Hydrofoil Seaplane Design

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN DELIMITED
AMD CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

tNDER DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.20 AND
NO RESTRICTIONS ARE IMPOSED UPON
ITS USE AND DISCLOSUREe
DISTRIBUTION STATEiNT A
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASEJ

DISTRIdUTION UNLIMITED,
TTHURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
AIRCRAFT & MARINE ENGINEERING - AIRFRAME MANUFACTURING
*OX 450 SANFORD AIRPORT. SANFORD, MAINE 0407)3 267/324.331S
Final Report
HYDROFOIL SEAPLANE DESIGN
Contract NOOO19- 6 9-C-04 7,,.,A

Report No. 6912
S'May 197n
Il D. D'
SEP 4- 1970
Prepared by: Nicholas J. Vagianos

Vice President Engineering
David B. Thurston
President
Thurston Aircraft Corporation
UNCLASSIFIED
~ I
D[SC[-'I.-,
cmm
THIS DOCUMENT iS BEST

QUALITY AVAIILABLE. TM fCOPY
FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED
A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
ES
CAC- 7WHICH DO NOT
REPRODUCED FROM
BEST AVAILABLE COPY
4Y~i~h~.
............................
......... , F
-r4
Sr.;ft .tfl "W;

4-)
igg.
ii',
3~rr
0
'5c'
K~ I 4
, Oft
* .. ~ z.t#-\ 7 I '
f0
j -
t ;
j~s~ ~ r'j
MODEL _________THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT No. 691 2

corn __________ SANFORD, MAINE DATE ________
OUTPAM.
II
TAH•,E OF CONTENTS
SECTION SUBJECT PAGE
NOMENCLATURE iv
I. Hydrofoil Seaplane History 1
TT. Description and Classification of Hydrofoil

Systems 11
ITT. Hydrofoil Configuration Data 17

A. Hydrofoil Operating Principles 17
B. Cavitation 17
C. Ventilation 19
D. Aircraft Applications 19
E. Lift, Drag and Moment of Hydrofoils
with Zero Sweep and Zero Dihedral at
Infinite Depth 19
F. Calculation of Cavitation Inception 21
G. Effects of Cavitation Number on Foil
Performance 21
H. Effect of Depth of Submergence on Foil
Performance 22
i. Effect of Hydrofoil Leading Edge Sweep
and Taper on Foil Performance 22
J. Effect of Dihedral on Foil Performance 23
K. Effect of Hydrofoil Leading Edge Angle
in Supercavitating Flow 23
L. Effect of Trailing Edge Flaps on
Hydrofoil Performance 24
TV. Strut Configuration Data 71

A. Design Factors Affecting Strut Selection 71
B. Drag 71
C. Side Forces 71
D. Typical Strut Cross-Section Shapes 72
E. Subcavitating Struts 72
F. Supercavitating Struts 73
MUDS. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION EEPORTNo. 6912

6ONT, _ANOmolMAINK MTE
II I
SSECTION ;1RTn.TP1r PACE
V. Full Scale Hydrofoil Test Results 85

A. U.S. Navy JRF-5G Equipped with
Supercavitating Hydrofoil System 85
B. I-RV-i (LA-4A) Equipped with Thurston
Aircraft Corporation Suporcavitating
Hydrofoil 87
VT. Hydrofoil Application to Seaplane Design 101

A. Longitudinal location 101
B. Extension versus Sea State Capability 101
C. Impact Load Factors and Bottom Pressures 102
D. Hydrofoil Size 103
VIII. Hydrofoil Seaplane Design Optimization 109

A. Design Factors for Integration of
Hydrofoil and Seaplane 109
B. Stability and Control 109
C. Performance 111
D. Spray Patterns 112
r. Hull Design 112
F. Hydrofoil System Optimization 113
VTI.i, Hydrofoil Seaplane Development. 115
IX. Bibliography and Reference List 117

A. Historical References 117
Ti. Hydrofoil Bibliography Lists 117
C. Hydrofoil Study Reports 117
MiuoL_ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6912

CON__ _ _ ANFORD, MAINE DATE
l , i
I ~~~NOMENCLATURE
aLift curve .Slope
A Aspect ratio b2/'S; and for foils with dihedral

2(d/c) cot r
b Spcn, feet
c Chord, feet
cg Center ot Gravity
CD Drag coefficient, D/+p V 2 S

CD Profile drag coefficient
p
C Lift coefficient, L/Ie V2s
Cq Section lif-. coefficiont, L/j-•V2c
cLL
CL,d Design lift coefficient of hydrofoil (lift due to
bottom shape)
CM Moment coefficient, M/.pV 2Sc
Cp
PPressure coefficient (p - po)/q
d Depth, feet
D Drag, pounds
f Trailing edge flap
F Froude numbe.r, V/q-g,

