THE

SEAWORTHINESS PROBL4

IN

HIGH -SPgED SMALL CRM2

BY

Seabury C. McGown

A paper for presentation at the January 21., 1961 meeting of

the New York Metropolitan Section of the Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers.

herein are the

The opinions or assertions contained
are not to be construed.
private ones or the writer and.views of the Navy
as official or reflecting the large.
Department or the naval service at
 The Seaworthiness Problem
in High-Speed Smfl Craft

Abstract

One of the most challenging areas in small craft design today is

1.uiprovement of seaworthiness at high speed. Types of hull forms adapted
for the optimum combination of high speed and good rough water performance
at high speeds are discussed. The merits and limitations of the "round
bottom form" and. the hard chine forni" are compared. It is contended that
for speed/length ratios up to the range of 3.5 the "slender" round bilged
form is generally superior providing the necessary speed potential with
good seaworthiness. For speed/lçngth ratios in excess of -.O the hard
chine boat is favored for its lower resistance characteristics at these high
speeds. The limited seaworthiness of the hard chine boats at high speed in
rough water is discussed and an analysis is made of the features of these
craft which contribute to good and poor rough water performance. The lack
of systematic comparative test data, either model or full scale, to clarify
the effect of various features of hull form on behavior prohibits concrete
conclusions, however a critique is niade of a number of high speed designs
providing a background for further scientific investigation.

A. Seaworthiness of High-Speed all Craft.

1. Introduction.

Seaworthiness is the quality of a boat which allows it to perform its

design task under adverse weather conditions with reasonable comfort and.
safety. As used here it includes seakeeping and. seakindliness.

Great efforts have been made in the area of developing high-speed

sm1 i craft. As a result many craft capable of very high speeds in caam
water bave been developed. However Rh to)frequently rough water per-
formance and. maneuverability have not been given sufficient consideration
and the resulting craft have suffered to varying degrees from limYced
seaworthiness.

The ship designer and to a lesser extent the boat designer has been
aided in recent years by model basin testing. However for the most part
this has only contributed to improvements in smooth water resistance. The
improvements thüs made are helpful allowing either greater speed or a
reduction in the power required. Some work has been done in model basins
to assess seaworthiness of small craft in rough water. It is expensive
and to date very little has been done. Although it will probably
eventnhly have a great influence on small craft design it has not yet
become a significant factor. This has left the problems of seakeeping and
seaworthiness to be resolved for the most part by analysis of rough water
trials of full scale craft. This has the major drawback of beIng slow and.
in general not systematic. Very few custcrs wish to risk their money on

¡
novel hifll forms and. the desier is forced to be conservative and make
srll changes at a t1Tn He also has very few opportunities to make thorough
evaluations of the changes he does make.

Thüs, even though the problema of seakeeping and seaworthiness have

been with us for a long time, there is no thoroughly proven solution to this
problem for the high speed boats of today. As the power/weight ratio of
marine engines has increased, hul i desiges have been developed by trial and
error to utilize theni. There have been 3 basic approaches to this develop-
ment.

Evolutionary development of proven seaworthy low powered types

to adapt them to more power and speed with a minini loss of seaworthiness.
An example is the modern "Jersey" sea skiff which shows the result of
evolutionary development from a double ended pulling surf boat to the
high powered sport fisherman type of today.

Evolutionary development of proven high speed (low resistance)

types to make them more seaworthy with a minimum reduction of speed in
rough water. An example is the modern P.T. boat developed from high speed
runabout forms originally desigeed for maximum speeds in protected waters.

Development of novel types using new approaches based upon

application of devices desigeed to reduce resistance and increase
seaworthiness by lifting the craft free of the water. An exemple being
hydrofoil supported craft which solve the resistance and seakeeping problem
by supporting the craft above the water reducing the resistance to only that
of the hydrofoils and their struts.

This paper is centered upon developments in area (b).

2. Requirements.

First to take a look at our problem. 'wlhat is a seaworthy boat?

a. She should be dry, in respect to both green water and sprar.

b She should have moderate motions of pitch and roll. She must
be stable but if possible not have a quick period. of roll such ai to throw
passengers about.

c. She should pound and. slam as little as possible for the comfort
and safety of the passengers, and. to reduce the impact loads on the hull struc-
ture, machinery and other equipment.

She should be able to maintain as high a speed as possible in

rough water.

2
 e. She must be directionally stable with a mininum tendency
to yaw
nd. broach, and yet she must also be maneuverable
at Rh speeds and in all
sas.

It can be said that there are boats which can fulfill

boye requirements, exce:pt perhaps speed, to all the
a satisfactory degree. Some of
he slow heavy-displacement types operating at mxi
f' 0.8 to 1.2 when prudently speed/length ratios
handled come close to meeting all the require-
ants, an example being the Navy's 26' motorvhaleboat,
but difficulties
rise when the desier is concerned with providing these
igh speed craft. qwhities for

Regardless of the type of hull foin used - the slender round

ilged form., or the hard chine forni in either
case when driven at high speeds
n rough water seaworthiness becomes a serious problem.

Excessive wetness can be a serious hazard to vision,

alfunction of deck equipment, cause leakage thru deck openings, can cause
omfort or at worst bodily harm to persons on deck. and. dis-

Excessive motions can imkc .h i the functions of

raf t difficult. manning the
In a case known to the author the helmsman of an
ir-sea rescue boat firmly braced himself holding the
wheel in anticipation d'
slam and tore the wheel right off. Slamming and. pounding
can cause
ccessive hardship on the crew, the hull, the machinery and.
other
quipment. Compasses swing to violently
to be read, and may be dislodged
rom their housings. Fuel and. lub oil and hydraulic
lines break, shafts
come ¡ni.sali-ied and at worst the hull structure may feil.

In following seas the danger of broaching is serious and

is
plicated. by the heisman's difficulty in maintaining
constant control
aile keeping his footing.

A long list of hair-raising tales can be told. of the

' driving a high speed boat in rough water. brdships
The one logical way to
leviate many of these hardships is to slow down and that
is what is usually
ne, increased resistance caused by rough seas will greatly reduce
ually the throttles are brought down also. speed but

There is no doubt in my mind that much can be done to

improve the
aîorthiness characteristics of high speed small craft.
pable of operating at high speeds in rough water and
nhl craft truly
exhibiting good
avorthiness qualities under all but the most sever
conditions would be a
eat asset for both naval and cerc ial snis1 1
craft and. would open up
.ditional applications.

3
 3. Approaches to Solutions.

Model testing: Ass quite common in the study of resistance and

propulsion, model testing is a logical approach to examination of features
which contribute toward seaworthiness. Recently facilities for thorough
investigation have been made available for powering tests and maneuvering
in rough water. This testing is somewhat limited since most waves artifically
stimulated in model basins tend. to have a regularity not found at sea and
the absence of wind makes proper study of wetness difficult. However rough
water model tests are very useful for comparative studies and can be compared.
with model test results of craft whose full scale performance is known.
Rough water model tests are expensive thus limiting the amount that
has been done. As more rough water testing is done a.nd correlations of
model vs. full scale are compiled it can be hoped that reasonable inter-
pretation will be possible.

