~=18o o 4 (Line 12)~=aooo]

Ko
= 3(0.396 + 1.052 + 1.906) = 1.118
Ko, = 0.0388
Kz - K [(Line 13)~=6o o + (Line 13)~=aooo]

3 X 0.35
0.0347
(0.343 -- 1.650) = -- {I.0432
3 X 0.35
] Kro 1.05 0.170

= 0.730
~r~ = 2~r Ko~ 27r 0.t1388
n o t e d al o n g w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y of t h e drag. Since, in general, a p p e n d a g e d r a g is

l a y e r was p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y t h i c k e r w i t h t h e smaller less t h a n 20 per c e n t of t h e hull drag, an error in
a p p e n d a g e s since t h e l e a d i n g edge of t h e shafts e s t i m a t i n g of 10 p e r c e n t w o u l d r e s u l t in less t h a n
of all of t h e geosims were l o c a t e d a t t h e s a m e fore- a 2 p e r c e n t error in t h e t o t a l d r a g force. T h e
a n d - a f t position on t h e friction plane. c o m p a r i s o n s in T a b l e 10 also show t h a t some
T a b l e 10 clearly i n d i c a t e s t h a t on t he larger r e l a t i v e l y i m p o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t s of d r a g are
scale a p p e n d a g e s good e s t i m a t e s c a n be m a d e missing or n o t c o r r e c t l y calculated.

1.2
)- ,.... 1
Z
i,i PROPELLER 4214 (RH)
0
,7 I.C \ 0 PROPrLLE'R 4215 (LH)
%%
- - - - - CALCULATIED FOR INCLINED
i, FLOW
i,i
TEST n = ~:I.0 rp!~
g TEST Va=.~,O TO 12.0 fps
l
R e = 5 . 5 :( IO 5
0.8
o
hi
O
11:
O
U.
J
.J
IE
lIE
13
Re=5"Ix105 /
Z #,-
-g
0.4
hi /
rt-
O
/ .~ o
I--,
0.2
%
,/
"
/

ne
"1"
/
~- 0
0 O. 2 0,4 0.6 0.8 1.0 I. 2 1.4
SPEED COEFFICiENT,J
Fig. 2 5 Open-water propeller performance curves for Model 5048
Table 1 2
Given: x/R = 16
a/R = 1.5
Item Source Values
r/R 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 6.0
y/R Eq. (87) 0 1.00 1.32 2.00 2.60 3.71 5.82
C, a Fig. 9 --0. 160 --0.128 --0.113 --0.086 --0.06!) --0.048 --0.027
2 Fig. 10 3.19 3.65 3.93 4.53 5.04 5.88 7. i0
a Cp = R 2 [ ' x / R 2 1 2 1 ~ d
do
(;)
Appendix2 51)32. T h e results h a v e been a d d e d to t h e open-
w a t e r curves, Figs. 25 a n d 26, for t h e s e t w o sets of
Inclined Propeller Open-Water Calculations propellers to show t h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e c h a n g e in
T h e p r o c e d u r e for c a l c u l a t i n g t h e inclined open- p e r f o r m a n c e d u e to t h e i n c l i n a t i o n of t h e propeller
w a t e r t h r u s t , t o r q u e , a n d n o r m a l force is b a s e d to t h e flow.
u p o n A p p e n d i x I of reference [9]. T h e s a m p l e
c a l c u l a t i o n is m a d e for p r o p e l l e r s No. 4214- a n d 4215 Appendix 3
on M o d e l 5048; t h u s t h e angle of inclination,
= 12 deg. F r o m t h e o p e n - w a t e r curve, Fig. 25,
Induced Propeller Force Calculation
t h e following v a l u e s a p p l y for t h e a d v a n c e r a t i o
J = 1.05; KT = 0.146; dK~/dJ = - 0 . 4 8 4 ; KQ T h e c a l c u l a t i o n of the i n d u c e d p r o p e l l e r forces
= 0.0347; dKe/dY = --U.077. T h e inclined requires t h e use of Figs. 9 a n d 1(/and an integTation
p e r f o r m a n c e is c a l c u l a t e d in T a b l e 1 l. of t h e s e forces a n d m o m e n t s o v e r t h e p l a n i n g
T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s h a v e been c a r r i e d out for o t h e r surface. T o i l l u s t r a t e t h e procedure, a s a m p l e
values of J for these propellers a n d for e = 11 c a l c u l a t i o n is i n c l u d e d for t h e s u c t i o n forces for
deg on p r o p e l l e r s 4177 a n d 4175 u s e d on M o d e l M o d e l 5032 discussed in Section 6.

