I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.
Taking the mystery out of speed predictions.
Alan Gilbert. [1]
Introduction
One of the most important design
parameters for a yacht is speed, especially a
motor yacht. Failing to make speed can be
a disappointment to the owner, and it very
definitely reflects negatively on our
profession. The worst scenario result is an
owner so thoroughly disgusted with his yacht
that he drops out of yachting, replacing his
mega-yacht with a villa in Southern France.
Thus denying everyone in the industry
potential future work.
As an independent naval architect, in
addition to my own projects, I have been
often called upon by owners, other naval
architects to determine why a yacht did not
make speed. These opportunities provide a
perspective on how others deal with the
question of speed. Too often I find the
reason for not making the contract speed is
because basic mistakes were made during
the design/construction process. While
nobody is immune to errors, there are
several things, which can be done to
minimize the possibility of a mistake.
The laws of motion have not changed since
Sir Isaac Newton. It takes so much force to
propel a mass (yacht), at a given velocity
(knots). While there have been
breakthrough hull forms (multi-hulls,
SWATH, etc.) nobody is “pulling rabbits out
of hats.” If the vessel weighs so much, and
you want to go so fast, you need a certain
amount of horsepower, and no less.
Reliable speed predictions can be obtained
with careful and thorough engineering. It is
just as important to be realistic. If something
sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
The major elements that go into reliable
speed predictions are:
1. Weight, and Centers
2. Displacement
3. Resistance data
[1] Principal of Yacht Design/Naval Architecture
Consulting Services
Taking the mystery out of speed predictions.
4. Prime mover horsepower (engines)
5. Propulsor (propellers, water jets, etc.)
6. Assimilation of Data
While this list is obvious to many, it’s
amazing how often one or more are not
properly accounted for. Like a chain, the
results are only as good as the weakest link.
Weights and centers
The weight and centers of gravity of a vessel
influence many aspects of the design, of
which speed is one. Traditionally, the design
spiral begins with approximations, and as
the design process progresses, it is refined
with ever increasing precision.
The first approximation is often based on a
similar parent vessel, with its data being
adjusted based on some coefficients. Cubic
number, which is the product of an indicative
length, beam and hull depth, is often used.
The area of inhabited spaces is another
useful coefficient. Where the hull scantling
material differ, adjustments should be made.
For example, we find that a steel hull can be
two to three times heavier than an aluminum
hull. These multipliers depend in great part
on the applicable regulatory agency (ABS,
Lloyd’s, BV, DNV, RINA, etc.), or if the
vessel must comply with MCA. If the parent
vessel has two decks and the new design
has 2 ½ decks (raised pilothouse) an
adjustment should be made. For the weight
of machinery, where the speed of the new
design is substantially different from the
parent, I have found the coefficient of
horsepower/weight of machinery, to be
useful.
Often one does not have the luxury of
reliable data on parent vessels, or wants to
augment their knowledge base. The
yachting publications are an excellent
resource for additional information. Their
design articles and sea trials often contain
summaries of the principal characteristics,
major equipment, and speed of the vessels.
This data, presented in graphical form, is
123
 I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.
useful in defining minimum and maximum
bands as well as trends. (Refer to Appendix,
Graph 1).
However, a great deal of care must be
exercised in using this information. The
actual weight and speed of a yacht are two
of the four biggest lies in our profession. For
example, if the weight quoted in the article is
accurate, the loading is often omitted (light
ship, half load, full load). This is significant
because the light ship and full load weights
can differ by as much as 25%. Similarly,
one must know the loading condition
commensurate with the quoted speed, and
is the speed at the maximum or continuous
horsepower rating of the prime mover?
For boats built in the Americas the difference
between imperial measures and metric
measures is another potential source of
errors. Even the use of the word ton can
create confusion. It could be a metric ton of
2204 lb., or long ton (marine ton) of 2240 lb.,
a 1.6% difference. If the marine professional
expresses the weight in short tons (land ton),
he is in the wrong business. Often a tonnage
figure is quoted, sometimes including the
adjective gross or net. This has absolutely
nothing to do with the weight of the vessel,
and should be totally disregarded.
The detailed weight and centers calculation
is the last and most precise estimating tool
available to the naval architect prior to
construction. To be of value, the weights
that comprise the vessel must be organized
in groups which are complete and logically
organized, to insure that everything is
accounted for, nor should there be
redundancy. I have found U.S. Navy weights
system developed by BuShips in the 1930’s
to be useful with some modifications, such
as under what group do you put the weight
of teak decks? Obviously, one can delete
any sections on depth charges, missiles, and
cannons. There are several weight systems
available; one is as good as another is.
