NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

TECHNICAL NOTE
No. 1101

T A N K TESTS TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF VARYING DESIGN P A M M E T E R S O F PLANING-TAIL HULLS 11

EFFECT OF VARYING DEPTH OF STEP,

ANGLE OF AFTEXBODY KEEL, LENGTH OF AFTERBODY CHINE, AND GROSS LOAD By J o h n R. Dawson, Robert McKann, and Elizabeth. S. Hay Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory Langley Field, Va.

I
Washing ton
J u l y 1946

T? ATIONAL ADVISORY CCliJtITTZE FOR JJROWAUTICS

B y John R. Dawson, Robert McIZann, 3 d E l i z d b e t h S. Hay r

The second p a r t o f a s e r i e s of t e s t s riiade ir, Langley t a n k no. 2 t o deter1xhi.e t h e e f f e c t of v a r y f n g design. p w a i i e t e r s of p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l s i s p r e s e n t e d . Results w e g i v e n t o show t h e e f f e c t s on r e s i s t a n c e c h a r a c t e r L s t i c s o f v a r y i n g a n g l e of a f t e r b o d y k e e l , d e p t h o f s t e p , The ei'fect o f v a r y i n g and length of a f t e r b o d y chine. t h e gross l o a d i s s1iol-m f o r 012s ccnf5-guratlon. The r e s i s t a n c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or" p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l s are comnpared w i t h t h o s e ' of a c o n v a n t i o n a i f l y i n g - b o a t h u l l . The f o r c e s on t h e P o r e b o d g and a r t e , r b o d g of oile configur a t i o n a r e compared w i t h t h e forces on a c o n v e n t i o n a l hull

I n c r e a s i n g t h e a n g l e o f a f t e r b o d y k e e l had small e f f e c t on hump r e s f s t a n c e and n o er"r"ect oil high-speed r e s i s t a n c e but incpeased ?ree-to-trim r e s i s t a n c e a t i n t e r m e d i a t e speeds. I n c r e a s i n g t h e d e p t h o f s t e p increased- hump resistace, had l i t t l e e f f e c t on high-speed r ~ s i s t z a c a , and i n c r e a s e d f r e e - t o - t r b r e s i s t a n c e a t i n t e m z e d i a t e speeds.
O m i t t i r - , g t h e c h i n e s o n t h e f o r w a r d 25 p e r c e n t o? t h e a f t e r b o d y had no a p s r e c i a b l e ei'i'ect on T e s i s t a n c e . O x i t t i n g 70 p e r c e n t of t h e chfne l e n g t h had alxost, no e f f e c t on m a x i n u n r e s i s t a n c e but broadened t h e h m p and i n c r e a s e d s p r a y around t h e afterbo6.y.

L o a d - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i o a t t h e h u m p d e c r e a s e d more r a p i d l y with i n c r e a s i n g l o a d c o e f f i c f e n t f o r t h e p l a n i n g t a i l h u l l than f o r the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e conventional h u l l , a l t h o u g h t h e l o a d - r e s i s t a n c e r s t i o a t t h e hun!!p was greater f o r the p l a n i n g - t a i l hull t h a n f o r t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l h u l l throughout t h e range o f loads t e s t e d . At s p e s d s h i g h e r t h a n hum? speed, l o a d - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i o f o r t h e p l z n i n g t a i l h u l l was a maximum a t a p a r t i c u l a r gross l o a d and w 8 s s l i E h t l y l e s s a t h e a v i e r and l i g h t e r grcss loads. i h e p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l was founc', t o have l m e r r e s i s t a n c e t h a n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l hu1.1 a t b o t h %e hump and a t h % g h s p e e d s , but a t i n t e r n e d i a t e s ? e e d s t h e r e w a s l i t t l e d i f f e r s n s e . The lower hun? y e s i s t a m e of t h e a b i l i t y cf the planing-t?A.l hull ' S J F ~ Sa t t r i b u t e d t o a f t e r b c d g t o c a r r y 8 g r e a t e r percentcLge of t h e t o t a l l o a d whlle m a i n t a i n l n g 3 YiLgtler v s l u e of l o a d . - r e s i s t n n c s r a t i o
INTRODTJCTICN
m

I n r e f e r e n c e 1 a r e r e p o r t e d the r e s i x l t s of p r e 1imi.nary t e s t s m a d e 7~7.ithmodels of an u n c o n v e n t i o n a l f l y i n g - b o a t hul.1. c a l l e d s! p l a n i n g - t a i l hull. The XACA p l a n i n g - t a l l hull c o r i s i s t s of a forebody having a pointed s t e r J of g r e a t d . e P t h l e a d i n g i n t o a v e r y l c n g a f t e r b c d y . T h i s a f t e r b o d y e x t e n d s back t o t h e r e g i o n where t h e t a i l s u r f a c e s would be a t t a c h e d ; t h u s no t a i l e x t e n s i o n i s r e q v - i r e d beh.ind t h e s f t e r b o d g . The r e s u l t z o f r e f e r e n c e 1 i n d i c s t e c l t , h a t t h i s type h u l l might have some advantages o v e r t h e h u l l o f a c o n v e n t i o n a l f l y i n g b o a t . T h i s work was f o l l o w e d by 3 s e r i e s o f t 3 s t s nade t o determine t h e e f f e c t s en r e s i . s t a n c e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of v a r y i n g d e s i g n p m a r n e t s r s . P E r t I determined t h e e f f e c t o f v a r y i n g l e n g t h , w i d t h , and F l s n - f c , r m tc.per c,f t h e a f t e r b o d y . ( S e e r e f e r e n c e 2 . ) The p r e s e n t p a F e r , part Ii, g t v e s t h e r e s u l t s of t e s t s i?;1.?de i n L a n g l e y t.rnk n o . 2 t o d e t e r m h e t h e e f f e c t o f var;Ting, angle o f a f t e r b o d y k e e l , deFth of stei7, len,gth o f afterbody ch.ine, 3nd g r o s s load.