O,
0
0
L77 (mJ) - - o
;78 (Ltl) - -
5 to 12 fps
rps
1965
0
.,4 0.~
0
q.
0.;
Iq
[,z 0.'
0
0
-% 0
0.
0 0
,-4
0.~
Q
3 0.~!
I'D
o Q
r-I
0.:
0
Q
0.',
0.1
(
u v.a u..~ o.~ 0.6 0.7 0,8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
SPEED COEFFICIENT J
Fig. 26 Open-water propeller performance curves for Model 5032
~ 1 BEAM ~1
/, t
/ (
/ ^4/
/;/7
Y2 ~ Yl
o/R PROPELLER PLANE
"~,,..~ PROPELLER
a = NON-DIMENSIONAL NORMAL DISTANCE FROM PROPELLER

R CENTERLINE TO PLANNING SURFACE
_r = NON-DIMENSIONAL DISTANCE FROM PROPELLER CENTER-

R LINE TO ANY POINT IN PLANING SURFACE
y = NON-DIMENSIONAL TRANSVERSE ORDINATE ON PLANING

R SURFACE
y = N~,/ (r ~) r _ (1)
Fig. 27 Sketch of planing surface forward of propellers
Table 13 Fig. 27 shows t h e n o m e n c l a t u r e used a n d t h e

y/R (:,oa 2 SA{ f(Cp) .f(2, Cp) areas o v e r w h i ch t h e i n t e g r a t i o n is m ad e.
-- 3.05 0.058 5.40 1 --0.058 --0.814 T h e s u m m a t i o n of t h e n o r m a l i z e d suction
--2.10 0.083 4.60 4 --0.332 --1.528 forces along t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l axis of t h e b o a t for
--1.15 0.121 3.77 2 --0.242 --0.915
-0.20 0. 159 3.23 4 - - 0 . 6 3 { 3 --2.055 v a r i o u s t r a n s v e r s e positions are t a b u l a t e d in
+0 . 7 5 0. 139 3.48 '2 --0.278 --0.968 T a b l e 12. T h e s e d a t a are o b t a i n e d f r o m Figs.
+ 1.70 O. 098 4.25 4 --0.392 --1.665 9 an d 10 in S ect i o n 3. T h e Lransverse position is
+2.65 0.067 5.08 2 --0.134 --0.680
+3.60 O. 049 5.80 4 --0.196 -1.138 d e t e r m i n e d b y e q u a t i o n (37) f r o m t h e s a m e section
+4.55 0.037 6.40 '2 --0.074 --0.474 of t h e paper.
+ 5.50 O. 030 6.92 4 --0.120 --0.830 T h e results f r o m T a b l e 12 are p l o t t e d in Fig.
+6 . 4 5 0.023 7.37 1 --0.023 --0.170
Summatioll --2.485 --10.737 2S. T h e b e a m of t h e boat, y~Lto Y2, is d i v i d e d i n t o
a u n i f o r m n u m b e r of spaces, in this case, 10, so
t h a t an i n t e g r a t i o n m a y be p e r f o r m e d using
S i m p s o n ' s Rule. [n T a b l e 13 t h e i n t e g r a t i o n has
been p e r f o r m e d an d t h e c e n t r o i d of t h e forces
c.v/ = 5 x x ~f(c,) = 5 determined.
33.43
X - - X --2.485 = --0.793 Finally:
10 X 3.5
2 _ Ef(2, Cp) --10.737 C~-~ = No. of propellers X 2 X C'N~ = 2 X
4.32
R EfCp -2.485 2 X --0.793 = - - 3 . 1 7 2

j
Locatlon of Centerllne
0.18
PPessuPe Coefficient
0.16
.iJ
4- 3.14
f
/
\
/ r\ /
./
./
/
J
f
0.12 :m
N
/ ~0
0.i0
XR -16.0~ c-i
~q
R
4
/ N
/ \ 0 . OP
/ \ 0.06
2 / __Lx.2.0
""~-- 0.04
R
~ --
_ __
i / / _2~_- /- ~
k O. 02
0
-2 -I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0
Y2
I
PrVpeller
y/R
Yl
Fig. 28 Plot of transverse distribution of propeller suction and pressure forces on bottom of Model
5032 propeller position No. 2
3.5 C.~ = L C G - - d i s t a n c e p r o p e l l e r s are f o r w a r d of

C e n t e r of a p p l i c a t i o n = ( R ) R = 4.32 X -
12 t r a n s o m + c e n t e r of a p p l i c a t i o n of suction forces
f o r w a r d of propeller
= 1.26 ft fwd of propeller = 3.85 -- (0.57 + 1.26) = 2 . 0 2 f t
Discussion
Capt. S. R. Heller, USN, Member: This paper is a b u t a first step. I n a d d i t i o n to being p l e a s e d
veritable milestone in the study of the hydrody- w i t h t h e a u t h o r ' s p i o n e e r i n g effort, I a m o v e r j o y e d
namics of planing hulls. It is, to m y knowledge, to find in his conclusions t h e s t a t e m e n t : " I n
the first real effort to provide a means of predict- optimizing the design of high-performance planing
ing power requirements for a planing craft, al- craft the whole hydrodynamic system nu~st be con-
though there is a storehouse of work devoted to sidered" (italics his). All too often heretofore.
predicting resistance of such craft. As such, it r a n k i n g s h a v e been m a d e on t h e basis of one a s p e c t
fills a gap of long standing. o n l y ; rarely, if ever, h a s t h e t o t a l p a c k a g e b e e n
As Mr. Hadler rightly recognizes, his paper is governing.