Your weight system becomes increasingly
valuable as you increase the number of
designs that are based on it. Thereby
increasing your pool of quick references.
There is nothing magic about an accurate
weight estimate. It requires patience, time
and a great deal of care. I find starting from
scratch; the weight and centers estimate for
a mega-motor yacht typically takes between
6 and 8 man-weeks, including updates as
the construction progresses. If one is also
124 Taking the mystery out of speed predictions.
investigating ship motions, which requires
calculating the radius of gyration, this could
add another week.
The weight and centers estimate is a “real
time” calculation. Upon selection of the
builder, the plans should be reviewed to see
that the construction is consistent with the
yard’s practices, and the weight and centers
estimate should be revised accordingly.
During the course of construction changes
are inevitably, and these should be taken
into account on an ongoing basis.
Displacement
With the development of the personal
computer, there is no excuse for the yacht
designer to not undertake a complete set of
hydrostatic calculations over a range of
drafts, as well as at the calculated weights
and centers. There are several areas of
confusion related to this calculation.
When the weights and displacement
calculations are begun the treatment of hull
deductions (thruster tunnels, water jet
housings, etc.) should be decided, as added
weight or lost buoyancy, as these will impact
the flotation. When meeting with the builder
it would be a good time to agree on whether
the molded lines are to the outside of the
framing, as is typical for commercial vessels,
or outside the plating. For metal vessels this
difference is relatively small, but for
conventional wood or sandwich composite
construction it could account for a 10%
variation in the calculated displacement.
On launching day, the “moment of truth”,
flotation measurements should be taken,
along with measurements of the specific
gravity of the water. This could account for a
2.6% variation in the calculated
displacement. As an extreme example, if
flotation measurements were taken in the
Dead Sea, this could account for a 20%
variation. This care and attention to detail
provides an excellent verification of the
weight and centers calculation. Of equal
value, it results in reliable data, which can be
used for the next appropriate project.
Resistance
There are several reliable sources for hull
resistance data. For preliminary design
I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.
purposes, tank test results or full size speed
trial results from similar parent vessels can
be used. This information can be adjusted
according to the traditional hydrodynamic
methods, to account for frictional and
viscous drag.
Other readily available sources of drag data
comes from the various technical
organizations and publications. There have
been many systematic series based on tank
tests, for various generic hull forms (Series
63, NPL, SSPA, etc.). (Refer to Appendix,
Graph 2)
When using this data it is important to make
sure that your hull form is within the
“envelope” of the series. For example, does
your hull fall within the range of L/B ratios or
Froude numbers tested? Two other major
resistance contributors are appendage drag,
and wind resistance in the case of very high-
speed craft. There is no standard for how
each of the systematic series treats these
drag producers. Therefore, it is important
that the designer verify that these are
accounted for properly.
As the design becomes more refined it may
be necessary to undertake a tank test, for
the specific design. This can be a fairly
expensive and time consuming undertaking.
As such, its value to the overall project
should be discussed with the client. It has
been my experience that, unless the design
is particularly unusual or there is a strict
contract speed, a combination of in-house
data, experience, and/or existing data in the
public domain, is sufficient to predict speeds
within 5%.
Prime mover horsepower
Reliable speed predictions depend upon the
horsepower that is being delivered to the
propulsor. The brochure data provided by
the diesel, gasoline, or gas turbine engine
manufacturer is indicative. They cannot
anticipate every operating scenario and
condition. Therefore, it is important to
understand the basis of the published data,
and then make the necessary adjustments
for the particular application.
The regulations of the Society of Automotive
Engineers, SAE J1349, and the International
Standards Organization, ISO 3046/1 are the
publications which spell out the standard
Taking the mystery out of speed predictions.
conditions and assumptions for reciprocating
internal combustion engines. For example,
the published horsepower ratings are at the
following conditions (unless specified
otherwise);
Barometric pressure 29.61in. Hg
(100kPa)
o o
Air temperature 81 F (27 C)
o o
Sea water temperature 108 F (42 C)
Relative humidity 60%
The inlet combustion air pressure (positive
or negative pressure) also influences the
horsepower of an internal combustion
engine, particularly in the case of a turbo-
charged engine, as well as the exhaust back
pressure. The later is of particular concern
on sailing yachts where it is often necessary
to take circuitous and looped routes, in order
to prevent water from backing into the
engine while under sail.
Clearly the above standard conditions are
not typical of the Mediterranean, or
Caribbean where most yacht owners prefer
to spend their time. As an example a 1000
o