The d a t a o f t h e t e s t s were r e d u c e ? t o t h e f o l l o w i n g nondim e n s i o n a l c o e f f i c i e n t s bssec! on F r o u d e ' s c r i t e r i o n f o r s h i 1a r i t y :

CA

load c o e f f i c i e n t

(27)

3
cAo
CR

g r o s s icad. c o e f f i c i e n t
resistarice ccefficient speed c o e f f i c i e n t trimming-moment c o e f f i c i e n t draft coefficient

Cv'
CkiI

'd
A

(g)
\b;

l o a d on w r , t e r , pcunds

do

gross load o n vmter, pounds

r e s i s t a n c e , pounds s l p e c i f l c wei.g:ht c f water

R
Vi

(63.6 lb/cu

f t i n these t e s t s )

v
M
E

speed, f e e t y e r second t r i m i n g mcnient, p c u n d - f e e t ; moments tending t a r a i s e bow a r e c c a s t 6 e r e 2 ;:!csftive e c c e l e r a t l o n of gravity, feet ? e r secnnd ;ser secor,d
d r a f t a t ste?,

feet

Other symbols used a r e

U

anEle of afterbody k e e l , d e g r e e s ._ l c n g i t u d i n a l d i s t a n c e f r o i p c e n t e r o f mornents t o s t e p , Inches: distance a f t o f s t e ? considerec! negative

depth of ste?,

I?
A

inches

? a r t o f a f t e r b o d y o v e r which c h i n e s a r e e m i t t e d ,
inches

?,srt of a f t e r b o d y o v e r which c'lines are r e t a i n e d . , inclze s

s t e r n p c s t angle, degrees loed-resIstznce r a t i o

A/%

I n o r ? e r t o avold e f f e c t s of secondary v a r i a b l e s not under s t u d y , t h e models were n a d e with a f t e r b o d i e s 'Ghat wei7e very sir.?ple i.n form.. F i l l e t s and fairings v;:ere o m i t t e d ; c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e m0d.el.s would r e q u i r e furt!-,.er r e f i n e n e n t s bef c r e beLng made i n t o hu13.s of good a.erodgnamic f o r m .

The geneTe.1 1.ines o f t h e invdels . a r e g i v e n i n figure 1

ar,d t a b l e I l i s t s tbe p e r t i n e n t d i m e n s i o , n s snd p n r a n e t e r s

of each. m o d . e l . The Tcrebody for all models i s tt?a.t o f N A L W model 35-A, which. i s t h e s4me f o r e b o d y 8 s was used i n t h e t e s t s r e 7 o r t e d . i n r e f e r e r i c e 3 and I n t h e p l a n i n g tail-h.ul.1 t e s t s o f r e f e r e n c e 2 ; offsets o f this f'crebodg c r e g i v e n i n r e f e r e n c e j.
T h e - a f t e r b o d g used i n t h e t e s t s t o s t u d y an.gle of a . f t e r b o d y k e e l and d e p t h o f s t e p was a p r i s m a t i c f a r n , peiitagonal i n s e c t i o n except for c y l i n d r i c a l s e c t i o f i s from s t a t l o n s 1 2 t o 13-. Between t h e s e s t a t i o n s t h e 1 2 a f t e r S o d y was made c y l i n d r i c s l s o t h a t c o n t i n u i t y cou1.d Se lliaintained when p y r t s o f t h e c h i n e s were removed. The c y l i n 6 r i c a l - s e c t i c . n s c l e a r e c ? t h e wnrater j u s t below h.unp siieed alnd r e m i n e d clear 3 . t a i l 3igh.er s y c e d s . The chlnes o m i t t e d f r o m ? a r t s c,f l2.e s r ' t e r b c d g by i n s e r t i n g l e i l g t h s t h e t were c L r c 3 2 . m i n s e c t i o n . . The d L s c o n t i n u i t i e s between t h e s i r c u l a r ?nd p e n t a g o n a l s e c t i o n s were f a . i r e d with ;3le.st,icine. Ill t'hcu.yh. 'che mod.el r,rc?dvced by this sIrn:?l& m s t h . o d was r e l e t i v e l g c r u d e , i t should be adequate t o sbclni t h e e f f e c t s cf' o v i t t i n p . c h i n e s or? part of t h e 9 ft e r bo dy
y m r e

5
The v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e models t e s t e d a r e g i v e n i n t h e foll-ov;in; t a b l e :

Langley

mo de 1

163.~ 163~6 165a-11 163~-16 163 A-3 163%-13 163 A- 11A 163A-I- i~

2
5C.b

.5?b

88.5 m .5 88.5 eg.5 ?8.5 2.8.5

75.c

The t e s t s were made by t h e s p e c i f i c me'thod. All c o n f i g u r a t i o n s were t e s t e d a t a. gross l o a d c o e f f i c i e n t o f 1 . 0 0 snr? one m o d e l w.->s t e s t e d also a t gross l o s d c o e f f i c i e n t s of 0.77 an6 1 . 2 5 . I n o r d e r t o s i m p l i f y t h e t e s t s , w h g l i f t w%s assumed t o v a r y o n l y as t h e s q u a r e o f t h e speed, axd t h e p z r a . b o l l c l o a d c u r v e s o f f i g u r e 2 were used.. F i x e d - t r i m r u n s s t ccn.star_t s?eed.s were m2d.e 2nd r e s i s t a n c e , d r a f t , a z d . trimming rnomects were measured f o r each r v n . a u f f i c f e n t t r i m s we?e covered i n t b e t e s t s t,o g t v e t r i m f c r m i n i m u m r e s i s t a n c e , z e r o trimins moments f o r t h e c e i i t e r of moments u s e d ( f i g . I), and enough ciali~ t c d e r i v e f r e e - t o - t r i m c u r v e s f o r a c e n t e r cf moments t h a t would g t v e z e r o trircluning moment f c r b e n t t r L m a t the 17oint of maximum r e s i s t a n c e .

R e s i s t a n c e , as p l o t t e d , i n c l u d e s t h e sir d r a g 2nd t h e hydyodgnamic r e s i s t a n c e of t h e model s i n c e only t h e a i r d r a g (;f t h e towing g e a r w a s s u b t r a c t e d as 9 t a r e from t h e measured v a l u e s of r e s i s t a r x e . T r l m , a s measured, j - s t h e a n g l e between +,he horizontal a n d the stra5p.k.t p a r t cf th.e f c r e b o s y k e e l . D r a f t vvzs mezsured v ~ ; ~ t l c , a lfrom ly t h e p o i n t c f t h e s t e p a t th.e k e e l t c the f r e e - w a t e r s u r f a c e ,