Fig. 29 (Courtesy Jack Knights)
As gratifying as this paper is to me, it is dis- ning propeller. While the addition of the ap-
couraging to find t h a t the author must seek cor- pendages certainly accounted for some of the trim
relation with model experiments only. Surely, change, by far the major factor proved to be the
the real proof of validity is by comparison with influence of the propeller. In fact, although the
full-scale trials. There is currently underway a propeller could not scale so far as cavitation num-
vigorous effort to establish, as a field division of the ber is concerned, b y providing the necessary thrust
N a v a l Ship Engineering Center, a Boat Engineer- we found a good-enough qualitative answer to let
ing Center, one function of which will be to conduct us kngw we were on the right track.
standardization trials to obtain the needed full- By taking certain measures, which included the
scale data. provision of plates or "fences" a b o u t halfway
I am encouraged t h a t Mr. Hadler and his as- down the rudders, having an angle of attack to the
sociates at D T M B will continue their efforts to flow such t h a t a downward force was developed
extend this first step. I urge them to include the through the stock, the running trim was to a large
effects of deviations from prismatic forms, to extent corrected. Finally, instead of a flat cavi-
characterize the commercially available stock tation plate being provided at the transom, we
propellers, and to inquire into rough-water ef- fitted a cambered plate of greater chord with a
fects. Indeed, I anxiously await a steady stream profile approaching the upper or suction side of
of papers refining and extending power prediction an airfoil. In this case the suction side was on the
schemes for planing craft. underside in contact with the water, which quite
transformed the trim and handling qualities of the
Peter Du Cane, Member: This is a very interest- boat.
ing and well-timed paper, which certainly takes Sonic experimentation was necessary to obtain
our knowledge of the m a n y factors influencing the o p t i m u m shape and so avoid separation. T h e
performance of planing craft a considerable stage same can be achieved, to some extent, b y setting
further. a moveable flap up about 6 deg, provided the
A b o u t two years ago we discovered, somewhat chord is sufficiently large and there is no air leak
to our consternation, t h a t in the case of an 18-ft at the hinge. This particular boat is shown in Fig.
racing boat with 20 deg deadrise the trim was dras- 29 running in the 24-hour race at Rouen earlier
tically changed between tank testing and full- this year. Her top speed was in the region of 60
scale running. So much was this the ease t h a t it mph.
became necessary to take a number of steps to Of course, the interesting thing is to know the
improve the trim, which was initially too low for- extent to which cavitation alters the forces and
ward, leading to unpleasant behavior in turning distribution under the bottom of a fast planing
and following waves. hull. T h a t these craft are very sensitive to this
In making an investigation into the reason for aspect is shown by an experience we had with a
this change between model and full scale, the ap- " B r a v e " class Fast Patrol Boat fitted with three
pendages were first added and then an actual run- Bristol Sidde!ey Proteus gas turbines as main pro-

(a) Craft fitted with appendages
.... ~ ~ ~ : ,
! m'
(b) Craft with appendages removed

Fig. 30 Effect on draft of removing appendages (displacement = 5 tons; trim fixed;
LCG = 28 percent L; speed = 50 knots) (courtesy Westland Aircraft Ltd.)
pulsion units. In an effort to reduce vibration in bonus due to the reduced wetted surface in the
the aft peak, three 5-bladed propellers were fitted model fitted with appendages.
in lieu of the original 3-bladed propellers. Taking account of the foregoing it m u s t be ques-
In each cake they were in the fully cavitating tionable as to whether any value can be placed
regime at high speed but, whereas with S-blade on a naked-hull model test, at least in this speed
propellers 53 knots could be reached quite com- range, which was high (V/-v/L ~ 10). At these
fortably, when the 5-blade propellers were fitted speeds it is also clear t h a t the spray strakes, when
the trim above about 48 knots was markedly re- associated with considerable deadrise, are effec-
duced and the stability of the boat became un- tive in reducing resistance. Removal of the spray
satisfactory. This might have been due to a dif- strakes only, leaving the appendages in situ, in-
ference in the pressure field and vertical forces volved 25 percent more resistance, though this
under the b o t t o m caused by different propeller result would probably not have been achieved at a
characteristics. point lower in the speed scale or with less dead-
In another case of an aluminum boat, built rise. I t has to be pointed out that, although
specially for the Daily Express Offshore Powerboat shafts and struts were fitted, the propellers were
Race Cowes-Torquay, we had carried out, at the not actually providing thrust. This could well
Westland T a n k in East Cowes, England, the most have influenced the situation somewhat so far as
exhaustive series of tank tests we have yet con- trim is concerned, as is made clear in the author's
ducted, including the test of three models of hulls paper under the headings " I n d u c e d Propeller
which had performed well in past races of this Forces on Hull" and "Propeller Performance in
sort. Inclined Flow."
Fig. 30 shows the rather extraordinary result As stated by the author, there are m a n y ques-
of running the model with and without append- tions requiring further investigation, especially
ages. Although there m u s t be a considerable regarding performance estimation and the example
given in the foregoing, where the demonstration
appendage drag, yet the total resistance in this
t h a t naked-hull model resistance is greater t h a n
case was less than for the naked huIl. T h e photo
with the appendages must give food for thought.
shows this clearly, as the model with appendages However, the paper is of great value and interest
fitted is running much more cleanly with less spray, to those working in the planing field. I n m a n y re-
which m u s t indicate t h a t the appendages, at least spects a new outlook seems to be required, es-
in this case, are providing an overall lift without pecially in relation to the propeller-induced forces
any noticeable trim change. There is also a on the bottom.
604 The Prediction of Power Performance o n Planing Craft