It would be a great help if more results of the work that has

been done were made public. Much of what has been done to date is the
confidential property of commercial designers or the Navy which limits the
value of what has been learned.

pirical - Historical Approach: The scientific approach

to small craft design should be applied more today than it is, however the
economics of research for small craft design being what they are, trial
and error is still the more prevalent approach. It is this which makes
small craft design still an art. Thanks to the genius of some designers
steady improvements have been made possible by a "seat-of-the-pants"
approach. To make up for the lack of systematic scientific data a
constant drawing board attack is required; that i analysis of the lines
plan in the light of known performance data. This is what I call the
empirical-historical approach. It is a sort of plagiarism since it is
based upon assessing both ones own work and the work of others to ferret
out that which is good and. that which is poor. This is to a great
extent subjective since lacking the advantage of systematic variation one
must makc his own determination of which features add. or detract to the
seaworthiness of a particular design. Another difficulty is that many
taies performance data must be collected second-hind. and is based upon
human estimates rather than mechanically recorded data.

B. Hull Forms for High Speeds.

An arbitrary definition of what is meant by high speeds for small craft

would be approximately 20 knots or more which for boats up to 100 ft. LWL
-hi meansY/-yof 2.0. Two basic types of hull forn are used, the hard bilged
round bottom and. the hard. chine.

1. liard. Bilged Round Bottom, Semi-Plrn1-ng Type.

To use the historical approach, it is clear that in the development

1.
 L
, 7 5 f, L

koUJ' E1L MT I'P

F1uR i
of high speed boats the asset of length has been appreciated for a long
time. If a boat does not depend upon planing principles to allow high
speeds, the only alternative is to reduce the residn1 resistance. It is
an important tool today and was even more important 0 years ago before the
advent of fully planning boats. Since residual resistance is a direct
function of the speed/length ratio and the displacement, the obvious
solution is a low displacement/length ratio.

Long before the reasons for this were clearly understood, high
speed boats were dèsied on this principle. Thus was produced the typical
slender easily driven hull form of low wave-making resistance. .This type
cannot be driven beyond a speed/length ratio (/fJ of l.5without special
treathent of the afterbody providing a broad transom stern with flat
buttock lines. Beyond a speed/length ratio of 2.0 this form will be in a
semi-planing condition and the hull must be desied to promote this
planning, however the form will still be priimirily based upon producing
a form of low residual resistance. The practical maxiinumV/Cis somewhat
less than .0 depending upon how low a displacement/length ratio is used.
A well known example of this type of boat are some IB types such as
shown in figure 1.

2. Fully Planing.Types..

The alternative to the use of length, i.e. low displacement/length

ratio to reduce residual resistance, is to reduce the apparent displacement
by dynamic lift thus reducing the residual resistance. At speed/length
ratios greater than 3.0 when considerable lift has been developed,
thereby reducing the residual resistance, the frictional resistance
becomes a large percentage of the total, it is here that the "Vee" bottOEn
chine hull shows its superiority. The hard chine hull is an effective
planing surface and the angular chines and spray rails prevent the bow
wave from wetting the hull sides. It can be seen that the fully planing
boat depends upon the hard chine hull form which will promote an efficient
combination of J if t and trim reducing wetted surface and dynamic displace-
ment. The basic prináiple is well illustrated by an acuaplane or water skis.
A lift force is created by the downward moment imparted to the water which
flows under the planing surfaces. The lift force thus produced is many times
greater than the wtàtic buoyancy, the body is lifted to the water surface
thus reducing residw1 resistance to a mînimi. The total resistance is
then the total of the horizontal cponent of this lift force and the
frictional resistance of the surface In prac SïIé flat plane
must be Improved upon to produce servicable hull forms.

Although the power requirements of a planing hull like the i

displacement type increases with displacement, specific resistance (')'A) is
fairly insensitive to displacement and at high speeds specific resistance
will reduce with increased, displacement. The p1n1 ng boat for the sake of

2
 32 B4-B 3 z. o

LoA
63 F1 AB

FIGURE 2

1:&.
efficient aspect ratio is generally wider than a comparable displacement
boat. From a resistance standpoint it is desirable, within limits, to
decrease length/beam ratio with increases in speed. An example of a
ty-pical planing boat is the USN - 63 ft. RB shown in figure 2.

3. Comparison between Types.

It is obvious from the above descriptions of the two basic types of

high speed craft that there are fundamental differences between the types.
A choice between the 2 types depends upon the specific requirements
of the individual design problem.

The usual arguments for the round bottom, semi-planing form are that
although it may be limited in top speed in calm water it will out perform
nrd chine fully planing types in rough water and be more economical
at lower cruising speeds. There is considerable evidence to back this (t
up. On the basis of equal displacement and approximately equal cost,
i
the more slender semi-planing type can be built 20% to 30% longer than 'I

the usual beamy fully planing type. As long as the displacement/length

ratio is held at 150 or lass the semi-planing form can be economically
driven to a speed/length ratio of 3.0 to 3.5, which is enough for many
uses. The greater length of the semi-planing type aids in holding down
the displacement/length ratio and allows a fine entrance for meeting head
seas. In rough water the slender hull designed for low residual resistance
will usnlly slice through and result in a minimum of slaming and loss of
speed.

It is evident that comparisons can be made both on the basis of e

displacement/length ratio or perhaps to do justice to the basic
N
differences in the types to compare them on the basis of equal displace-
ments with the proportions varied to suit the type.

Published data is available to compare the two types on the basis of

equal displacement/length ratio. n one case the 2 boats have the wide
proportions generally used for fully planing boats and in the other case
the 2 boats have the slender proportions generally used for semi-planing
types.

a. Wide Proportion Comparison.

References 1 and 2 report results of smooth water EHP tests for

one rough bilge hull and 2 hard chine hulls.

f
 D5OoC
/

o Io .zo
k 01-s 40
A D o

IOOo
/
A
V
/
400
cL
i C

tile

2O 4o

PAGE 6fL.
 CO1'1PARISON 0F NODT.S

Hull A

Type Round Chine Chine

LL 4.0.65' 40.651 40.65'

BX 10.26 Spray rail 9.52 at Chine 11.1 at Chine

L/BX 3.8 4.27 3.68

Displacement 25,000 lbs. 25,000 lbs. 25,000 lbs.

166.2 166.2 166.2

I. ,J
Figure 3 is a comparison of smooth water EHP for these 3 models.
It can be seen that the round bottom boat has less resistance below
of 3.0 - 3.5. Although these test only compare smooth water resistaxfce,
I contend that in rough water the round bottom boat would be much more
comfortable, easier to handle and result in less reduction in speed in
rough water both due to resistance and the htnnan comfort element.

b. Slender Proportion Comparison.

Reference 3 reports a comparison of model tests in calm

water for EHP and in waves for vertical accelerations in ahead seas arid
for tendency to broach in following seas of one round bilge hull and 3
different types of hard chine huUs. For comparison the data for the
narrowest chine boat is presented here.

COMPARISON OF MODELS

Hull A

Type Round Bilge Hard Chine, deep vee fwd.