At h i g h s p e e d s 2nd low t r i m s the s f t e r b o d i e s of the mode1.s were c l e a r cf all v7Pter snd spray. Under t h e s e
c o n d i t i o n s , t h e r e s i s t a n c e of t h e complete model c a n d i f f e r f r m t h a t of t h e f c r e b o d y a l o n e by c n l y t h e s m a l l

d i f f e r e n c e s i n a i r d r a g . Data f r o r r unpublished t e s t s ma.de w i t h t h e forebodg alone were compared w i t h t h e r e s x l t s from some of t h e ? r e s e n t t e s t s made with t h e complete c o n f i g u r a t i o n s ; under c c n d i t i c n s i n which t h e a f t e r b o d i e s of t h e ccmplete rnod&elewere c l e s r of t h e w a t e r , t h e r e s i s t a n c e was found t o be n e g l i g i b l y a f f e c t e d by t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e a f t e r b o d y . Data frcrn t h e f o r e body t e s t s were t h e r e f o r e used. f o p some of t h e models i n t h e speed r e g i c n whcjre t h e a f t e r b o d i e s were c l e a r , and o n l y s u f f i c i e n t t e s t s w r e made w i t h t h e complete m o d e l i n t h i s regLon t o determine whether t h e a f t e r S o d i e s were d . e f i n 5 t e l g cl.ear of t h e w a t e r .
RESULTS W D DIS S TJS S1ON

The r e s u l t s cf t h e t e s t s a r e g i v e n i n f i g u r e s 3 t o 1 2 i n whicb r e s i s t a n c e , trimming-moment, and d r a f t c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t speed c o e f f i c i e n t w i t h t r i m a s a p a r a m e t e r . The s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t a t which ezch a f t e r b o d y c l e a r e d t h e water i s i n d i c q t e d i n t h e s e f l g u r e s . Unlike t h e convention21 s f t e r b c d y , which : i s o f t e n w e t t e d by t b e f o r e b o d y s p r a g a f t e r t h e a f t e r b o d y h a s c l e a r e d , t h e - 9 l a n i n g - t a i l s f t e r h o d i e s remained unwetted a t a l l s p e e d c o e f f i c i e n t s g r e ? t e r t h a n t h o s e a t which t h e a f t e r b o d i e s o r i g i i i a l l y c l e a r e d .

I n o r d e r t o show t h e e f f e c t of the s e v e r a l p a r a m e t e r s under s t u d y ( d e p t h of s t e p , an:zl.e cf a f t e r b o d y k e ' e l , l e n g t h c f a f t e r b o d y c h i n e , and'--gross l o a d ) , b o t h b e s t t r i m ailti f r e e - t o - t r i m (zero-trim.ming-moment i c u r v e s were d e r i v e d f o r - e a c h moclel. ( S e e f i g s . 13 t o 22.) F r e e - t o t r i m resistnnce characteristics are necessarily a function of t h e 1 o c a t i . o n cf t h e c e n t e r o f p a v i t g . I n order t o com7are f r e e - t o - t r i m d a t a of d i f f e r e n t h u l l s , i t is t 3 e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a , b l i s h 2 c r i t e r l o n f o r the s e l e c t i o n of' t h e c e n t e r s of g r a v i t y a t v h i c h t h e comparisons a r e t o be made. Tke u s e cf a 1ocatS.on of the c e n t e r o f g r a v l t g t h a t i s a c o n s t a n t d i s t z n c e f r o % some a r b i t r s r y p o i n t on t h e model, such 2 s t k e s t e p , does n o t always give a f a i r corv?arison because t h e optimum. value f o r . t h i s d i s t a n c e may n o t be the same f o r each h u l l . IT! o r d e r t o o b t a i , n a f s i r b a s i s f o r cornparing t h e d . a t a f o r t h e various c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , c e n t e r - c f - g r a v i t y l o c a t i o n s m'eye s e l e c t e d t h a t xmuld result i n z e r o t r i n n i n p moment f o r b e s t ' t r i m a t t h e s7eecl corres;>ond.ing t o maxinun r e s i s t a n c e .

Trimmin~-pomerit c i i r v e s at, b e s t t r i m and f r e e - t o - t r i m c u r v e s were d e t e r n i r ; e $ f o r t h e same c e n t e r cf g r a v i t y . The l o c a t i o n s of the c e n t e r of grd;ritg t h s t Fesultec'i from t h i s s r o c e d u r e a r e g j v e n SrL f i p r e s 1 3 t o 2 2 . E f f e c t of Angle of Afterbody Keel The e f f e c t s of zngle of a f t e r b o d y k e e l on f r e e - t o t r i m an? b e s t - t r i m c b a r s . c t e r t s t i c s s.re shcwn i n f i g u r e s 13 and F i p F e 21 iz a c r c s s p l o t of' r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t , C R , a , r , a i n s t a . q l e of a f t . e r b o d y keel, a , a t 9 c o n s t a n t .cieDth of s t e i s , 3. F i g u r e 22 i s a s i m i l a r c r o s s n i o t of CR egaii?st I;I a t v a l u e s for a o f O c and

14.

4 ' .

Eun? r e s i s t s n c e W R S n o t g r e a t l y e . f f e c t e d by clzmge i n angle o f a f t e r b o d y keel.. A t 1 = C . S O b 3 no apprecia51-e d i f ' f e r s n c e :was n o t e d i n t h e hiimp r e s l s t , s n c e at v a l u e s of a o f Oo end bo ( f i g . 2 2 ) . A t H = 0.35b ( f i g . 21) d e c r e a s i n c a from 60 t o bo had! EO e f f e c t on bun? r e s i s t a n c e , b u t a D e r c e p t i b l e i n c r e a s e was c b t a i n e d by rediicing a. t o Go.. I n v e s t i 3 a t f o n s o f convent.lona1 hul1.s h s v e genera.ll;r s3,own h u q r e s i s t a n c e t o d e c r e a s e subs t a n t i a l . l y with. d e c r e a s l n g a n z l e of Zfterbody k e e l . I t i s 1 o g i c t . l t h a t i f the a n g l e of a f t e r b o d y k e e l o f any c o n f i p r e t i o n i s vzyied throuzh a s u f f i c i e n t l y wide r s n g e , an arLgle t h . a t g i v e s n?inimum hump r e s i s t a n c e i v i l l be foun6.. This oytirnun a n g , l e would be exi7ected t o v a r y with change i n t h e d e p t , h cf' s t e ~ And o t h e r c h s n p s i n f o r m . Ap-sarently t h e r a n g e of a t h a t has Seen of i n t , e r e s t i n c o n v e n t i o n a l hu3..1s 1j.es above th.e vslixe of a f o r ininimum bump r e s i s tance. IK t h e c a s e of t h e ; 3 l a n i n g - t z i l c o n f i y u r a t . i o r i s , however, t h e r a n z e o f a t e s t e d . ak)pc?red t o l i e n e ? r t h e a s i u e of a f c r rninimun b.rm!? r e s f s t a n c e ; t h e s m a l l e s t values of a were below t h i s v a l u e f c 9 d e 2 t h o f step ~ o f 0.35b. Thus, a tendency F o r t h e h.uix? r e s i s t a n c e t o i n c r e s s e with 6ecre2,sing angle of afterbody k e e l may be c o n s ? ' s t e n t I f i i t t h t h e opi3osite trenc! found I n t e s t s with h u l l s of c o n v e n t i o n a l f o r m .