HP (746 KW) engine operating in 95 F
o
(35 C), and 80% humidity would produce
951 HP (709 KW), a 4.9% reduction.
Additionally, the published brake horsepower
(BHP) may or may not include essential
dependent and independent auxiliaries, such
as a raw water pump, engine battery
alternator, lube oil pump, gear box, etc. This
should be verified with the manufacturer.
Most yacht installations have other
auxiliaries, mounted on the engine, many of
which the manufacturer has no way of
anticipating, such as a second alternator, a
hydraulic pump for the windlass, bow
thruster, or stabilizer, etc. Additionally, there
are loses between the prime mover and the
propulsor. These often include the gearbox,
bearings, etc. This is all power, which is
diverted from the propulsor, and should be
accounted for. There are also two definitions
for the word horsepower. A metric
horsepower (PS) is 98.6% of an imperial
horsepower. A kilowatt is a kilowatt, so if you
want to avoid the difference between
imperial and metric horsepower, just express
everything in terms of kilowatts.
Beyond an understanding the type
horsepower and ambient conditions on
which the horsepower rating is based, the
manufacturers will often provide several
ratings for a given engine configuration.
125
 I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.
(Refer to Appendix, Table 1) The brochures
will also state the horsepower in terms of
maximum, maximum-intermittent, overload,
continuous, maximum-continuous, etc.
(Refer to Appendix, Table 2)
If this isn’t confusing, I don’t know what is.
Each of these describes a duty cycle for the
engine. For example, as stated in ISO
3036/1 “Unless otherwise stated, an
overload power of 110% of the continuous
power at a speed corresponding to the
engine application is permitted for a period
of 1 h, with as well as without interruptions,
within a period of 12 h of operation.”
It is therefore important to understand the
operating profile of the yacht: is it always
operating with the “pedal to the metal,” or
does it have one speed when the owner is
aboard and another speed when the crew is
making a delivery, etc.? Other important
pieces of information are the number hours
of use per year, at given powers, and the
desired hours between overhaul. Based on
this information, the manufacturer can
provide an appropriate rating for the engine.
Gas turbines are becoming increasingly
popular aboard yachts, usually in a CODOG
or CODAG configuration. They, like internal
combustion engines are rated at certain
standard conditions. For example;
Barometric pressure 29.61 in. Hg
(100kPa)
o o
Air temperature 59 F (15 C)
And, similar to an internal combustion
engine, the power output of a turbine is
affected by departures from the standard
conditions. For example a 1000 HP (746
o o
KW) turbine operating in 95 F (35 C) would
produce 812 HP, (606 KW), an 18.8%
reduction. Unlike a jet plane the turbine inlet
and exhaust air often takes circuitous routes
to and from the prime mover, thus creating
o o
pressure losses. At 95 F (35 C), an inlet
loss of 4 inches (100 mm) H2O, and exhaust
loss of 6 inches (150 mm) H2O, the turbine
delivers 787 HP (587KW), a 21.3%
reduction.
Fuel consumption is also affected by
ambient conditions, and attached auxiliaries.
If endurance range is an important design
consideration, this should be corrected as
well. In the case of fuel consumption, there
is a difference in the standards between
SAE and ISO. Therefore, special care
126 Taking the mystery out of speed predictions.
should be taken in comparing prime movers
based on these two different criteria.
Engine manufacturers will continue to
squeeze more horsepower out of engines
with new technologies. New types of
engines will inevitably be developed. The
Japanese have been experimenting with a
system of marine propulsion that is based on
maglev technology. In summary,
understand how the yacht will be used and
where it will be used, the manufacturers
assumed standard conditions and duty
cycle, and last, discuss your application with
the manufacturers marine applications
group.
Propulsor
Reliable speed predictions also depend
upon the thrust, torque, efficiency, and
cavitation characteristics of the propulsor.
Those most commonly used on yachts
include propellers, contra-rotating propellers,
surface-piercing propellers, and water jets.
Each type has unique operating
characteristics, and therefore, a unique
application. The optimum design
(engineering) of a given type propulsor is
beyond the scope of this presentation.
However, characteristic curves must be
used for the calculation of speed, and the
manufacturer should make this information
available. If the manufacture says it doesn’t
exist, then there is no basis for the
“wondrous” claims that are made.
In addition to manufacturer data, there are
numerous papers and standard series tests
in the public domain, on the performance
characteristics of various propulsors,
particularly for our oldest friend the propeller.
Standard series such as Gawn,
Wageningen, Troost, etc., have proven to be
very useful. When using standard series it is
important to understand what assumptions
have been made and if there are any
standard conditions. For example, have the
data been adjusted for salt water, as most
propeller open water tests are done in fresh
water? In the case of water jets it is
important to know if the thrust and wake
corrections have been included in the
characteristic curves. As with the prime
movers, it is also important to discuss the
application and results with the propulsor
manufacturer.
I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.