LWL 117' 115'

BWL 19' 22.4'

LWL/BWL 6.16 5.127

Displacement 130 tons 130 tons

¿7J)3 81.17 85.5

//
46e'
CÀL-t //:-
¿
2irwc
1oTO

4oa

36°
/
/ /

27
o T- - 1.

i6° I7,o
30 3'- 46
Ñ TS

F) 4
PA
 HA EM
Ar L..VJL WD YF

3 A

Viii-;: F1 -
o
So 40
D io1
4
L'TH -rvJtc.e. 51IP ¿JGrH

FuE 5
AE 74
 QLLOJ ifrU /4 TE. -7- '

-J

SoAc'- C

'I' -
rnu'
'k'
- 3
'u

3
4 l\ \ \'
sJo C/-i
15
o 1,0

H'

FGL-
 Figures 4,5, & 6 simmiarize the test results. Figure 4 does
not show the curves below 30 lmots however from the slope of the curves at
30 aiots it can be expected that the specific resistance of A is
considerably lees than B from O-30 kts.

The results of figures 4, 5, & 6 can speak for themselves.

It can be noted that despite the narrow beam of the chine boat it shows
a definite calm water resistance advantage atV,/pgreater than 3.5. Figures]
5 & 6 are important indicating that when the hard chine boat is given the1 i

slender proportions generally reserved for the round bIgtype, I

it can closely match the round bilge boat in flgl loadings and has
superior anti-broaching characteristics. The advantage in this case
of the chine boat in its tendency not to broach in the longer waves is
probably attributable to the buoyancy and quick" lift features of the
hard chine bow which allow it to ride over the longer waves. -

e. Comparison with Different Proportions.

A more realistic picture of general practice is to compare

the two forms on the basis of eqii1 displacement with a chine boat of
normal L/'B in the range of 3 to 4 and the round bottom boat with an
L/B of approximately 5. I regret that the only published data, Iaiown to
the author, to document comparisons on the above basis is either
militarily classified or proprietary information of commercial designers,
however it can be documented that in one case of full scale trials of
the two types (equal, round form 23% longer), that in state 3 seas and
above the semi-planing type was superior in both speed and seaworthiness.
In another case ( equ1, round form 20% longer) of model testing in
an artifical irregular wave pattern approximating a. state 4 to 5 sea,
the chine boat had 20% greater resistance at a speed/length ratio of 4.0.

d. Choice of Type.

On the basis of the above argument it is the opinion of this

'author that the semi-planing round bottom form should be used a great
deal more often than it is for medium speed range designs. A very
large number of hard chine boats with max3inum speed/length ratios of
approximately 3 to 4 sacrifice seaworthiness and speed in rough water
for a small improvement in calm water speed. Another factor is that the
estimated price of a boat is often measured by the length rather than by
the more correct factor of displacement.

In favor of the fully planing boat is primarily its high speed

potential and secondarily its capability to obtain high speeds even when
heavily loaded. Low displacement/length ratios are an asset in any boat
designed for high speeds, however in many instances low displacement/length
ratios are a luxury which cannot be accepted. Thus the fully planing
boat is the only solution in many cases where a considerable load is to be
carried. If truly high speeds are required in the range of of 4 to 10

8
 it is obvious that the fully planing type is the logical choice. Thus
dispite Its drawhacks in the area of seaworthiness, there are good and
sound ±easons why the hard chine type must be used for many designs and
the seaworthiness problem must be accepted.

C. Development of the Hard Chine Type.

The fully planing boat is the only solution short of hydrofoils of

piercing the so called "wave making resistance barrier" and it is therefore
a necessity that its development be continually perfected until some
better alternative is found. The history ol' the design effort in planing
boats has been a very well directed effort in producing a serviceable type
of hull which would be capable of these very high speeds. The fact is
that there are now a number of variations of the hard chine planing boat
which can with varying success make these high speeds. The value of these
developments cannot be overlooked however. it is the authorTs opinion that
it is now time to give secondary consideration to improvements calculated
solely to reduce calm water resistance and to give number one priority
to improvements in the seaworthiness of fully planing type. It is
important that the fully planing boat be improved in respect to its
ability to maintain its speed in rough water and that it have reliable
seaworthiness characteristics at high speed in rough water. This requires
that the boat should have good directional stability combined with good
maneuverability, a minimum of motions and. slam and be reasonably dry.

I cannot presume to set forth firm 'characteristics for the design

of the perfect fully planing boat for rough.water service, On the other
hand an analysis of those forms which have been tried and those
showing current promise can provide guide lines for the search for the
optimum type.

1. Variabl in Planing Boat Design.

As a first step in analyzing the various planing boat designs a

few of the variables need to be given individual
ttention. Assuming that
displacement ïs fixed, or at least roughly fixed by the power plant, its
fuel and the obher loads to be carried nil
other features become variable.
a. Beam.

Beam in planing boats is a factor which has been given a great

deal of study. The beam at the chines determines
the aspect ratio of the
planing surface and it has a definite effect on the loading and resistance.
Some designers compare chine boats on the basis of speed/beam
ratio (- ).
One popular loading coefficient is where A is mean chine beam X
projected length of chine, (for furhe' details see reference
4). These

9
and many other coefficients associated with chine boats attache a great
deal of importance to the beam at the chines. From a purely resistance
point of view this is correct since there is generally a particular
L/ which is optimum for a given speed. Optim beam will generally
increaêe with speed until very high speeds are reached and then the
optimum beam reduces. The determination of optimum beoni for low resistance
is important, however almost all the work to date has been based upon low
resistance in calm water without due regard to the effect of beam on
seaworthiness. Contrary to the requirements for low calm water resistance,
in rough water the beam should often be somewhat reduced to provide improved
seaworthiness qil ities.

b. Deadrise.

Angle of deadrise is a factor which typlifies the give and take

aspect in respect to resistance and seaworthiness. Starting with a
rectangle of zero deadrise as the best planing surface, the mininiinn
refinement is to point the forward end and to give the forward sections
some deadrise. From this meager start there are various refinements
producing numerious practical hull forms incorporating a variety of
degrees of deadrise. The basic problem is that a fair waterline entrance
and some deadrise is a minimum refinement necessary for running in broken
water, however a fine entrance and deadrise reduce the planing efficiency.
As a result there is a strong temptation to use a low chine and a low
angle of deadrise to enhance the planing efficiency. Another factor is
that dead.rise has a more adverse effect on calm water resistance at the
higher speeds, where it is most desirable in its favorable effect on
pounding. In practice the after hj1f of most chine boats has very little
deadrise, but there is more variety in the treatment given to the forebody.
This introduces the factors of twist and forefoot which will be treated
separately below.

In summary it can be said that deídrise definitely has an

adverse effect upon calm water resistance, however it is necessary for
reduction of slam and combined with a pointed chine intersection is
necessary to provide an acceptable bow. As a factor in reduction of
slam it is advantageous to use fairly high angles of de1rise of 200 to 350
in the slamming area. If the deadrise is carried through to a minimum of 150
at the transom, the effect on the lateral plane thus produced will greatly
enhance the directional stability and banking in turns. The overall
benifical effect of liberal deadrise will generolly result in a boat
which in all but the calmest water will out perform a boat of low
deadrise.

c. Flam, Flare, Rake of Stem.