T3e most pronowiced e f f e c t o f v a r y i n g m F l e cf a f t e r b o d 7 k e e l on f r e e - t c - t r i n ? . r e s i s t a n c e ( f i g , .

1-3) v i p s

o b t a i n e d i n t h e i n t e r m e d l a t e ?lanlng r a n g e (Cv z where i n c r e a s i n g t h e a n g l e 3f a f t e r b o d y k e e l caiased a l s r g e i n c r e a s e i n t r i m a b c v e b e s t t r t n , which 1 - e s u l t e d i n 2. s e c c n d s r y r e s ? l s t a n c e ~ e x l i . T h i s 2ea.k inc're3sed Y S ai1pl.e of a f t e r b o d y keel increased. x i 6 excee3.ed t h e hum? - r e s i s t a n c e a t t h e h i p h e s t angle of afterbody k e e l .

4.0)

B e s t - t r i m r e s i s t a n c e ( f i g s . 1 and 21) i n t h e speed 4 k.0 w a s i n c r e a s e d o ~ l y l i g h t l y w i t h s r e g f o n Cv i n c r e a s i n g anmle c f a f t e r b o d y k e e l . I n t h e high-speed r e s i o n ( " = g.5) r e s i s t z n c e a t besk t r i m was n o t

"v

a f f e c t e d by a n g l e o f a f t e r b o d y k e e l because t h e a f t e r body was c l e w f o r si1 confIgyirations t e s t e d ana t h e r e s i s t a n c e was e s s e n t l s l l y t h a t o f t h e forebodg a l o n e . I n c r e a s i n g th.e a n g l e of afterbo2;y k e e l i n c r e a s e d t h e t r i m i n t h e f r e e - t o - t r i x c c z d i t i o n throughout n e a r l y a l l t h e speed r a n g e . nTB ll i g r e s t e s t chaage o c c u r r e d between v ~ l u e sof a of Oo and 20. ( S e e f i g . 1 3 . ) T r i i m h g mcnents Pcr b e s t trin WeFt?, Fn g e n e r a l , g r e a t e s t a t i n t e r m e d i a t e s g s e d s . The maximurr. v a l u e s o f t , r i m i n g moments tended t o i n c r a a s e with angle of af t e r b o d g k e e l b u t t h e speed a t w27ich t h e s e maxirnan values. occu-rred d.screase6 8 s s n g l e of' a f t e r b o d y k e e l was incre8,sed. (See f i g .

14.)

E f f e c t o f Depth cf S t e p The e f f e c t o f d e p t h o f s t e p i s shown i n f i g u r e s 15, 16,ana 22. The hum:, r e s i s t z n c e was i n c n e a s e d ky i n c r e a s b g H from 0 . 3 5 s t o (3.50b. Ir, t h e i n 5 e r r e d i a t e p l a n i n g r a n g e , v s r y l r g t h e c?epth o f steF a f f e c t e d f r e e - t o - t r i n r e s i s t z n c e i n xuch t h e same way 8 s had v a r y i n g t h e a n g l e of a f t e r b o d y k e e l . B e s t - t r i m r e s i s t a n c e was l i t t l e a f f e c t e d a t h i g h speeds. The e f f e c t s o b t a i n e d f o r v a l u e s of a o f b o t h O o and were s i m i l a r . (See f i g . 22.)

An i r , c r e a s e i n 2 e p t h o f s t e p r e s u l t e d i n an l n c r e a s e i n t r i m ir, b o t h t h e b e s t - t r i m and. f r e e - t o - t r i m c o n d i t i o n s f o r a l l speeds u.p t o th9.t a t which t h e afterb0d.y c l e a r e d t h e w a t e r . T~knm?Lng mcmects for b e s t t r i m were o n l y s l i g h t l y a f i ' e c t s d Sg ch?a.n..ge i n d e p t h o f s t e p .
E f f e c t o f S t e r n p o s t Angle S t e r n p o s t angle 5 (fig. 1) i s a f u n c t i o n o f b o t h d e p t h of s t e p a.nd a n g l e of a f t e r b o d y keel. I n f i g u r e 23 r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t i s p l o t t e d a g a i n s t sterripost angle a t t h r e e speed c c e f f i c i e n t s . The secondary p e a k (C, z tended t o i n c r e a s e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g s t e r n p o s t a n g l e and aaproxirnately t h e same r e s u l t s were obtained. whether t h e

4.0)

s t e r n p o s t a n g l e was v a r i e d b ; ~changing t h e depth o f s t e p or t h e a n g l e of' a f t e r b o d y k e e l . A t t h e hump t h e r e s i s t a n c e i s n o t a s i n g l e - v a l u e d f u n c t i o n of t h e s t e r n p o s t a n i l e . S i n c e t h e b e s t - t r i m r e s i s t a n c e a t h i g h speed (Cv = f . 5 ) was a f f e c t e d by n e i t h e r d e p t h o f s t e p nor a n g l e o f a f t e r body k e e l , t h e s t e r n p o s t a n p l e h a s 20 e f f e c t on r e s i s t a n c e . E f f e c t o f Vargifig Length - o f Afterbo6y Chlne

In f i g u r e s 17 and 18 t h e e f f e c t o f v a r y i n g l e n g t h o f a f t e r b o d y chine ( b y o m i t t i n g t h e c h i n e s f o r a s much a s 70 p e r c e n t of t h e l e n g t h of t h e a f t e r b o d y ) i s showr,. The p a r t of t h e s f t e r b o d y o v e r which t h e c h t n e s a r e o n i t t e d i s designa.ted A , a n d the par% cver which t h e c h i n e s a r e r e t a l n e d i's designated! 3 . The cu.rves show t h a t o m i t t i n g t h e chiiles f o r t h e f o r w a r d 25 p e r c e n t (1.0011) o f the a f t e r b o d y had no a p p r e c i s b l e e f f e c t cn r e s i s t a n c e . ' h i t t i n g t h e forwand 70 p e r c e n t (2.8Gb) o f th.e c h ineS c9used t h e hump r e s i s t a n c e t o occur a t a h i g h e r speed, broadened t h e hump, b u t ?;.,ad a l m c s t no e f f e c t o n t h e maximun: r e s i s t a n c e .
With 70 n e r c e n t of the c h i n e removed, s p r a y r o s e a s h i g h a s 1,h beam above t h e a f t e r b o d y and w o u l d tend t o be thrown a g a i n s t t h e t a i l s u r r a c e s w i t h encugh f c r c e t o i n c r e a s e maintenance d i f f i c u l t i e s .