Assimilation of data CASE STUDY

Putting all these pieces together to arrive at
a speed prediction for a given configuration
can be a daunting task. This is made even
more arduous by the trade-off studies that
are typically required. There are the
captain’s and the client’s “What ifs?” What if
we use a different engine, or add a
centerline gas turbine, or use a surface-
piercing propeller instead of a water jet, etc.?
Should the propulsor be optimized at the
maximum or continuous rating of the prime
mover? In the case of a CODOG or
CODAG installation, what changeover
sequence will avoid overloading the
propulsor? For a multiple propulsor
installation, what combination of prime
movers and throttle settings will give the best
fuel efficiency?
To give some “life’ to this presentation I have
included a sample calculation which makes
use of the many concepts presented above.
In this particular case the displacement and
speed for a motor yacht which was built,
were estimated and compared to the “as
built” displacement and speed obtained
during the sea trials. This case study clearly
demonstrated that with some basic
preliminary dimensions and data, it is
possible to predict weight and speed with a
high degree of accuracy, during the
preliminary design. Thus providing a realistic
starting point for further revisions and
refinements as the design progresses.
(Refer to the Appendix, CASE STUDY)

The PC computer is ideally suited for the

calculation of these variations. The
calculating speed of the PC makes the
computation almost trivial to do, and it
requires very few man-hours making for a
cost-effective study

In order to use this particular spreadsheet

one must know the principle dimensions of
the vessel to calculate resistance, which was
previously discussed in this paper, and the
engine and propulsor characteristics
normally provided by the manufacturers. An
example spreadsheet can be found in the
Appendix. (Refer to Appendix, Spreadsheet
1)

It should be noted that the input is

highlighted, and the output (with white
background) is derived through links to the
engine and propulsor characteristic data,
and the yachts resistance curve, which is
derived from the principal characteristics, or
tank test results.

This example is for a CODAG or CODOG as

is evident from the input. Variations include
turning the engines on and off and vary the
number, gear ratios, speed, displacement,
etc. A myriad of scenarios can be quickly
evaluated.

In the case of a typical propeller installation

the spreadsheet can vary the proportions of
the propeller as well, including number of
blades, blade area ratio, diameter and pitch
and output efficiency, cavitation index, etc.
Clearly a very useful design tool.