The shape of the sides above the chine has no effect on the

10

/7
calm water resistance and only a secondary effect upon rough water
performance. However it can be seen that liberal flare and some(fl.i)
will enchance the seakeeping of the boat and will provide greater buoyancy
to lift the bow when plunging into an ahead or following sea. This will
benefit dryness and help to aleviate the tendency to broach in the
following sea condition.

Forefoot.

The characterof the forefoot can have an important influence

on the maneuverability and handling of chine boat. As is the case with many
features there are good and bad points about any one type of forefoot.
A deep forefoot is a help in close maneuvering at slow speeds since
it holds the bow letting the flatter afterbody swing around.
When used with concave bow sections the deep forefoot slices nicely into
seas and. lays a low bow wave contributing to dryness and will add a
little buoyancy to make up for that lost by the concavity. Many very
beautiful and clean riding boats use a fairly deep forefoot to
advantage. However, there is one important disadvantage which I feel
rules out any pronounced forefoot on boats intended for all weather
use. It is that very same feature which assists slow speed
maneuvering. At high speeds if the forefoot takes charge it can cause
broaching in a following sea or an overly quick turn, either of these
is dangerous and to be avoided if at 11 possible. A very simple and
ingenious solution which has been used at least by one designer is to use
a chopped off forefoot for the safest high speed running combined with a
small retractable centerboard placed well forward to provide the desirable
forward lateral plane for close manauvering at slow speeds. This appears
to be a very sensible way "tO have your cake arid eat it too".

Length, Loading.

Length is probably th most significant characteristic of any

boat. Almost every seaworthiness feature is enchanced by using the
maximum economical length. The one feature which suffers is turning
circle, in general turning circle is a function of boat length and in
a very few cases where short turning circle is mandatory this must be
taken into account. Although not so much a feature of seaworthiness it
may be that to have a good aspect ratio for efficient planing the
maximi. economical length may not be used. However for good seaworthiness
it can be iriade a good general practice to use the maximum, length t
possible since the speed in rough water will be aided by the reduced
and the lower trim resulting from the higher beam length ratio.
As indicated above in figures 4., 5, & 6 the slender chine boat can provide
a good combination of the seaworthiness of the slender semi-planing round
bottom type with the lower high speed resistance of the chine type.
 52'LÛA A 3' LOA /-\2
T2'ALS J.43 LJ(T OCAS1OJAL -HHER O?J
/ F7 AiIMD I -20
51 5A M/Y vEr GJAL.
3A1 KT'. puar,c#J XE12 coIJ-r_oL
'1A
LTÇ,- rÀ-rio.)
J- Ai-i A 2.0 -1-,J

LS' 2- i-
A
2
I- TZ / .' J
1
2 Q
, o O a_TL.ip
?-
Jt-t4
/- o AJt p

í. ArJ
I

o
I' O O

2'
.2'
3c,
7 3
3
a) L»1 -t
/PvJ)( 4
4
¡I 4

T,ALS 4-'w/u5 1m-1 ccú45iù?J4-. -7 ,', iD

/ 1 D 5
/4 #
8ô 11!7
J--
d7
L 7 o
f 4444

k! O í i. 3 -
-6- - 2 ----
31
2. - 2 /t 40 -----'.
'-'r-- '---L 3 4.
/_
_4Ç_

3 -L
J--

/7
 I
/ - T.I/L.S

20
24C)°

2200

ri

C!
o
= 4c0

liDo

¡000

6c'o

;700

¡o 14- 22. 2. 30 4 38 4t
SPEED -Jo-r5
F1&u. a
b
 Js for minimum 8llowable length it is desirable to keep the
displacement/length ratio below 200 if possible. The author has worked
on designs with displacement/length ratios of over 300 but this is
definitely not ari economical loading and far from desirable. The corn-
pansons shown in figures 7 and 8 (from reference 5) give a good idea
of the advantages of length in reducing the slamming impacts iii rough
water and the lower power required with lower loading.

f. Sections.

There are three general types of sections used for chine

boats and they all have their virtues under certain circumstances. The
two basic types are concave and convex sections. The third is "bell"
sections which are a combination of the first two, being round or convex
on bottom and concave near the chine.

In general the concave sections are dry, throwing the bow

wave clear of the boat, they also usually produce flater more efficient
buttocks in the forebody. However they also are usually associated with
pronounced forefoot which has been condemned above and the hardness of the
bottom near the chine tends to create excessive pounding.

The main drawback of the convex section is that it is wetter

and usually does not provide as fine an entrance for slicing through short
waves. The wetness can us11y be effectively corrected by spray rails
at the chine. The fullness of the bow although not as desirable in short
waves will give desirable buoyancy to hold the bow from burying into long
waves, particularly in following seas and will help combat broaching.

The "bell" bottom is an attempt to cbine the best features

of both types and it definitely has merit in this respect. Its lack of
popularity is robably attributable to the expense of this hull form
when constructed of wood, however with the advent of larger fiberglass hpllR
it may find greater popularity.

In summary it is the author's experience that the reduced

slamming of the convex section makes it the most desirable for rough
water use.

g. Spray I.âils.

Spray rails are a useful and generally necessary device on

any high speed boat. On hard chine types they are usu11y fitted at the
chine and run from the stem at least to midships and generally all the
way to the transom. In some cases the spray rails may actually cause an
increase in resistance, but usuilly the resistance will be reduced.

12
 They definitely contribute greatly to dryness and their use is desirable
on all high speed boats. Reference 6 is an interesting report of com-
parative model tests evaluating the use of spray rails on a number of
small craft.

h. Skegs.

Skegs are sometimes used on high speed small craft. The usual.
purpose is to improve directional stability. They also may be used
to counterbalance the effects of a deep forefoot to move the center of
lateral plane aft of midships.

Although there are des igris which require skegs it is the

author's opinion that good directional stability can be achieved by
other means and there is no reason to penalize a boat with the increased
resistance which is caused by a skeg.

j. Transom Width.

The arguments about transom width involve both resistance and

seaworthiness. In favor of a relatively narrow transom is the fact that
the narrower afterbody presents less wetted surface thus reducing
resistance, also the narrower afterbody will reduce the tendency to
broach in a following sea since it will be less buoyant. On the other
side of the coin is the dynamic transverse stabilizing effect of a broad
stern particularly in the case of a warped bottom which carries its
twist 11 the way to t1 transom. The wide footing of a broad transom is
also helpful at higher speed/length ratios where the boat is likely to
jump practicully clear of the water. In this case the broad footing will
help hold the boat from rolling over on one side when the support is
temporarily removed from the forward part of the bottoni.

On the basis of the above it is my contention that the

broad transom of 80% to 90% of maximum chine beam should be used for
smAller craft with speed/length ratios in excess of 5.0 and that the
narrower transom of. 65% to 80% should be reserved for the larger sizes which
generally have lower speed/length ratios and less tendency to jump clear
of a wave.

j. Twist.

r..,1, .
Some authorities place a great importance upon having a
-ìaximti of twist or warp in the after helf of the bottom which is the main
plañing surface. The arguments are based upon lower calm water resistance.
Comparisons of a number of model test results seem to confirm that an
aftorbody which is nearly a prismatic surface has the least resistance.