E f f e c t o f Varying Gross Load The e f f e c t o f v a r y i n g gross l o a d on a p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l i s shcwn i n f i g u r e s 19 and 2 2 ; i n f i g u r e 24 l o a d a t best t r i m i s plotted against r e s i s t a n c e r a t i o A/R l o a d c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t h r e e speed c o e f f i c i e n t s . F i g u r e a l s o i n c l u d e s v a l u e s of A/R a t best t r i m f o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e conventional h u l l ( h u l l A ) .
The changes 2n t r i m and trinm1n.g moment cEused by i n c r e a s i n g t h e l o a d c o e f f i c i e n t were i n c o c s i s t e n t b u t , i n g e n e r a l , n c t l a r g e (figs. 19 and 20).

2 4

Figure shows t h a t A/R a t t h e hump f o r t h e ? l a n i n g - t a i i hull decreased ra.pidly with i n c r e a s i n g l o a d c o e f f i c i e n t . A t speed c o e f f i c i e n t s of 4.0 and 6.5, A/R for t h e p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l was a maximum for t h e l o a d c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a g r o s s l o a d c o e r f i c i e n t of 1 . 0 0 and was s l i g h t l y l e s s a t l i g h t e r 2nd h e a v i e r l o a d s .

2 4

Cor~parjiscno f Convent.iona1 and Planfng-T'ai1 Bulls

A coiq2rison of the res5stmce. c h z r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a p l a n l n g - t a i l h u l l (ncd.el i b 5 B - l l ) witk those of a cor?.vent9c:2al h u l l . (hull A) is @\?en i: f i g u r e 25, iir wb3ch speed c o 5 f f i c f e n t i s .plo'ited agairist r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t a t b e s t tr4.r; f o r b o t h hulls and a g a i n s t resfs!;m.cs c o e f f i c i e n t a t f s e e t o trim. for t h e p l a n i n g taii hull. In the b e s t - t r 3 . v . c c n d i t i o n , rnodel 1 6 3 ~ - i l had c C i ~ , s i i i ~ r t i blow;,2:r resj,.stai;.c,e t 3 a . n hull A a t t h e lj~ h ~ m ?an.6 a t h5gh s p e ~ d s ; at i n t . e x i e d T a t s s p e e d s t h e r e i s If'itle drfference i n resistance, In t h e f r e e - t o t r i m co:?<ittor?, i~!odsI1 & 3 ~ - had. l o a e r r e s i s t a n c e than ~1 h u l l A i t h e best-triv c x x i i t i o n z the parts o f the
q e e d rang?^ v h z r e r e s i e t g n c s -is c r i t f c a l ( h u q and kigh s n e e d ) . A t tka i n t s r m d i a t e S T J ~ ~ B ~the f r e e - t o - t r i m S , r e s l s t a l z c e of' t h e planing-tal.; 31x11 5 s somewhat ,s.reater t h a n t.he ' ! l e s t - t r i m r e s f stance of t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l h u l l because o f ',Li:.gh t,rf.qs. ,*

i ' for. 7~di?.chlength-beam r > a t i o W s S m r i e d eystenaticallg ( u n p u b l i s h e d 2 a t a f . The v a l u e s o f A/R a t the h m p f o r two p l a n i n g - t 8 a i l h i i l l s and t w o unreia:';ed c a n v s n t i c n s l huils a r e also p l o t t e d i n this I"1gdre. Figui-e 26 shows that the values of A/R at t h e h u n p for a i l t h e c c n v c n t t o n a l k ! 1 s ?1 1 . f K L i OR t:Jja r a t 3 e r clezrly det'ii>eCt c u r v e s , a l t h o i l g h two of the h ~ 1 l . s a d n o r e l a t i o r , t o e i t h e r length-kza.m s e r i e s . h The valu-es c f A/E a t t h e hu.m-p for t,he c)laning-taLl h u l l s z r e f a r zSove the curves.
The i n c r e u s e in A/F; t h s t would be o b t a i n e d f o r h u l l A by increasing t h e f c r e b o d g lEngtki-'beam r a t l c is

In f i g u r e 26 h / R at t h e hzq is p l o t t e d . against 1, /o ; f o r two s e r i e s o f h u l l s foreboc?g length-bezm y a t i c

ITACA TM Bo,

1101
p a r t of t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e v a l u e s A and t h e p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l s . The t h e d i f f e r e n c e must 'be due tcb o t h e r 'tot h e p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l .

11

therefore a s n a l l A/R f o r hull remaining p a r t of features peculiar

of

The c u r v e s of f i g u r e 27 show t h a t t h e l o w r e s i s t a n c e o b t a i n e d f r o m a p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l i s p r i m a r i l y due t o t n e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e p l a n i n g - t a i l a f t e r b o d y . I n t h i s figure resistance coefficient, t r i m , load-resistance r a t i o , a n d p e r c e n t a g e of t o t a l load on t h e model c a r r i e d by t h e a f t e r S o d y a r e p l o t t e d a g a i n s t speed c o e f f i c i e n t f o r b o t h model 1 6 3 A 7 1 1 and. h u l l 5. Curves of A/R are g i v e n f o r t h e f o r e b o z i e s . and a f t e r b o d i e s s e p a r a t e l y a s w e l l a s f o r t h e complete models. E u l l B (NACA model 126~4, r e f e r s n c e .!+), which i s s i n i l a r t o 211 e x i s t i n g f l y i n g b o a t except T o r ari a n g l e of a f t e r b o d y k e e l t h a t i s 20 lower, i s u.sed i n t h e p r e s e n t comparison because t h e d 2 t a were a v a i l a S i e f r o y unpublLshe6 t e s t s . I n these t e s t s ; a special balance W E $ used t o rrieasvre s e p a r a t e l y t h e f o r c e s j o n t h e forebody and t h e a f ' t e r i o d g . S e 9 a r a t i o n of f o r c e s i c m t h e forebody 2nd tkP s f t e r ' 2 o d g o f t h s p l a n i n g - t a i l hull was nade by t h e meth.od or" Fef'erence 1 , ; ~ h . i c hu s e s r e s u l t s of t e s t s made w i t h th.e forebody a l o n e .