,_o--117 /
ASSUMED NORMAL
L0"O7, ----V---- PROBABLE CASE
~ L~ DEEP-VEE AND/OR
HIGH SPEED
D.~ == 5 0V ~ (G + AG)S
Fig. 32 Viscous drag of spray
D / = 1/~ py,,2 (C/ + &C:)S
Fig. 31 Viscous drag of hull liminary design studies except for its influence in
problem 2.
I t m a y be of some interest to mention t h a t since 2 In equation (48), the two hull frictional-drag
reading this paper we, at Vosper, have simulated forces are taken as eolinear. In actuality, the
the flat b o t t o m of a planing boat in way of the spray drag is parallel to qD, the angle between the
propellers in our cavitation tunnel. keel and spray edge measured in the plane of the
T h e propellers, which are of the fully cavitating bottom, and acts at approximately ~,~ rather than
type, were fitted at a realistic shaft angle and the /1~ the chine height, Fig. ,32. In other words,
local pressures on the b o t t o m were plotted. with a low, aft center-of-gravity location, the bow-
There is a clear indication t h a t once a substantial up pitching m o m e n t due to spray can be of the
a m o u n t of cavitation is developed on the back of same order of lna.gnitude as the bow-down hull
the blades the local pressure behind the propellers frictional-drag pitching m o m e n t by virtue of the
becomes negative and this effect increases with lever arms, resulting in an error of 15 percent or
speed beyond about 50 knots. I t is not found t h a t more in predicting the hull trim angle.
this effect is changed when the flow is horizontal, Certainly the study of appendages is long over-
but it has quite a marked effect on overall trim. due, as is the full-scale trials and correlation with
model tests of a prismatic planing hull. Perhaps
W. D. Bauman, 1~ Visitor: I t is frequently conceded the author will continue his model-theory correla-
t h a t planing doesn't begin until approximately 1(i tion studies into the 20 to 40-knot range and use a
knots, and the planing hull design-speed range is deadrise hull. T h e Swift hull is nearly prismatic,
20 to 40 knots. Bearing seaworthiness and other and some day one m a y be available long enough
considerations in mind, the typical high-speed for careful full-scale trials, commensurate with the
planing hull is of deep-vee design. With that hull, details required for correlation with the Savitsky
there are at least two problem areas in predicting ehp prediction or this Hadler shp prediction
the bare hull ehp b y the Savitsky method t h a t method.
should be resolved before the refinements of this
present paper are relied upon. Prof. Daniel Savitsky, Member: I t is most satisfy-
1 In equation (7), the hull frictional drag is ing to those working in the "small-boat n a v y "
assumed as the algebraic sum of the hull wetted- to be currently witnessing what appears to be a
surface drag and the viscous component of the renaissance in hydrodynamic research studies
spray drag. I t is quite likely t h a t for the high- aimed directly at helping the smaU-boat designer.
speed or deep-vee hull (particularly one with a For m a n y years the planing craft has been a sec-
d r y chine) the hull wetted-surface drag does not ond cousin to the "large-ship n a v y " and received
act parallel to the keel, Fig. 31. This postulated most of its technical nonrisbment as spillovers
problem might he ignored in parametric or pre- from the substantial hydrodynamic research
studies of the take-off and landing problems of
~ Department of the Navy, Naval Ship Engineering water-based aircraft. Mr. Hadler's paper is an
Center (C6421), Washington, D.C. excellent example of planing hull research aimed