13

-I
Moro importanthowever, than low resistance1is the fact that as argued
above it is desirable from a seaworthiness standpoint to carry relatively
high deairise the full length of boat and this automatically precludes
any appreciable twist in the afterbody planes.
k. Wedges.
Transom wedges, hooked buttocks or transom flaps are Fill
used to reduce dynamic trim. Wedges are generally used as corrective
devices to help a heavily loaded boat over the resistance htrap at the
early planing speeds and to reduce trim at high speed to reduce slamming.
Hooked buttocks or buttocks with reverse in the last 10% of length are
simply premeditated wedges used for the same purpose.
Transom flaps serve the same purposes but they have the
feature of being adjustable to suit the speed, loading condition and
sea state. The adjustable feature muces the transom flap the most
useful of the three devices, However it has the drawback of requiring
flat or nearly fJt deadrise at the transom. This requirement runs
counter to the desirability of having good deadrise at the transom.
The unpredictable affect of hooked buttocks precludes their
use unless the subject lines are a redo of previous successful lines,
or the lines are model tested. Adjustable transom flaps must be ruled
out if deadrise is to be used at the transom. This leaves wedges as the
only practical device for most cases,and their use is generally limited
to corrective measures rather than ieatures of an original design.
2. Analysis of Conventional Forms.
On the basis of the above discussion a critique can be made of the
effect of these features on some actiìl hull forms. The following are some
conventional hull forais.
a. Typical Developed Surface Type.
The typical developed surface type is used in many pleasure
boats to about 40 ft. LOA and some larger commercial craft. It has
the very desirable feature of being adaptable to easy forming with large
sheets of plywood, steel or aluminum. Figure 9 represents a good
example of this type.
Reference 7 and figure 1 of reference U report the
resistance characteristics of this form and reference 8 reports the
resistance characteristics of a wider beam version including a comparison
of the two.
14
 -(P4L PEYELOPED UQ/E

FGuaE 9

j40
 This type of form is very good for small craft operating in
protected water. It combines good calm water resistance with limited rough
water qualities. Its major drawback is low deadrise which causes
pounding in rough water. If trim is reduced to reduce pounding it
becomés wet and is more difficult to steer since the full sections
forward being full and buoyant tend to be pushed first to one side
and then the other when encountering head or following seas. A sub-
stantial increase in deadrise would increase resistance but would do a
lot to improve seaworthiness. For speed/length ratios under 5 a narrower
transom could be used to advantage.

b. USN W II Elco P Ts.

Two examples of convention concave bottom planing boats

are the 70 ft. Elco P T of early W II & t1improved 80 ft version which
followed. The lines and principie dimensions of the two are shown in
figures 10 and U.

Although the primary reason for the 80 ft. boat -was to have
a bigger boat to carry a heavier load, a dimensionless comparison
shows the effects of the difference in length/beam ratio. Reference 9
reports the calm water resistance of the two at an equal dimensionless
loading coefficient. The wider boat as would be expected has higher
specific resistance at the lower h1f of the speed range and lower
specific resistance at higher speeds except at the highest speeds. The
important point of this is that the calm water resistance is very much the
same for the two. Thus at the designed speed the narrower boat with
greater deadrise does not lose much in calm water speed while it has
improved seaworthiness characteristics having greater deadrise and
narrower beam. Both boats are fairly dry due to the concave sections.
The major drawback of both boats is that they do not have enough
deadrise.

The 70 ft. boat typlifies the earlier attemps to make large

sea going boats patterned after smaller rimabout types which had been
developed for high speeds on protected waters. The only noticeable
change from smaller types is the narrow transom. It has very low
deadrise and the concave sections are very flat near the chines. This
makes for severe pounding in rough water which in practice necessitated
substantial reductions in speed to safeguard both the boat and its crew.

The 80 ft. boat was an improvement over the 70 ft. boat and
although designed some 20 years ago, it is typical of many current vee
bottoni designs, although for practical purposes most smaller boats
do not have as narrow a transom. The raised height of the chine
forward is helpful allowing greater deadrise without any pronounced
forefoot, both of which are good. However this type of hull still
does not have as much deadrise as is desired for rough water service and it is
not carried through to the transom which would improve directional
stability el-iminating any requirement for a skeg.

15
 70 Fr ELCO PT

Io

FIctWE Io
o
7 7.4,
SOFT LCO PT
40' AU (.'L)
FIUR ¡2.
 c. Seaworthiness of convention forms.

The three designs discussed above are representative of the

majority of planing craft in use today except that the P T Boats are
5roportionaUy narrower than sm lar smaller boats of the same type
(see figure 12 and reference 2 for typical examples of concave bottoms
for 40' LNL). All of the boats discussed do not have enough derrise
to effectively relieve pmmding, and all 3 would require skegs to give
better directional stability. None of them have an viesirab1e forefoot.
Of the three only the low chine 70' P T boat would be unreasonably wet,
although the developed surface boat is dependent upon its spray rails to
keep it dry.

3. Analysis of Unconventional Forms.

There aie a number of unconventional forms which have been

designed to produce either improved resistance or better seaworthiness and
handling. In a few cases a good job has been done on both scores. The
following are same outstanding examples chosen to illustrate some of the
poorer designs and some particularly promising ones.

a. Inverted - Vee Type.

Figure 13 shows a typical inverted - veo type planing hull.

The resistance characteristics of this type are reported in reference
10 and figure 7 of reference II. From a resistance standpoint the only
outstanding feature is low specific resistance at high displacement/length
ratios and at high speed/length ratios. It was originally used for small
ruabouts and its low resistance at high speed/length ratios made it a
popular small boat.

The boat has some unusual features in respect to

maneuverability and seaworthiness. The inverted - vee bottom produces a
very dry boat since it rides over its own bow wave. The fairly high dead-
rise of the f ortiard sections satisfactorily dampens pounding in a short
chop and small waves. However in rough water and large waves this type
pounds severely even at medii.0 speeds, this one drawback is enough to
rule out this type for a boat intended for offshore use. Another serious
drawback is the poor maneuvering characteristics of this type, it is hard
to steer due to the large lateral plane of the vertical sides and takes
an outboard roll on turns.

Figure 14 (from reference 5) presents some rough water

trial results of a 55 foot inverted - vee bottom boat. The data in
figure 14 when compared with figure 7, which reports conventional boats
during the same trials, indicates the rough riding qualities of this type.

16
INVTD VEE .oTToM AVR

Fiva
 .6'LA tv -ç--orrc
TZ.JL5 i 4'-.' ,I4vE5 ç.J!rH OCCA5!O1.,IAL UIiiD Z-3ö
5EA 44 /t
'6öAr

i5 3. g
II

i?