The r e s l s t a n c e hump f o r r o d e 1 163h-11 o c c u r r e d a t a speed c o e f f i c i e n t of 1.8. A t t h i s speed t h e r e s i s t a n c e of the t w o hulls Is not greatly different. Eowever, a t a speed c o e f f i c i e n t of 3.0, a t which t h e r e s i s t a n c e hump o f h u l l B o c c m s , t h e r e s i s t a n c e o f model 163~-11 s i v e r y much l e s s a_rd t h e cause of t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e r e s i s t a n c e c u r v e s of t h e t w o models a t t h i s p a i n t i s o f primzry i n t e r e s t . F i g u r e 2 7 ( c ) shows t h a t a t cv = 3 . C , t h e value o f A/EI for t h e forebodg of model 163~-11 s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e v a l u e f o r t h e f o r e i body of h u l l B (5.1 compared w i t h 4.5). F i g u r e 26 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s due primarily t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e i-n length-beam r a t i o s o f t h e two f o r e S o d i e s (4.0 and 3 . 0 ) . The s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t , however, i s t h a t a t t h i s speed c o e f f i c i e n t (Cv = 3.0) t h e v a l u e o f A/R for t h e complete h u l l B i s only s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r t h a n t h e v a l u e of A/R f o r i t s f o r e b o d y , whereas t h e v a l u e of for t h e complete model 163lL-11 i s n o t a b l y g r e a t e r A/8 t h a n t h a t for i t s Torebody ( 6 . 3 c o q a r e d with 5 . 1 ) .
A t speed c o e f f i c i e n t s less t h a n 3 . 1 , t h e a f t e r b o d i e s o f b o t h h u l l s have h i g h e r v a l u e s o f A/R than the forebodies. I n t h e speed range i n which t h e g r e a t e s t

12

NACA TW No. 1101

d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s i s t a n c e f o r t h e two h u l l s e x i s t , hcwever, t h e v a l u s s o f A/R f o r t h e a f t e r b o d v of model l 6 3 h - l l a r e s u S s t e n t i a l l y g r e a t e r t h a n khcse for t h e al"ter3od.y o f hull B. dUl?en t h e a f t e r b o d y h a s 8 h i g h e r l o a d - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i o t h a n t h e forebody, i t i s o b v l o u s l y d e s i r a b l e t o c a r r y a s nuch l o a d c n t h e a f t e r b o d y as p o s s i b l e . F i g u r e 2 7 i d J shows t h a t for v a l u e s of Cv below 2.5, t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l h u l l c a r r i e s 8 g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e of load 0 3 t h e a f t e r b o d y than d o e s t h e p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l . The l o a d - r e s i s t a n c e ratio f o r t h e p l a n i n g - t a i l a f t e r body, however, i s g r e a t e r than f o r t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l zfteybody md. ccmpensates for the d i f f e r e n c e s i p l o a d carr.ied by t h e two afterbod.Fes t o s u c h m e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e s i s t a n c e of t h e p l a n i n g - t a i l kxll I s t h e lower over p a r t . o f t h i s speed rangs'.
k t speed c o e f f i c i e n t s greater , t h m 2.5, t h e p l a n i n g t a i l a f t e r b o d y n o t o n l y c a r ~ i e sa g r e a t e r percer,tage cf load t h a n d o e s t h e conve,nticnal afterbody 'cut also'yI;Laintaifis r, g r e a t e r l o a ? . - r c s i s t a n c e r a t i o , These t w o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the a f t e r b o d y of' t h e p l a n i n g - t a i l b.u.Z1 a r e t h e prim.arg c6.!isf:s f o r the r e d h c t i c n o f r e s i s t a n c e 3.t t h e snsecls A t -.vbich himp ccci.irs. f o r t h e conventi-onal h u l l . . It 9 s nota5l.e t3.at t h e planing-tail h u l l m a i r , t a . i n s 8 hig2ier v a l u e cf' A/F? while o p e r a t i n g a t a lower t r i m IF. 2 7 ( b ) ) .

....

I n g e n e r a l , t h e S e s t . t r i m f o r thg complete fiociel 1.6311-11 i s t h e S a m a s t h e b e s t t r i m f o r i t s forebody. It i s r e m r k a S l e t h a t . , when t h e forebod.y is o p e r a t i n g a t i t s best t r i m , t h e a f t e r b o d y has aiuch g r e a t e r valu.es of A/R t h a n has t h e f o r e b o d y . A t speed c o e f f i c i e n t s between 2 . G ar,d 3.5, t h e v a l u e s of A/l? f o r a highly e f f i c i e n t ?l.ani.cg surface wLth s t r a i g h t b u t t c , c k s were foun2 i n Yeference 1 tc be l e s s t h a n 6 , The a f t e r b o d y o f model 1638-11 h a s v a ~ - u e scf ~ / 8s e v e r a l t i m e s t h i s v a l u e i n t h e sane s p e e d rang,e. Q v s r m o s t o f t h i s speed r a n g e , even t h e g r e a t e r t h a n 6. c o n v e n t i o n a l efterbody has valvizs of A/R These af t e r b o d i e s , t h e r e f o r e , carry l o a d w i t h l e s s r e s i s t a n c e t h a n would. a s i n g l e Tlaning, s u r f a c e r u n n i n g I n u n d i s t u r b e d water. In o r d e r t o o b t s i n t h i s r e s u l t , sone energy o f t h e forebody wake must be c o n v e r t e d i n t o useful l i f t , which i s more e f f e c t i v e l y acconTlishzd by t h e p l m i n g t a L l after'o0d.y thar, by t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l zf t e r b o d y

c o;\TcT,us IORS
R!esults of t a n k t e s t s t o determime t h e e f f e c t of v a r y l n g d e s i g n p a r s x e t e r s of p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l s l e d t o t h e fo1lo:;:ring c o n c l u s i o n s :
1. The e f f e c t oT vsr::ing

d e s i g n Farameters i n d i c a t e d

(a) I n c r e s s i n , - ;he angle of a f t e r b o d y k e e l had s m a l l e f f e c t o n hump r e s i s t a m e b u t prod-Jced a secozdarg peak ir; t h e c u r v e s o f f r e e - t o - t r i m resistance a t t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e p l a n i n g range. A t b e s t + , r i m only a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e i n r e s i s t p n c e a t planing s p e d s was n o t e d 2 s a n g l e or a f t e r b o d y k e e l was i n c r e a s e d . Angle o f a f t e r b c d y k e e l had n3 e f f e c t on hlgh-speed resistance.
(b) I n c r e a s i n g t h e depth 'of s t e p i n c r e a s e d hump r e s i s t a n c e . F r e e - t o - t r i r n r e s i s t a n c e i n t h e i n t e r m d i a t e p l a n i n g range was i n e r e a s e d ir, a similar ~-nz.nr,e~o r dept,h of step a s f o r m $ l e of f a f t e r b o d y Ireel. E e s t - t y i m r e s i s t a n c e v m s l i t , t l e a f f e c t e d a t h i g h speeds.