2
g Gravitational acceleration, ft/sec
L Lift, pounds
p Static pressure
q Dynamic pressure, +F V2
Re Reynold's Number, C cV//
S Projected area, feet 2 (S for wings; SH for hydrofoil)
V Velocity, feet/second
x Distance fram hydrofoil leading edge, measured aft

along chord, feet
y Distance from hy5rofoil chord line, measured upwa-rd,

feet
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT No. 6c 12

-ORT SANFORD, MAINE DATE_
SPAGE -v
I - I
0 Angle of attack; angle between hydrofoil chord and
free steam velocity vector, measured in plane
perpendicular to hydrofoil transverse axis, degrees
W Central angle of circular arc hydrofoil, radians
r Dihedr;al nngle, degrees
Flap deflection, degrees
Sweep angle, degrees
2
/4 Viscosity, lb-sec/ft
]b-.ec2/ft I
Density, slugs per cubic foot,
number, (p -p)/q. SCavitation

Subscripts:
C cavity
v vapor
Trim angle; angle between hydrofoil chord an-d aliplane

reference line (equivalent of i:erodynamic incidence),
degrees
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6•).1 ,

CONT_ ANFORD, MAINE DATE
-
I
* B
LA o,,
NK
PAG
E
.1p
I
'I
A
.*
r.-*"
•--*-*
.-
I
Hydrofo0il
While this
SOap] E-ie HiStory
hrief hiistory of hydrofoil seapi one deasitgn anid
development is not intptided to he comprelteiis1 ye, fin ei'fort he.ý-.
'I'lloman Moy.
t~sing water its rA test medium, Moy towed . lightweighrt. Ionit.

oiii Engti nd's Suirie- tanal during 1861. '1'liý t.f-.-t veltic If. wan
Cit~ted with tliref c~inhiered planes of s9idihonic airfoil pin 'i le
pinned along the -ipanwi-ge axis Find moitriated b~elow thre keeýI * 'i'e
boat, rose ahove the wR tor surface as speed was I rrCreHS-rse, W1n 1 0
tire inventor no tod thp p1 ones devel1oped Incineao sel 1 1t ;id-( ttrim1-
tiied to reduce drag, as speed was increa~sed (eI.1).
Foret ell ing f-it ion figirr t ion ot thei l.lajggi C *C hir .L ill
11K,19, the Fi'enchmrenr Emmanuel Farcot in 18W)9 and TiSsarldie r ii I 8')1
ho ti developed cra ft fitted with tinderwater, propell1ers and srIh-
urrei'go~d inclined p1lanes. TissHandier' s "1glider boat" was a iso eqIirip-
Pfad withi wings, "S waS EA model craft huillt 1),N Clement: Ader ill
SAder' s design incoreporated two adjiistablhie n-derwtiter Low
f'ui.1Il Hnd a planing linr'izontal tail. Adel- Fiitirter' deveilope-d this
( Onf :Lgiiration throiigl 1 90) into a v'ar'iablIc woop wing air , iirshrIol
v-cluic) e having -t coricaye lower wing amnritaco to entrap the mu~
crr Thion, certainly- a remarkable developrirent: hal f a r:eatnii y unlreptfj
of, Ats time.
During 1897 a catamairan boat equipped with a series of f'olrr

li i jm aspect -ratio liydieofoils. and an under~water' propeller dri\ven
;t~ steam engine was sucre ss fully 1.V l owil"o e thne Seine cir r'.
ii'j one- fan at '?C mniles per hour. I ivaped by 11. F. 1Id 11 ips
our! omt~e kip snrer. this designl was itipuox)ed thl-origin I 907 nt
v Fri i-h time it was powered by an Antioniette Itate 'na 1 ronnrbrrstiorr
fnrtgine and was cApahl-o W' carry\iig two mten over tire watter iit a
r
jfd ()f' thir ty fo Yu rmi lesi per hoair.
* ,.' Professor Enriico Forlanini of Milan f-pplited for, luidriet,