I r2 il 2
y
i' 4,0 f3-
i
i' ô2 1
, e AM
II
f
I
ta

i ¡ ATJ 2) I

2 -I I CdL4
..-tr...

oY 1
c:r41 4/ Ç-42
_J__ ,------ a4-..d ¿.J-J ) 4
L4J

-io 14

PtA i6
 In surmary the inverted-vee bottom is not adaptable for
use offshore in rough water. This conclusion is fully doctuented by the
full report of some rough water trials described in reference 5.

b. Deep-Forefoot, High Twist.

The forms shown in figures 15 and 16 are examples of a

popular hifi form using a deep forefoot with concave sections
producing a large angle of deadrice in the slunnng area, twisting to
flat sections at the transom.

This type of form may have slightly more resistance than one
with less twist but it nevertheless is quite popular. The reasons for
its popularity are quite obvious. The fine bow sections slice nicely
into seas, tl concave sections throw the bow wave clear giving
unusuiiy good dryness and the high death'ise in the s1anning area
cushions out pounding in ii but the roughest seas, and the flat sections
aft produce lift to reduce trim at high speeds and thus aids in re-
ducing pounding. All these features tend to produce a fairly nice
riding hurt form.

However this type of hpii form has its drawbacks also.

First the coicavity of the sections near the chine, which is necessary
o encourage spray departure approaching the horizontal, is a cause
of severe impacts when alarming into really rough water. Second and more
important is the problem of directional stability particularly in a
following sea. Any boat operating in waves has a tendency to yaw due
to a variety of hifi and and propeller interactions with the buoyant
and dynamic forces of the waves. This type of hull forni is particularly
susceptible to yawing since the heeled shape of the hull, being
&syrmetricaJ. about the longitudinal centerline and radiciiy
different in fullness fore arid aft, develops a transverse thrust
causing a definite tendancy to yaw. This can be overcome to sane
extent by the use of a skeg fairly well aft but this of course reduce5
maneuverability and increases resistance arid even with a skeg constant
ri.idder control is required to hold this type of boat on course. In rough
going when the helmsman has a hard time just staying at the wheel this
constant rudder control is hard to maintain.

Another detrimental feature of this type is that if the chine

is raised relatively high and the forefoot is deep, the high angle of
deadrise forward will fliow the boat to fall over on one side unless
large re-entrant spray riis are used to produce concentrated lift at the
chines. This characteristic of rolling over on the chine is of course
aggravated by a high center of gravity.

17.
 L'L
G

Ip FcFOT ) i.-iJ risr

7

4 ,- L4
+5_F 4VR
FIGURE i

-
 c. Nonoheth'on Forni.

The term inonohedron simply means a hull form using a

constant angle of deadrise over the main planing portioiof the bottoni.
A particular hull of this type is a form advocated in in
reference 12. Figure 17 shows a typical form of this type. The ca]
water resistance characteristics are reported in references 13 and figure 8
of reference 11.

This form has better than average caJ..m water resistance

which can be expected from the long straight parallel run of the buttocks.
The derrise at the stern gives good maneuverability combined with good
directional stability. Unfortunately thia form has two rough water
deficiencies. Ntnber one is wetness, the character of the forward
sections and the quick fr1] of the chine require very effective spray
rails to throw dowii the bow wave. Ni.unber two is pounding, the abrupt
decrease in deadrise from the stern to station 3 combined with
relatively low deadrise in the impact area produce high s1anndng
accelerations in rough water.

This type of hull form has definite potential possibilities.

The basic improvement required is an increase in deadrise which
would increase resistance and probably cause transverse instability
unless accompanied by corrective devices. A number of variations of
this type of form have been used, some of them incorporating an
improved bow to reduce wetness. But without any marked overall increase
in deadrise or at least increase of deadrise ITA the impact area
between stations 2 and 5 no substantial improvement In pounding can be
expected.

d. Clement Form.

This form is the product of a methodical analysis of the

cauri water resistance characteristics of a variety of designEihich have
been tested over the years at the David Taylor Model Basin. For lack
of a better name I c1l it the 'C1ement Formit for the man who designed
it. Figure 1 shows the forni. In reference 14 Clement outlines hi
procedure and reasoning and reports the resistance characteristics of
his form. A comparison of figure 17 with figure 18, and figure 8 of
reference U with figure 1 of reference 14 shows the similarity of the
Clement form with the monohedron form. The basic differences are the
low chine and wide convex sections of the bow of the Clement form. 1he-
Clement form also has an unusually wide chine forward of amidships and
an unusually xarrov' transom. It is essentially a development of the
monobedron form, it ha very low specific resistance, slightly better
than the monohedron at all speeds tested, and the bow on the Clement form
is calculated to reduce the wetness problem of the form illustrated in
figure 17.

3.8
3t 13g 61 C 3

OOHEJOÑ Fti
FLUE ri
O

CLEMEf'JT FoR1»1

FlL),E ¡8
 Unfortunately no full scale craft has ever, been built
using the Clement form and the model has never been iested waves,
therefore no data is available to evaluate the seaworthiness qia1ition
of this form. However it must be recognized that this form was developed
primarily for low caJ.m water resistance anddespite the designers allegatiar43
to the contrary,it is this author's opinion that this form would be
guite unsatisfactory in rough water. Nber one, for the sake of
planing efficiency it has very low deadrise in the slaxini..ng area of the
bottom, and secondly the wide chine beam in the forward portion of the
hull would aggravate slanning and would be wet and resistful when
heading into a short sea.

This form indicates a serious attempt to use model basin

techniques to produce a good fast boat but it does not seem to reflect
a full appreciation of the primary need to reduce pounding in rough water.
A substantial increase in deadrise compromising calm water resistance for
better rough water resistance would go a long way toward inaid.ng this
form a practical sea going design.

Constant Deadrise - Conventional Proportions.

The form shown in figure 19 is a development of the form in

figure 9. It was designed to be used as a yardstick for comparative
evaluation with figure 21 below. 18 ft. manned models of each have been
built. The intention was to have a design of a conventional type with
the best rough water characteristiossib1e without any really novel
or unconventional features.

It can be seen fran the lines plan that this form bears
some resemblance to figures 17 and 18 above but that the form in
figure 19 has a more seakindly bow and less beam than either of the
others. The lack of pronounced forefoot and the constant deadrise of
the afterbody lend themselves to good directioni1 stability, the deadrise
at the transom is good for turning. The drawback of this form is that
although the deadrise is liberal by conventional standards, it is still
not enough to eJiixiinate seveipou.nding in rough water.

Hunter Form.

The Hunter Fm is namad for C. Ra'mond Huxt, the designer

has perfected it. This form is a development of the constant dead-.
riso types illustrated in figures 17, 18, and 19. This form is new and
the designer has never allowed the lines to be published however figure 20
i thought to be a fairly correct representation of this form.

19
 COW5ThJT DR - CÖJ N1flolJ1L poPÖ12rlotJ

4 z. I o

¡7'/O' LOIA

FlUE g
N
 This author has never ridden in a boat of this type but on
the basis of the Lcwing reports in references 15a - 15g there is no
doubt that this fi'Ii proven itself as an outstandin rough water
performer. An analysis of t1 lines plan will explain the features
which contribute to the seaworthiness of this type.