( e ) OrnTtting t h e c h i n e s on t h e forward 25 percent o f t h e a f t e r b o d y hsd nc a p p r e c i a b l e e f f e c t on r e s i s t a n c e . Omttting t b e f o r y z r d 7.' p e r c e n t o f the c h i n e s caused. t h e burn? t o o c c x r a t a hi,zher s p e e d , broadened t k e hi.imp, b u t h.ad almost, no e f f e c t on naxixum r e s i s t a n c e . Spray around t h e a f t e r b o d y i n c r e a s e d with 70 p e r c e n t of t h e c h i n e s removed.
( d ) L o a d - r s s i s t a c e r A t i o a t t h e hump decreesed wlcre r a g i d l y a i t k i n c r e s s i r , g l o a d c o e f f i c i e n t for t h e p l a n i n g - t a i l hull t h s n f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

c o n v e n t i o n a l huzl, a l t h o u g h t h e l o a d - r e s i s t a n c e r z t i o a t t h e huxp w a s g r e a t e r f o r t h e p l a n i n g t a i l h u l l t h a n for t h e conveQticna1 hull tkrougkout t h e range of loads t e s t e d . A t ,?reeds higher t h a n hump speed, l o s d - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i o for t h e p l a n i n g t z i l h u l l was a maximum 2 t 8 p a l - t i c u l a r g r o s s l o a d and was s l i g h t l y l e s s a t h e e v i e r a n d l i g h t e r g r o s s loads. 2. A comparison of a p l a n i n g - t a i l and a c o n v e n t i o n a l h c l l showed.

( a ) The p l a n i n g - t a i l hull had lower b e s t - t r i m r e s i s t a n c e a t t h e h u q and a t h i g h s p e e d w i t h l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n r e s i s t a n c e throughout t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e planing range.

(b! The p l w i n g - t a i l h u l l had lower f r e e - t o t r i m r e s i s t a n c e thar- t h e b e s t - t r i m r e s i s t a n c e of t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l h u l l a t t h e hump and a t h i g h s p e e d w i t h h i g h e r r e s i s t a n c e ir, t h e i n t e r i n e a i a t e p l a n l n g range.
( c ) The p l a n i n g - t a i l h u l l had lower hump r e s i s t a n c e p r i m a r i l y because o f t h e a b i l i t y of i t s afteFbody t o t a k e a g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e of t h e t o t a l l o a d while rnainta.ining a h i g h e r l o a d - r e s i s t a n c e r a t i o than the conventlonal afterbody.

Langley Wemor ia1 Aeronaut I c a1 L a b o r a t o r y N a t i o n a l Advisory Cormnittee For A e r o n a u t i c s L a q l e y F i e l d , Va., A2ri.l 3 0 , 1946

1. Dawson, John R . and X a d l i n , Kenneth L. : P r e l i m i n a r y Tank T e s t s w i t h P l a n i n g - T z i l Seaplane H u l l s . NACA ARE No. 3F15, 1943. 2. Dawson, John R . , W a l t e r , Robert C , , and Hay, ElizabethS.: Tank T e s t s To D e t e r n i n e t h e E f f e c t o f 'Jarying Design P a r a m e t e r s of P l a n i n g - T a i l Hulls. I - E f f e c t of Varying Length, Width, ,and Plan-Form Taper, o f Afterbody. NACA TN NO. 1062, -1946.

3. Dawson, John R.:

Tank T e s t s of Three Models of Flging-Boat H u l l s of t h e P o i n t e d - S t e p Type w i t h D i f f e r e n t Angles o f Dead R i s e 1J.A.C.A. Model 35 S e r i e s , NACA TN No. 551, 1936.

4,

, . ~ l i J G e i", ,

and Y J i U T s , John iX., J. ?: The B f f e c t s of f?l-g:ie of Dead R i s e and kig1-e of i!S:eerbody Keel on t h e 3 c ; s i s t z n c e of a T.Zode1 cf a Flying-Boat liull. N;\ci:k $;If, 154.5.

NACA TN No. 1101

TABLE I

P F R T I W N T MOCEC DINW!JSICf\TS AKD PARAMRTTRS

a Langley t a n k mo de 1 (deg)
163~-1
0

A
~

E 3

(in.) ( i n . )

inr (a)

c
bo

163~-6 163~-11 163~-16 163A-3

163a43

4
6
0

6.33 4 5 . 8.90 k.5 10.88 4 5 .

7 - 1 3 6.5
11.05
8.90
e.90

6,O 6.o 6.c

6.0

46.0 1 . 0 0 1 .oo 46.o '-1.14 1.00 46.0 1.50 1 .oo

4 .O 6
46.0

5.40 1.00
0.50 1.00

6.0 6.o
13 .o

4 163~-11~ 4 163~-11~ 4 163~-11 4 163;2-11 4

a

6.5

4. 60
39.0

45 .

4-901.GO 2.85 1.00

4.5 56.b
6.0
6 .o

15.6 3.60 1.00

4.5 8.90 4.5

8-90

--

46.0 4.60 0 -75 46.0 4-501.25

-c_

L o c a t i o n s o f c e n t e r of moments g i v e n a r e ones t h a t give a minimum v a l u e for p e a k r e s i s t a n c e with t h e mcdel free t o t r i m .

bDistances measured a f t o f step a r e c o n s i d e r e d n e g a t i v e .

NBTIOITAL ADVISORY COMhfITTFrF: FOR AERONAUTICS

NACA

TN Nu. 1101

Fig. 1

ro
-9sI7l-

Fig. 2

NACA

TN No. 1101

0
&

t o

ro

0
rrJ

@a

0
0

TN No. 1101

Fig.. 3

.a

15

.0 1

05

.5
0

% -45
0
0

-1.0

8
-1.5

6 -2.0 -2.5
. 5
e u
.e
..I

.i
;
V
.d 0)

. 4

03.
.2 .1

w
0 0

+4

.e

&

-.l 0
3.0 4.0 5.0 60 . 7.0 80 . Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 3 - Resistance, trimning-mment, and hraft characteristics of . model 163-1 at fixed trim. Gross load coefficient, 1.00. 10 .
2.0
-

Fig. 4

NACA

TN No. 1101

4.0 5.0 60 . 7.0 80 . Speed coefficient, Cv . .Figure 4.- Resistjmce, trimning-moment, and draft characteristics of - model 163-6 at fixed trim. Gross load coefficient, 1.00.

10 .

20 .

3.0

NACA

T N No. 1101

Fig. 5

P;

*C
w
.r(

e15

0
. I ?

% !

+ I

.10
Q)

.Q

8 L d
rn

.05

8
.Q
.A

10 .