directly towards helping the small-boat designer. formance in inclined flow is not very satisfactory.
Studies of appendage drag and propeller inter- This is especially so since the propellers and their
ference effects as developed by Mr. Hadler are effects have such an i m p o r t a n t influence on the
most i m p o r t a n t contributions to the development outcome of the analytical results. T h e magnitude
of methods for o p t i m u m hull design. Certainly of the empirical factor C in equation (22) which is
work of this nature m u s t continue to be done, and necessary to bring analytic and experimental re-
so it is reassuring to learn t h a t the author plans sults into line is a clear indication of a m a j o r
to continue studies in this area. deficiency. The consequence of shaft inclination
I should like to briefly c o m m e n t on Mr. Hadler's is increasing variations of flow angle as :
concern with the adequacy of the empirical lift,
(a) advance coefficient J increases
drag, and center of pressure equations for the hull
(b) radial position r decreases
at low trim angles. Apparently in testing his
model 5048 (9 deg deadrise) the predicted resist- Although preliminary prediction procedures should
ance at trim angles less than 3.5 deg was larger be of minimum complexity, the use of a represent-
than the measured values. I would suggest that ative radius r = 0.7R might not be pernfissible.
a possible area of doubt is the spray drag contribu- However, it is doubted t h a t it will be necessary
tion at 1OuTtrim angles. In the October 1964 issue to go to the complexity of lifting-surface theory,
of Marine Technology I cautioned against using as suggested in the conclusions. Proper adap-
the spray drag increment contained in Fig. 6 of tion of lifting-line theory should prove adequate
Mr. Hadler's paper at such low trim angles since for propeller performance.
the development of these curves is based mainly on I t is pointed out t h a t equations (23) and (24)
data obtained at higher trim angles. T h e reason actually represent the average force per blade of
for this caution was that, at very low trim angles, all the blades when the identification blade is at
the spray sheet becomes very thin so t h a t the as- position ~. Hence, it would be more straight-
sumed friction coefficient (based on Reynolds forward to omit equations (27) and (28), and
number of the pressure area) is probably too high. modify other relevant equations accordingly.
In line with the recommendations contained in In dealing with induced propeller forces, it
21/[arine Technology, it would certainly be of in- is stated t h a t the field velocities are a function of
terest to recompute the resistance of model 5048 loading and advance ratio. However, Figs. 8, 9,
at trim angles less than 3.5 deg, omitting the spray 10, and 11 do not include advance-ratio depend-
contribution to drag. ence.
The agreement between measured and computed In dealing with propeller augmented and induced
low trim resistance for model 5032 (0 deg dead- rudder drag, a nominal r = 0.6R is used in equa-
rise), where because of the orientation of the stag- tion (40) for propeller-induced tangential veloc-
nation line there is no spray drag formulation, is ity within the slipstream. Would the author
perhaps some evidence t h a t the spray component state why he departed from using r = 0.7R
of drag at low trim angles is not y e t thoroughly in this sole instance? Also, should not equation
understood. Perhaps additional detailed studies (45) include axial velocity u, i.e.
can be made of this drag component. D r = l p S ( V -~- ~t --[- 7~))2CDr - - l p S I Z 2 C D
G. G. Cox] 2 Visitor: Tile author has produced E. P. Clement, Member: The quantitative infor-
a paper of m u c h practical interest for those con- mation provided in this paper regarding the forces
cerned with planing craft, and the detailed de- and moments on planing hulls from the appendages
scription of analysis procedure and comparison and propellers is very interesting and illuminat-
with experiment enhances its value. The general ing. Also, the author makes a persuasive case
approach used should stimulate similar efforts for the point t h a t these forces and moments must
for other types of craft which pose special con- be taken into consideration if the required horse-
siderations. T h e essential importance of the power for a particular planing boat design is to be
author's approach is the relative ease with which minimized. The author stresses the importance
future improvements can be incorporated for of trim angle in his discussion concerning opti-
individual aspects of the problem, without dis- mization of the system as a whole. This suggests
turbing the analytical framework. t h a t what would be needed for m a n y applications
As inferred b y the conclusions, the use of would be an adjustable means of trim control.
Gutsche's analysis procedure for propeller per- One reason is t h a t m a n y planing boats are subject
to relatively wide ranges of loading conditions and
~2Adnfiralty Experiment Works, Haskm, Gosport, L C G locations during their normal usage. Such
Hants, England. changes can be expected to produce even larger
606 The Prediction o f Power Performance on Planing Craft

-..~-Range of d (v)---,,,--
i 1%S
-,. 0n
.
KT
KT( )
Water Curve
'
[ tan a =

dd
I
I
I
d(v)
d
Fig. 3 3
changes in trim angle and in overall performance position v in ten:as of KT(u) which is defined as
than would result from different appendage and the (total) thrust coefficient al cmudar position u.
propulsion arrangements. Therefore, although the The Kr(v) thus de.fined is really based oi1 a "loose"
appendage and propulsion arrangement could be quasi-steady concept, treating all the blades the
optimized for a particular condition of loading same as the reference blade at v, whiehis not totally
and L C G location, it is doubted t h a t this would correct. Its application here is rather confusing be-
remain the o p t i m u m for other loading conditions. cause we have no way of obtaining this information
An adjustable method of trim control could be except through analytical means. But this would
utilized, however, to attain the best running trim have been an unnece.ssary step because any
for different loading conditions, and also for dif- analytical method (quasi-steady or unsteady)
ferent speeds and different weather conditions. would give directly the estimated thrust. The
T h e relatively simple device of transom flaps will Kr(v), from its actual usage in the Appendixes,
go a long way toward providing such control over should be defined as the thrust coefficient from
trim. the open-water characteristic curve evaluated at
As a further development of this thought, not a an equivalent J(v) which is defined as J(v) =
few high-speed planing boats have shown the Vu/n(,)D.
need not only for trim control, but also for roll As the propeller rotates, J(~) takes on different
(or aileron) control. This case usually arises values as shown in Fig. 33.
when the propellers of a high-speed boat turn in If we start with this definition of Kr(v), then
the same direction and the resultant torque reac- the total thrust a~: an inclined flow is
tion produces a consistent heel of the boat. Cor- 7'.(v,) = pn"(v)D4Kr(u)
rective rudder is then needed in order to maintain
a straight course, and the boat accordingly makes Disk-mean thrust
its way in a heeled, yawed attitude, with the
1 ~
rudder(s) at an angle to the flow and with signif-
icantly increased resistance. T h e single remedy
for both undesirable heel angle and nonoptimum Disk-mean thrust ratio
trim angle would be a pair of transom flaps which
could be adjusted independently. ]'. 1 "'[n(nv)_]~Kr(v)
7~0 -- 2:r ~ dv
H. M. Cheng, Member: M y comments are con- which is a function of J and e, and is the same as
fined to the propeller force calculation method. equation (29) of the paper.
1 Equation (23) of the paper 2 Appendix 2 (Table 11) also outlines a nu-
merical procedure for the evaluation of the fore-
T.(u) = pn2(v)D 4[K,,(v)/Z]
going i n t e g r a l i.e., approximating the integral
expresses the thrust on each blade at an angular by a finite sum of three angular positions as sug-