The Hunter has deep deadrise of 23° to 25° over the entire
riding surface which provides a substantial reduction of slaning
impact and gives good directional stability. Normally high deairise
of this sort will cause transverse instability with a tendency to ride
over on one side, unless the VC G is extrely low. Also a high
deadrise planing surface is not usiiy an efficient enough planing
surface for a boat intended for very high speeds. However the Hunter
form overcomes both of these drawbacks by the use of a rnnnber of
longitudinal spray strips on the bottom with a wedge shaped cross section
giving a horizontal lower surface about 2 inches wide. These
longitudinal spray strips provide the necessarynanvc transverse
stability and greatly increase the planing efficiency. They also give
a high measure of dryness and reduce the wetted surface to a minimum. A
comparison of trirfls of Hunter form boats with the model basin resistance
characteristics of the Clement form of figure 17 indicate that in respect
to resistance t1 Hunter form is as good or better than the Clement form.

Another novel feature of the Hunter form is the extremely wide

beam, the extension of the bottom surface will outboard of the static
waterline provide stable platform at rest and at low speeds which due to
the high dead rise would not be true if the chine was at or below the static
waterline. This wide planing surface also provides a good aspect ratio
for high speed/length ratios and the bottom spray stripireduce the drag
- of this surface at intermediate speeds.

Another interesting feature used on some boats of this

form is a small retractable centerboard located forward to provide good
low speed maneuverability. This makes up for the lack o± forefoot
which as noted above is an undesirable feature at high speeds.
This high dendrise form has a large and long lateral plane thus making
the bow centerboard a most desirable feature.

There is no doubt that the Hunter Form is an outstanding

'6
example of a boat which has proven itself of being both capable of high
speed in rough water and exhibiting a high degree of seaworthiness un3er
adverse conditions. Ou the othar hand the Hunter form certainly does not
represent the ult-rnte in the development of seaworthy high speed craft
for off shore use. As reported in references l5d and 15e in really
rough going the Hunter form leaves much to be desired in respect to
pounding, violent motions and ability to maintain high speed. It is,,
however one of the best rough water high speed hifi forms developed to date
and being a recent development, further improvements of this type can
be expected.

20
HUNTER Fo1
FiUR 2

2Ö

w
 g. Planing Catnran.
A rather novel approach to the high speed seaworthiness
problem is the planing catamaran. There are a nimber of current designs,
all of th quite recent, for p1ing catmans. One promising Lype is
shown in figure 21.
As can be seen from the lines plan this particular design
consists basically of two rigidly connected slender hulls whose planing
siirfaces are similar to water skis. The division of the planing surface
into 2 separate pieces 1low the use of narrow flat planing surfaces which
although flat are slender enough when taken separately that 1 nmming
impacts are not too severe. The slenderness of the individual hulls
allows them to slice through waves.
To date this type of hull form has been used only for rather
nll outboard runabouts and there is therefore not much to base a
judgement upon regarding the adaptability of this type for off shore use.
flowever the small boats of this type have done well in marathon races in
competition with conventional boats of the same size (see reference 15c).
Bascd upon trial comparisons of 18' manned modela of boats
to the lines of figure 21 and a figure 19, the resistance of figure 21 is
slightly less than figure 19. This points up the efficiency of the
flat laning surfaces. In an 18" short chop the catamaran did not pound.
1hereas the more conventional boat of figure 19 would occasionally slam.
However the catrniran was constantly in motion bouncing along and
occasionally was momentarily lifted by aerodynamic lift on the tunnel
roof, and would then come down with a slight jolt. This was a cyclical
sequence of motions and although the motions are not severe, they are
constant.
Further impression based upon uxiconclusive testing indicates
that this type of catamaran requires rather low displacement/length ratio
and c.g. located well aft. In regard to a1aniiig it can be expected
that in really rough going the flat skis and perhaps the tt.mnel roof would
be subject to rather severe impacts and would produce objectionable
alarming.
In regard to inaneuveability, the catamaran does not bank. The
lateral plane being effectively twice that of a conventional hull makes
steering by means of throttle differentil with twin screws desirable
in conjunction with conventionsl steering.

21
 i

PLAkj,Ñ CATAMA2AkJ
FL)2.E 2A

p
 g. Plum Boat.

Jill of the hull forms discussed above are of the stepless type,
with continuous buttock lines. At higher planing speeds the stepless
type has a lPrge superfluous wetted area required only for proper long-
itudinal support.

Stepped planing boats achieve a much greater reduction in wetted

area by separating the water from a portion of the hull botttn aft of its r
step. This type approaches ideal planing efficiency at high speeds, and is,
therefore, generally used for lightly-loaded racing boats. Attempts have
been made to design stepped hulls which would carry significant payloads,
but in general these have not been successftl, and the stepless type has,
therefore, come to be preferred. The difficulty in designing a stepped
hull for a hea'vy payload is that no single position of the rear planing
surface is satisfactory for both low and high speeds.

A logical solution to the problem of designing a hull which

would possess the advantages of the stepped type and obviate its disadvantages
is a hull having a shnjlow main step and an adjustable rar pinlg
surface. Such a design was developed during the period 1925-1935 by
John Plum, who has been employed by the David W. Taylor Basin since 1942.
Previous load-carrying stepped hulls which were satisfactory at low speeds
were found to be inefficient at high speeds, and those which were efficient
at high speeds were wet and treacherous, and were inefficient at low speeds.
Furthermore, the steps of previous designs have been of considerable
depth, which added to resistance at cruising speeds and also presented a
difficult structural problem.

Mr. Plum's boat has a hull in plan view similar to the Clement
shown in figure 18 above except that the transom is even narrower having
chine beam at station 9 approximately one-half the maximum chine beam. The
naximum chine beam is at station 3. The main step in the form of a wedge
is located just aft of station 5 and the buttocks aft of the wedge 1ise at
about 40. The adjustable planing surface, or stabilizer, at the stern, is
connected to a pneumatic piston in the hull in such a way that its
vertical position can be controlled by compressed air. At low speeds the
stailizer is held close to the hull at an angle equal to that of the
after body keel. At high speeds the stabilizer is lowered and its angle
ehanged: athat it is approximately parallel to the forebody keel. At high
speeds 'the boat planes on a small area forward of the main step and on the
after portion of the stabilizer. The trim angle of the hull can be adjusted
by the pilot by changing the vertical height of the stabilizer. l4hen lowered,
the stabilizer is free to rotate in an approxiate1y horizontal plane about the
piston which connects it to the hull. This gives the stabilizer a caster
action which makes it trail whether the hull is on a straight course of
turning.

22
 The model tests have shown that the Plum design has exceptionally
low calm water resistance at high speeds, and that it efficiency is not
appreciably affected by changes in C.G. location. It is expected that
the trim control made possible by the unique adjustable stern planing
surface will pillow a reduction in pounding in rough water by lowering
angle of attack of the main forward 1aning surface. This will not of
course elim-i nate all slamming, but it should be an improvement.