8
0

.5

d w

o
-.5

W 0

. Q

8 -1.0 g

:# -2.0
k
? I +

Y -1.5 ,

.5
u
-d

.4

9 .r(

8
0

-3
.2

. I ?

+ I
+ I

.1

-.l
0 10 . 20 .

3.0 4.0 5.0 Speed coefficient, Cv

6.0

7.0

8.0

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS

Figure 5.- Resistance, trimning-moment. m d draft c h m a c t e r i s t i c s of m d e l 163-11 at fixed %rim. Gro,-q load c o e f f i c i e n t , 0.75.

Fig. 6

NACA

TN No.. 1101

NACA

TN No. 1101

F i g . -7

.O

6
Q

5 0

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 7.- Resistance, triming-moment, and draft characteristics of rnodeL163A-11 at fixed trim. Gross load coefficient, 1.25.

1.0

20 .

3.0

Fig. 8

N A C ' A . T N NO. '1101

1o : F@ ie

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 '8. Q 60 . Speed coefficient, Cv 8,- Resistance, trimming-moment, and d r a f t cha??actcristics of model 163.4-16 at fixed trim. Gross lmd coefficient, 1.00,
20 .

NACA

TN No. 1101

Fig. 9

3.0 40 . 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 9.- Resistance, trimming-moment, and draft.characteristics of model 163-3'at fixed trim. Gross load coefficient, 1 0 . .0
1.0

20 .

Fig. 10

NACA

T N - N O . 1101

30 . 40 . 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 10.- Resistance, trimming-moment, and draft chsracteristics of model 163-13 at fixed trim. Gross load coefficient, 1.00.
1.0

20 .

NACA SN No, 1101

Fig. 1 1

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 11.- Resistance, trimning-moment, and draft characteristics of model 1 6 3 - l l A at fixed trim. Gross load coefficient, 1.00.

10 .

20 .

3.0

12

,.

N A C A T N No. 1101

4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 80 . Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 12.- Resistance, trimning-moment, and draft characteristics of model 163A-llB at fixed t r i m . Gross load coefficient, 1.00.

1 .o

20 .

3.0

NAC'A

TN No. 1101

Fig. 13

.a
V

11

LO

a
M)

2 7

.g 6
5
4

3
0

30 . 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 80 . Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 13.- Effect on free-to-trim characteristics of varying angle of = afterbody keel. H = 0.355h; C A ~ 1.00.
10 .
20 .

Fig. 14

NACA

TN No. 1101

5
' 3
4

1.5

g 1.0
0

.d

e5
0

0
-9

6 -.5 '? 2 -1.0

-1.5
I 3
& I

a ,

11
1 0

9
8

3 7

tQ

.g
m
k

5
4

3
0 30 . 40 . 50 . 6.0 7.0 8.. O Speed coefficient, Cv Flgwe 1 . Effect on best-trim characteristics ob varylrag angle Of 4= afterbody keel. H = 0.35b; C A ~ 1.00.
10 .

20 .

NACA

TH No. 1101

Fig. 1 5

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Speed coefficient, CV Figure 15.- Effect on free-to-trim characteristics of varying depth & of step. CX= 4.00; C , = 1.00.
1.0 20 .

Fig. 16

NACA

TN No. 1101

11
10

9
T Y

8 a

.5
m 6
k

5
4

3
0 3.0 40 . 5.0 6.0 7.0 Speed coefficient, Cv F i g w e 16.- Effect on best-trim c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of varying depth a =.; C& = 1.00. 4 0 ' o f step. 10 .
2.0

8.9

NACA

T N No. 1101

Fig. 17

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 17.- Effect on free-to-trim Characteristics of omitting part afterbody chines. a = 4; H = 0.m;C, = 1.00. . 0 ' A
10 .
20 .

8.0
Of

F i g . 18

N A C A TN No. 1101

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 80 . Speed coefficient, CV Figure 1 . Effect on best-trim characteristics of omitting p a r t of 8afterbody chines. Cc = 4.00; H = 0.33; C b = 1.00.

10 .

20 .

NACA

TN No. 1101

F i g . 19

12
1 1

Lo

2 s
E l

s' 'k" 7
6
5
4

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Speed coefficient, Cv Figure 19.- Effect on free-to-trim characteristics of varying gross
1.0
2.0

load coefficient. Model 163-11.

CC = k O o ;

H = 0.3%.

Fig. 2 0

NACA

TN No. 1101

.P
a u

z
e -

15 .
~

3
.rl

10 .

Ccl

e B
T

a , 0 0

.5

o
-5 .

: E
. I P

-1.0

rn

-1.5
11 10

9
, d

g g
2 7

.A

& 6

5
4

30 . 40 . 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Speed coefficient, CV Figure Z.Effect on best-trim characteristics of varying gross loa^ coefficient. Model 163-11. OC = 4.0; H = 0 . 3 3 .
10 .
20 .

NACA

TN No. 1101

Fig. 21

0 0
ri

I1 V

ro
0 II

..

?
X

a
P)

a
m

Gl 2
c,

L d
W
0
4 a
d

al

m cn

W k

F i g . 22

NACA

TN No. 1101

0
0
rl

II

m
d

a
CI
r)

a ,

c ,
0

k k

w
I

NACA

TN No. 1101

Fig. 23

+J

(d
Q)

c,
d

cd m

E:

E
Ti

c,
I

0 c,
I
0)

k
Q)

W k

2
c,
(d

m
k

0)

5 r :

s
0)

hD

al
c1

F:

a
k W c,

c, 0
Q)

k k

Fil
I

a cu
Q)

I %

Fig. 24

NACA

T N No. 1101

0;
0

m
0
4 . 9

al k
0

E: rd c, m
d

m
I

d 0 4
d

6
I

c, c,

P
k 0

E
d F4
0
I

u
cu
e
0

t 9 -

NACA

TN No. 1101

F i g . 25

a k
0
L -

+ ,

I 9

Q,

-I-

__+__

0
ci,

0
d

0 0

N.

rD r-4

0
r(

rD

Fig. 26

NACA TN No. 1\01

k 4

*
0
d

4J

A Q
c
0)

bo

d 0 P 9 k 0 c4

o o o a ~ o

N A C A TN No. 1101

F i g . 27

Model

1 % 11 6------ Ed11 B

x
al

10 .

20 .
(C)

3.0

40 . 1.0 Speed cosfficient, Cv

20 .
(d)

3.0

40 .

Figure 27.- Comparison of best-trim resisbnce characteristiss NATlOtiAL ADVISORY of model 163-11 and hull B. C A ~ 1.00. COnn,TTEE FoI)