Taking the mystery out of speed predictions. 127

I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.
Case study
To demonstrate the practicality of the
proposed design process, I decided to use
an existing MY yacht for which “as built”
flotation measurements were taken, and
speed trials run. A few years ago I worked
with Nuvolari/Lenard of Venice Italy, on a
200’ aluminum motor yacht built at Palmer
Johnson, and felt comfortable asking them
for information on a recent design with which
to illustrate the process.
Nuvolari/Lenard were kind enough to
provide a General Arrangement Plan, Body
Plan, information on the actual displacement
obtained from flotation measurements,
engine/gear and propeller characteristics,
and fuel oil and fresh water tank capacities
for the MOCHI AXIS, a composite
production yacht built in Italy. In addition,
they provided the sea trial maximum speed
including the loading of the yacht at the time
of the trials.
Preliminary weight estimate
In order to estimate the light ship weight of
the yacht only a few measurements were
needed, and those that were, are
established very early in the design process.
They include the following;
LOA Length Overall
LWL Length on the Water
Bmax Maximum Beam
Blwl Beam on the Waterline
D Canoe Body Depth
(measured from the main
deck at side to the bottom of
the canoe body amidships)
From these dimensions several useful
coefficients were calculated, as follows;
L The average of the LOA &
LWL for an indicative length
B The average of the Bmax &
Blwl for an indicative beam
LxB A measure of the yachts
“footprint” for an indicative
area
LxBxD A measure of the yachts
cubic known as the Cubic
Number
For the parent upon which the MOCHI
estimate was based, I selected a seven year
old design I worked on for which I had “as
built” weight information. Although
Taking the mystery out of speed predictions. (Case study).
substantially different in size, the yachts
were similar in that they are both planning
hulls, twin screw, with raised pilothouse and
flybridge. They differ in that the parent is
aluminum while the MOCHI is of composite
construction. (Refer to Appendix,
Spreadsheet 2)
For this exercise I used the weight/center
system used for many years by Sparkman &
Stephens. The weight of each group of the
parent yacht was divided by an appropriate
coefficient. In the case of Groups A, D, E, F,
G, H, and I, I decided to use Q the cubic
number as the divisor. However, I felt for
Groups B & C it would be more appropriate
to divide by L x B as a more accurate
measure of the extent of superstructure and
accommodations. Also, as the specific
engine choice was known for the MOCHI
AXIS being two Caterpillar 3412C diesel
engines, as a further refinement to the
estimating procedure, this specific
information was used. This was
accomplished by separating Group F into “F”
w/o engine and gear where Q was used, as
noted above, and “F1” where I used the
actual weight of the engine and gearbox
with some percentage allowances. These
weight to coefficient ratios were then
multiplied by the Q and L x B of the MOCHI
to arrive at a weight for each of the groups.
The sum of these groups results in the light
ship weight of the yacht.
In addition to the light ship weight there are
two other loading conditions that are often of
interest, being the yacht in the full load
condition, that is with 100% of all variable
weights aboard and the ½ load condition
with 50% of the consumables spent. In the
case of the MOCHI I knew the actual fuel oil
and fresh water capacities, and by counting
the number of berths I determined the
complement. The remaining items, such as
provisions/stores, cargo etc. are a function
of the number of people aboard.
In conclusion, the preliminary full load
weight of the MOCHI AXIS was estimated to
be 61.37 LT. Nuvolari/Lenard reported that
the actual full load displacement was 57.07
LT, which means the preliminary estimate
was 7.5% more than the actual.
Not bad for the starting point of the design
process! Keep in mind that the weights will
be further refined as the design progresses,
and less than two hours were needed to
131
 I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.
arrive at this preliminary result for the
displacement.
Had I been interested in a preliminary
determination of the LCG and/or VCG of the
MOCHI at this time, a similar approach
based on a parent design could have been
used. I normally locate the centers for each
weight group of the parent on its inboard
profile. In the case of the LCG I then see if
differences in equipment or arrangements
would cause a longitudinal shift in weight
between the parent and the preliminary
design. For example, an aft versus midship
engine room would change the LCG of
Group F. I then, based on judgment, assign
an LCG to the preliminary design. The VCG
is handled in much the same way, but in this
case differences in canoe body depth,
number of decks, and sole heights relative
to the load waterline are the determining
factors in adjusting the VCG from the parent
to the preliminary design.
Preliminary resistance estimate
In order to predict the resistance of the
MOCHI AXIS, again a relatively few
measurements were needed which are
established, or can be estimated, very early
in the design process. Usually the client has
a speed requirement, and in the case of the
MOCHI I knew they wanted to have a
maximum speed of about 30 knots. As noted
in the body of this presentation there is
resistance data available on several
systematic series. Their applicability
depends on the speed-length ratio, that is
the speed in knots divided by the square
0.5
root of the waterline length in feet (V/L ),
and the displacement-length ratio, that is the
displacement in long tons (LT) divided by
one hundredth of the length in feet cubed
3
(∆/(LWL/100) ).
The MOCHI has a LWL of 59.55 feet and at
30 knots has a speed-length ratio equal to
3.89. Based on the estimated weight arrived
at above, the MOCHI has a full load
displacement of 61.37 LT (137469 lbs.). This
results in a displacement-length ratio of 291.
The graph of “Resistance Data – Systematic
Series” (Refer to Appendix, Graph 2) puts
the MOCHI at the limits of Series 63 and
NPL. Of these two standard series, I
decided to use Series 63, as the hull
sections are more similar to a yacht of the
MOCHI type than NPL. In addition, as a
132 Taking the mystery out of speed predictions. (Case study).
planning yacht, with flat prismatic sections,
and constant deadrise, the resistance
prediction methods developed by Dr. Daniel
Savitsky have proven to be useful.
Therefore both Series 63 and Savitsky’s
methods were used to estimate the
resistance of the MOCHI AXIS.
The input data needed to make a resistance
prediction based on the Series 63 series
consists of the LWL, Blwl, hull draft,
displacement, and the wetted surface if
known, otherwise Savitsky has a method for
approximating the wetted surface of the hull.
The input data needed for the Savitsky
prediction method is a little more extensive,
but if you have a parent hull or a preliminary
set of lines the data can be readily obtained.
In the case of the MOCHI, Nuvolari/Lenard
provided a body plan. The input data
consists of the LWL, maximum Blwl,
displacement, wetted surface, transom area,
maximum section area, deadrise angle,
waterline ½ entry angle, and LCG. The
prediction can be further refined with the
addition of the superstructure frontal area to
account for wind drag, and the geometry of
trim tabs, if installed, to account for their
effect on running trim.
The average of these prediction methods at
the “as built” displacement of 57.07 LT were
plotted on a graph of effective horsepower
(EHP bare hull) versus speed in knots (Vk).
As noted, these EHP’s are for a bare hull
and the resistance of such underwater
fixtures such as rudders, skegs, struts,
shafts, bossings, thru-hull scoops etc. must
be added to this. As this yacht is not fitted
with a skeg, I have found for the purposes of
a preliminary estimate an increase of 8% to
the bare hull EHP, for appendages on a twin
screw high speed craft, is appropriate. This
“appended” EHP is the horsepower that
comes off the propeller, and there are a lot
of losses between the back of the propeller
and the output flange of the engine, which
must be accounted for and can easily be
approximated.
Starting aft, a reasonably well designed
propeller should have an efficiency of about
68% at its design point. Frictional losses as
a result of the stuffing box, and shaft
bearings, in going along the shaft from the
propeller to the output flange of the gear
box, are about 2%, and the gear box losses
I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.