gested b y Dr. Gutsche. This is not necessary J dKq
because the integration can be evaluated analyti- K4 = 1
KQ dJ
cally. Substituting the expressions developed
in the paper into the foregoing equation we get: K5 --
J dK~ OS~
KQ dJ
ToT' 127r 2~ [~]2 3 In equation (22) an empirical constant C is
introduced. A value of two for this constant is
used b y the author as suggested by Dr. Gntsche
x
in his work. I would like to offer a word of cau-
tion here because the value of this constant is af-
For a given problem, all quantities except n(v),
fected b y the propeller characteristics. A value
which is a function of v, are constants and they
suited for one propeller m a y not be adequate for
m a y be factored out of the integral. Using equa- others.
tion (22) for n(v)/n and carrying out the integra-
Since the calculation method presented by the
tion we obtain
author was based on Dr. Gutsche's work [8],
T. 1 the foregoing discussion m a y be considered as an
- [K,0 + K~V2) + 2~Kd indirect c o m m e n t on t h a t paper.
To 2~
where
Ralph Norrby,13Visitor: The papers so far writ-
ten on propulsion for planing craft usually
J dKr attack the problems with statistics from model
K~ = 1 tests or full-scale observations. Further, there
KT dJ
are a number of data from resistance tests with
J dKr planing craft. However, this material is of com-
Ko - cose
KT dJ paratively minor value to the designer as long as
a thorough propulsion analysis is lacking for this
J.C t y p e of craft. Thus Mr. Hadler's paper is of con-
Ka = ~ sine
siderable interest to the designer. In this con-
nection we would like to contribute to the dis-
and they are functions of J and e. Similar de-
cussion b y giving views and operating experience
velopments m a y be m a d e for the torque.
on propellers for high-speed craft.
T h e torque force m a y be expressed as follows:
There is a considerable number of planing craft
which have not achieved the propulsion perform-
F(v) - O,(v) _ 1 pn2(v)DSKe(v )
0.7R 0.7R ance foreseen by the designer. This might result
in, for instance, too low speed, erosion, and vibra-
where KQ(V') has the same meaning as the Kr(v). tions.
The disk-mean of vertical component of the torque T h e low speed m a y be due to the fact that the
force F, is then propeller pitch is too low or too high in relation to
1 " the design condition, so t h a t full power cannot
o. F(v)sinvdv be attained from the propulsion machinery. This
problem does not arise with a controllable-pitch
Define a force coefficient propeller (CPP), in which case the required pitch
can always be set.
KF a --
pn2D 4 T h e blade erosion due to cavitation can be
rather serious from the strength point of view.
Substituting P, in the foregoing definition, and There are propellers for high-speed craft which
simplifying, we obtain have had to be changed after only 5-10 hr run-
ning due to risk of blade failure from erosion.
Kr" - KQ {K4 2~ [ ~ - 1 2 The conditions can be improved by increasing the
manufacturing accuracy, especially on the leading
edge, combined with a possible local change of the
q- K5 2~ [ ~ - ~ ] sinvdv} blade sections there. A propeller of the super-
cavitating type is much less likely to erode than a
wide-bladed propeller. The blade material will
Ko (2K4 + Ks)Ka
0.7
laTechnical Manager, Aktiebolaget Karlstads Meka-
where niska Werkstad, Kristinehamn, Sweden.