The location of the engines in the Plum design is just

forward of the step, in the region where the impact forces will occur at
high speeds. The presence of a large mass at the location of the wave impacts
will, it is believed, result in lower angular accelerations and hull
stresses than are suffered by the conventional f orm. The Plum design
should be safer than conventional designs at high speed in a following
sea because of its narrow stern and longitudinal V, which give a higher,
safer trim angle.

A 25 ft. manned model of a "Plum Boat" has been built to

evaluate its full scale performance. Various mechanical deficiences have
postponed trials of this boat. Until rough water trials of the manned
model are run it is hard to predict how well the boat will actw3lly
perform. However, the calm water model tests have already shown that
this boat satisfactorily overce many of the deficiencies of previous
attempts to design stepped planing boats for offshore use.

D. Conclusions and General Rmark.

1. Present State of the Art.

There are a number of uses today for high speed srn11 craft. The
usefulness of these boats is unfortunately lmted by the lack of
seaworthiness of many boats designed for high speed. The factors
contributing to attainment of high speeds have beexi given a great deal of
emphasis, but improvements in seaworthiness have not paralleled the im-
provements in speed. There are certain conflicts between the requirenucs
for high speed and seaworthiness. To date most progress toward solution of
these conflicts has been by trial and error on a case basis, which is by
nature a slow evolution. The optiniu hull form has by no means been
developed.

Model testing in rough water is a relatively new field and has

not been done to any great extent. Comparative model tests under controlled
conditions offer the possibility that the trial and error evolution of the
r.ast can be accelerated.

23
 Solutions Other Than Hull Form.

This paper has discussed hull form only. Outside of the general
area of hull form two very promising developments hold great prnmse of
providing seaworthy high speed small craft. These are as follows: Hydrofoil
support and air cushion, suDoot; Small seaworthy small craft capable of high
speeds in open water have been developed using fully subnerged foil systems in
conjunction with electronic flight control devices; and surface percing foil
systems iing foil geometry as the primary flight control device. Both
of these configurations have been sufficiently developed to the point
where the technical feasibility and the superior rough water pformance
are now proven facts. The one ajor drawback is expense and a minor
drawback is that except for some retractable configuratiorithe draft and
beam of the foils is not easily adaptable to many small boât facilities.

Air cushion support has not been developed for use on rnall craft
to any great extent. It can be expected that as general developments
are mañe in air support systems that adaptation for use on high speed
small craft will a logical application since the basic features of low
water resistance and smooth motions are inherent to this type of support.

Future Prospects.

High speed small craft seaworthy enough to be classed as "all

weather craft" will probably never be possible without employment of
hydrofoil Support. But short of this there is a lot which can 'be done.
Applications such as navy patrol boats, oil±.g crew boats, passenger ferries,
and private yachts all demand more speed and improved rough water
dependability. Small boats traditionally ha-v'è been economical solutions to
many transport and naval requirements. Today when speed is no longer a ].uury
but a necessity it is iAcubent upon small craft designers to develop
practical seaworthy boats keeping pace with modern developments in other
fields.

24

fr
 Rerences

Pournaras, U. A.and Sherman, P; "Model test Results and Predicted

for a Round Bilge 40 ft. Aircraft Rescue Boat Design
from Tests of
Model 4525' DT Report No. 1002, November 1955.
Eleftheriades, P. K.: "Model test Results and Predicated Eli?
for
two Designs for the MX 2 4.0 ft. AVR from Tests of
DT Models 4520 and 4543;
Report No. 971, August 1955.

Du Cane, Peter; "Model Evaluation of Four High Speed

Hifil Forms in
Following and Head Sea Conditions"; Paper presented
at "Symposium on
ehavior of Ships in a Seaway" held at the Netherlands
Ship Model Basin,
Wageningen; September 7th - 10th 1957.

Clement, E. P.; "Aialyzing the Stepless Planing Boat";

DTMB Report
No. 1093, November 1956.

5.. Neyer, E. R.: "Results of

Standardization, Tactical, and Rough
Water Trials on Five Aircraft Rescue Boats'1; Dfl
Report No. 1108,
April 1957.

Ashton, Randolph; "Effect of Spray Strips on Various Power-Boat

Designs"; E. T. T. Technical Memorandum No. 99, February
1949.
Clement, E. P.: "Experimental Boat-Hull Form
Test Program, Basic
Form, Model 4300, Resistance Characteristics";
DTNB Report No. 740,
November 1950.

Curry, J. H.: "Model Test Results and Predicted EHP

for Scheme
"L", Experimental Boat. Hull Forni test
program, from tests of Model 4312";
DTMB Report No. 757, March 1951.

Clement, E. P. and Kimon, P. M.: "Comparative

Resistance Data for
Four Planing Boat Designs"; DTMB Report No. 1113,
January 1957.
Clement, E. P.: "Model test Results and Predicted
Experimental Boat-Thill Form test Program, from
EHP for Scheme I,
tests of model 43O DThIB
Report No. 764, April 1951.

II. Clement, E. P. and Tate, C. W.: "Smooth Water

of Planing Boat Designs"; DTMB Report No. 1378. Resistance of a Number

12. Lord, Lindsay; "Naval Architecture of Planing Hull

Cornell Maritime Press, 1954.
, 'Revised Edition;

1
 Curry, J. H.; "Experimental Boat-Hull Form test Program, Scheme "J"
Model 4310, Resistance Characteristicstt; DTMB Report No.
1950.
738, 0ctob

Clement, E.P.; "Development and Model Tests of aix Efficient Planing

Hull Design"; DT Report No. 1314, April 1959.

"Revolution Hunt Style"; The Skipper (agazine), July 1958.

i''hittier, Bob- "Boats and Boating"; pg 50-52, The Salt Water b'

Sportsman (Magazines, September 1958.

Bowen, Ezra; "Smooth Ride for Rough Seas"; pg 33-35, Sports
Illustrated (Magazine), January 26, 1959.

Mitchell, C.; "Glory Be To Power"; Sports Illustrated (magazine),

April 25, 1960.
Bertram, R. not for the faint of heart"; pg 28-30 and 53, The
Skipper (Magazines, June 1960.

".A Redly Fast Fast Cruiser".; pg 341+ - 346, The Motor Boat and Yachting
(Magazine, British), July 1960.

"For High Speed in Rough Water" pg 63 and 105, Yachting (Magazine),

August 1960.
 Bib1ioranhy

Du Cane, Peter; "High Speed SniaJ.1 Craft," second edition; Temple

Press Ltd., London, 1956.

Phillips - Birt, D; "The Naval Architecture of Small Craft";

Philosophical Library, New York, 1957.

De Groot, B.; "Resistance and Propulsion of Motor Boats";

International Shipbuilding Progress, Vol. 2, No. 6,1955.

Nordstr6m, H. F.: "Some Tests with Modls of Small Vessels";

Publication of the Swedish State Shipbuilding Experimea1 Trnk, Goteborg,
No. 19, 1951.
Murray, Allan B.; "The Hydrodynamics of Planing Hulls"; SNAME
transactions vol 58 (1950) pg 658 - 692.

Du Cane, Peter; "The Planing Performance, Pressures, and Stresses

in a High Speed Launch'; Institution of Naval Architects (British) -
transactions, vol 98 (1956) pg 469 - 490.