are about 3%. This gets us to the mating which to make preliminary selections of
flange of the engine, which is the brake engines, gear boxes, propellers, etc.
horsepower (BHP) output of the engine as
provided by the engine manufacturer with
standard auxiliary equipment, such as an
alternator, raw water pump etc. Therefore,
based on these approximations the required
BHP= EHP bare hull x 1.08/(0.98 x 0.97 x
0.68).

The MOCHI AXIS was fitted with two

Caterpillar 3412C diesel engines with a
maximum rating of 1350 BHP at 2300 RPM.
Based on the graph of BHP vs. Vk at 2700
HP, the resulting speed is 27.4 knots.
Nuvolari/Lenard advised that during the
builder’s sea trials a speed of 29.8 knots
was recorded at the maximum RPM of the
engines, in calm winds and seas.

This would suggest that the prediction

method under predicted the speed by 2.4
knots. However, being familiar with builder’s
trials, I requested confirmation of the loading
condition. As is often the case during sea
trials, when everyone is rushing to meet a
delivery, they do not have time to prepare
the yacht in the full load condition, which
was the basis for my speed prediction. In
fact, trials were undertaken at some
intermediate condition.

Nuvolari/Lenard subsequently reported that

fuel oil was at 50% capacity, fresh water at
20%, twelve workers with tools were aboard,
0% provisions/stores/effects, and the tender
was not aboard at the time. Referring back
to the PRELIMINARY WEIGHT ANALYSIS
Spreadsheet, I built on the light ship
displacement by adding appropriate values
for these weights, and subtracted the weight
of the missing tender. This resulted in a sea
trial displacement of 52.1 LT. I then
recalculated EHPs based on Series 63 and
Savitsky and applied the same values for
losses and efficiencies to arrive at a BHP. At
the builder’s trial displacement, and at the
maximum RPM of the engines, the
calculations predicted a speed of 29.9 knots
as compared to the 29.8 knots reported.

As was the case with the preliminary weight

estimate, the preliminary resistance estimate
is refined as the design progresses.

However, the above again demonstrates

that in a relatively short amount of time one
can obtain reasonably good estimates on

Taking the mystery out of speed predictions. (Case study). 133

 I Simposio Internacional de diseño y producción de yates de motor y vela.
I International Symposium on yacht design and production.

134 Taking the mystery out of speed predictions. (Case study).