have a high Brinell value and, therefore, it is on the drag of the shafts is given by the factor of
suitable to choose Stainless steel or, in exceptional augmentation ~5
cases, titanium.
Vibrations from the propellers can, for instance, ,,--E1 +
be caused by low balancing accuracy or too small
a clearance between blade tips and hull. Propel- which results in the tested model only by a percent-
lers with a high rpm should be dynamically bal- age of 3 percent. Notwithstanding the fact that
anced. this special result is in accordance with the build-
Propellers on high-speed craft usually work in ing practice of today, I would prefer to add the
an inclined flow due to the shaft inclination. factor a to equation (12) of the report and to sub-
We test such propellers in our cavitation tunnel stitute the usual surface friction factor C: with
on an inclined shaft dynamometer. Propellers the special friction factor C:' = a.. C:.
with shaft inclinations up to 15 deg can be tested Regarding the unknown future development
in 2.5-deg stages. These tests are valuable, as using supercavitating propellers with higher fac-
the blade cavitation pattern changes with the tors a, the influence of the circumferential velocity
blade position in the propeller disk. on the shaft drag may be augmented to a m u c h
For ten years we have designed C P P ' s of the higher percentage of the total drag and therefore
supercavitating type and delivered 39 such pro- it seems to me worthwhile to eliminate this small
pellers. At the moment we have another 1S on source of inaccuracy from the reported well-
order. For all these propellers, stainless steel has rounded method of calculating the mauy elements
been used; the majority have now been working of the whole resistance.
for around four years. The speeds are between To determine the influence of oblique flow on
40 and 50 knots; the craft displacements vary be- the performance of the propeller, I recommend
tween 15 and 200 tons. The power per shaft preferably the use of the charts in Figs. 19 through
is between 2000 and 4000 hp and the revolutions 22 instead of the somewhat cumbersome method of
are between 900 and 2000 per minute. The shaft Appendix 1 of my own report [8] outlined by the
inclinations are from 5-10 deg. No erosion or author in Appendix 2 of his, report. The inter-
corrosion has been observed. Well-designed and polation within the limits of the tested propeller
accurately manufactured propellers of this type parameters (0.5 <: P / D < 1.5; .-]D/Ao = 0.35
will usually have a low vibration and noise level. and 0.80) m a y help to dimirlish the numerical
As an example, we m a y mention observations work of the determination.
from a trial trip which was recently carried out
with a high-speed craft with three propellers. A,Jthor's Closure
The power per shaft is 4000 hp, the propeller revo-
lutions 1450/min and the shaft inclination 10 deg. The discussers have made my task quite easy,
In the whole speed range the boat worked very as their points are either complimentary or sup-
s m o o t h l y - - t h e propeller vibration and noise level plementary to this work. The latter have added
were so low that the crew in a jocular vein asked significantly to the value of the material in this
whether there were no propellers on the boat. paper.
The comments of Commander Du Cane, which
Dr. -Ing. Fritz Gutsche) 4 Visitor: The spectacular are so rich with experience, along with those of
information given by the author on the weight Mr. Clement bring forth the. importance of trim
of the various elements of the resistance shows upon performance. I t is thiis planing-boat char-
that the influence of the appendages m a y be cal- acteristic which makes the prediction of per-
culated in a similar manner as the resistance of the formance more difficult than that of the displace-
hull itself. By a special test it was found that the ment hull and makes it so important to treat the
drag of the appended hull with rotating shafts whole hydrodynamic system if good performance
within the limits of experimental error was the is to be achieved.
same as that without rotation of the shafts. This leads to the desire to control trim through-
This result is not surprising at all, because of out the speed range by using such devices as trim
the fact that the relation of circumferential ve- tabs to obtain better performance. Analytic
locity of the shaft surface DTrn and the speed of work should be undertaken to determine the lift
advance v in the quoted instances show only the of flaps which, in conjunction with the methods
numerical figure D 7rn/v ~ O. 25.
The influence of the circumferential velocity
15F. Gutsche, "Einwirkung dec Rauhigkeit an Schiffs-
sehrauben auf Leistungsaufnahme und Wirkungsgrad,"
H 1254 Sch6neiche b. Berlin, Ernst Th/ilmann-Str. 55. (Anhang 3) Sehiffbauforsehung 2 Jahrg, 1963, Nr. 3, S.81.

in this paper, should be most effective in optimiz- effect of cavitation on performance. I t is hoped
ing designs for the best flap installation on planing t h a t fully eavitating propeller propulsion can
boats. also be treated for this type of craft. T h e com-
T h e interest and support of personnel such as ments of Mr. Cheng and l~r. Cox are similar in
Captain Heller and Mr. B a u m a n in the N a v a l nature since they suggest simplification of the
Ship Engineering Center are essential if progress equations used to arrive at the forces on a propel-
is to be made in this work. Possibly they could ler operating in inclined flow. As such, their
lend their assistance in obtaining full-scale trial comments are an indirect discussion of the work
boats for comprehensive testing. Mr. B a u m a n ' s of Dr. Gutsche [8]. Simplification developed b y
suggestion to consider the lift component from Mr. Cheng is recommended to those using the
the spray will be incorporated in future work. method in m y paper for predicting the perform-
This component, of course, is negligibly small with ance.
low-deadrise boats; however, it m a y be significant Mr. Cheng is currently conducting researeh on
when high-deadrise planing hulls are considered. propeller theory and will, I hope, eventually pro-
Mr. Savitsky's suggestion to reduce the magni- vide us with a more analytic and possibly more
tude of the spray drag at low trim angles does bring aecurate method for predicting these forces.
the calculated results into better agreement with Lifting line methods as suggested b y Mr. Cox m a y
the experimental results for Model 5048. How- be adequate. This will be known only after
ever, it is not sufficiently large enough to bring computations have been made with the m o s t com-
the higher speeds, i.e., over 17 knots, into as good plete mathematical models possible.
agreement as the results in the 14 to 17-knot range. Mr. Cox noted a lack of clarity where the state-
Need for more research on resistance, particularly m e n t is made t h a t the field velocity is a function of
at low trim angles, is apparent. T h e author has loading and advance ratio. T h e statement is
undertaken as an extension to this work the use of true if all field velocity components inside and
statistical methods to obtain better empirical outside the slipstream are considered. Specif-
equations for predicting the lift and the drag. ically, axial velocities both inside and outside the
But he would like to encourage more basic re- slipstream are a function only of the loading coef-
search into the phenomena of spray drag; wave ficient, Ct, as shown in Figs. S-11. Tangential
drag, particularly in the h u m p region; a~d the velocity components outside the slipstream are
prediction of the buoyant lift. Analytic work zero, while inside the slipstream they are a func-
should also be extended to other forms of boat tion of both loading and advance ratio.
geometry such as the cathedral and stepped hulls. Mr. Cox also questioned the use of velocity
Dr. Gutsche recommends the addition of the components at the 0.6 radius in estimating the
rotational component to the shaft drag estimate. rudder drag augmentation due to the propeller.
This is quite small for the average-size shaft The choice of the 0.6 radius is, of course, arbitrary.
employed; however, the addition of this term will Numerical averages of values in tangential veloci-
assure t h a t it is not omitted when the shaft is ties from the root to the tip of typical propellers
quite large, and it conceivably could be significant. indicated the choice of 0.6 radius might be more
The suggestion t h a t the propeller forces in inclined reasonable than the value at the 0.7 radius.
flow be obtained by interpolation rather than cal- Hence the arbitrary choice of the 0.6 radius in
culation can easily be accomplished if the user lieu of the 0.7 radius, which is standard for m o s t
has a copy of reference [8] available. propeller force calculations. Inclusion of the
Mr. N o r r b y ' s comments should assist the de- axial-induced velocity [equation (45)] should be
signer in determining the type of propeller for made. This is an error in the text of the paper;
these craft. The author is currently extending however, the calculations do have this factor in-
the methods of this paper to take into account the cluded.
61 0 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

Hadler J B.prediction of Power .1966.TRANS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hadler J B.prediction of Power .1966.TRANS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hadler J B.prediction of Power .1966.TRANS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Prediction of Power Performance

FOR the past forty years an extensive a m o u n t of

564 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

Forces on Planing Boat Self-Propulsion

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 565

WATER ~ ~....~ ~"'--"tz~---...._~ r-..-Is

Fig. 1 W a t e r l i n e i n t e r s e c t i o n for c o n s t a n t d e a d r i s e surface

566 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

0.04 7 8.50 14 18.23

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 567

568 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

~ - _...__~_.__ ~ ~ ~'----- ~'--'~-~ ~

VELOCITY COEFFICIENT, Cv = V//-g-b-

Fig. 4 C e n t e r of pressure of p l a n i n g surface

570 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

I00 _T: 40..,.,.---~ " ~ {

V o9o~ ,5o/ _ 15/

Fig. 6 Effective increase in friction area length-beam r a t i o (z~X) d u e to s p r a y c o n t r i b u t i o n to drag

applicability to a p p e n d a g e design and perform-

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 571

Rudder and Struts t

572 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

Reference [5], p. 5-6. 7 Reference [5], p. 8-10.

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 573

Fig. 7 Velocity diagram at 0.7 radius for propeller in inclined flow

574 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

~. _ 0.35-D2~ z ~ D~(v)d,, (26) This provides us with an equation comparable to

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 575

Aft x/R Fwd

xi~ I 1.4 r'

576 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

//~//C 7" /5.o

A /5. / ,..--" .i--/- ___.-<-----'__~__-~,.9

I n order to maintain the b o u n d a r y condition small percentage of the d y n a m i c pressure on the

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 577

578 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 579

Forces and Momen'l's on o Planing Surface

Appendage Forces and Moments on a Planing Hull

Propeller Forces and Moments on o Planing Hull

580 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

Line Quantity Source or equation 7" = 3.0 deg r = 4.0 drg

20 Df Ds = 0/2 c~S~i (Cs + ~Cs) x + AX 46. (/ 30.4

34 ehp ehp = R V/55(] 4.00

acting on a planing boat. T h e first s h o w s t h e A = (N + P'Na + r.N, + p . N v - - p . N , ) c o s ~-

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 581

582 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

4 Re Re = --Vl 8.37 X 10~ 8.37 X 10~

5 C] Schoenherr friction line 0. 00302 0. 00302

D~ rf,~ -b esin (r -k e) q- f c s r 7 -k r-N~(e, -- e)

also t a b u l a t e d in A p p e n d i x 2 of this paper. T h i s 5 Correlationwith Model Experiments

The Prediction o f Power Performance on Planing Craft 583

Table 3 Propulsion Calculation

584 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

Fig. 15 Inboard profile of Model 5032

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 585

Fig. 17 Predicted and experimental results of resist.

Fig. 16 V i e w of Model 5032 with appendages

m e c h a n i c a l limits, as t h e hull rises a n d changes LCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.5in. or 0.04 ft

A /5. / ,..--" .i--/- _.-<-----'~__-~,.9