fou Ifaet in 1905 "to permit booits anid fl v-igrr machines to 1lift
oito'contact with tihe water surface when propelied.]. tire reby
oileiring mujch less resi stance arid as a consequience be copuulili o(f
at to niing muich higheir speed~s . While suilitabl e enigile s puo-exeuted
Fort-anini from attaining f'light, lie corrtiriied Iris experirrreiits
cr ghi thre d eveliopinon t of' an a ir propell1ed k'eliri le errip 1ov int-g tlre
Hitii
orifginLt l adder' hy~d-r-ofoil system. O~ni.1t ill 1906, thi~crAft
lIfJted (lear of' tlie Water and reaclied a speed of' '18 krot~s (?I'rimiplr I
190'7 iippears to liave heen the, First iicce Ierotiori poi nt 10l
luvdractf(A. 1drevelopmenirt. Inr that N'eanr: 'Ilvlllaad
Wi lhir Wr' Lglrt"
Vaint liiur wit~r thre wo-r'k of' Phil lips ;rit(- oirrrtedp 1,ir11u'nrt , p-ri
wouinieu wl-thr cnpper. shieet liyrdot'ol 1s rolnrorrrd not at te-t h-t opter;t
in tir' Miami hik~i-r at Dijut\arr, Ohio; G. P. Ntpler ariiiiiomi(erl l-;
(lull' ,pjt. t'ot' spri riig loaded \-a i'iihu1'- iriicdern e livdiuoftn It I t; I' tu
wa Ild vi lft..y wit'h ierv- to rlnritiur i ur st';hile iI t,,ut
gl - '
MODEL_________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 9

CONY__________ SANFORD, MAINE DATE ________
British patent
a working zii.s there
model inot 1911, symLet, iswhilh
no record tc the ever built
sicr that Napier
beltind variable angle tirailing edge (flapped) hydrofoils; the
Amprir'in L. E. Simpson developed the design for a variable inci-
dence submerged foil craft; the Italians Crocco and Ricaldoni
built and tested a boat equipped with tandem (bow and stern) sur-
face piercing hydrofoils. Driven by cambered variable pitch
reversing propellers of diiral sheet and a 100 h.p. engine, this
vehicle exceeded a foil borne speed of 50 mph while carrying two
men.
Also during 1907, the American Peter Cooper Hewitt developed

a tandem ladder foil test vehicle which weighed 2500 pounds and
reached '0 mphl; at this speed, only the lowest foils remained
submerged.
While most of the preceding development programs employed

boats or boat-type test beds, much of this experimentation was
directed toward flight from water as well as the determination of'
section lift and drag characteristics using water as the fluid
mediuim. Early aircraf't experimenters reallzed the advantages of
a large, smooth, and relatively obstruction free launching and
landing area offered by a calm watert surface - provided they could
overcome the dual problems of hydrodynamic suction and drag pres-
ent during water take off.
Finally, the first powered airplane to take off from water

was demonstrated at Marseilles, France by Henri Fabre on Marcch 23,
1910. Employing a canard arrangement of three low aspect ratio
15% thick cambered float/foils and powered by a Gnome engine,
Fabre's design carried him a distance of approximately 500 yards
at a height of six feet above the water surface. The Fabre floats
were designed to provide lift whether running submerged, upon the
water surface, or in flight - and probably contributed the addi-
tional lift necessary for a successful water take off with minimum
thrulst.
It is interesting to note that on page 1116 of his 1918 Edition

of "Military Airplanes", Grover C. Loening shows the Fabre float
to have considerably less drag than other known floats of the
period and an L/D value of 6- over twice that of any other float
tested.
Impressed with Forlanini's work, the Italian General A. Guidoni

determined during 1910 to achieve flight with a hydrofoil seaplane.
Starting with Forlanini's -ladder foil system, which he soon dis-
carded because of the heaving and pitching associated with dif'-
ferential and rapid unporting of the foils, Guidoni equipped e•ic.h
float of' his twin float Farman F.1 biplane with a tandem cuscade
system of three positive d edrala hydrofoils per strut. Varia-
tions of' this system were s,,ccessfully flown by Guidoni on three
Farman aircraft, the F.1, F.2, and F.9; although experimentation
probably continued through 1913, there is little docitmentation
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. ._9_,2

COrr_ ""ANFORD,
MAINE DATE
I I
concerning the detail design and test results of' Guidoni's uset'i' i
A second period of accelerated hydrofoil aircraft development
began in 1911. In fact, with the excep~iuzn of .petonic flight,
there is little in the aircraft field to date that was not tried
in some form by or during 1911. This includes Voisin'.s amphibiin
(u.ing Fabre floats), Curtiss' retractable laniding gear, and
Avro's ventilated step floats. By 1911, enigines arid the .4tate
oF the art of aircraft design had reached ;a Iuvel siichit:
Glen Curtiss made his f'irst flight from watt-i, uiitil a pt.shetr ,I-
plane equipped with tandem floats and a for'ward mounted -lx foot.
,;;pan hydrofoil| the firs-t British water t•'ike O~ff wFAS F1(:c(,tTplp i~h.(1•
bv Cdr. Schwann in a tractor Avro biplane havinr'. ventilated step
twin floats each mounting two struts fitted with two cascmde
aluminum alloy hydrofoils of 40 inch sparn aud 4 inch chord (F
tandem cascade system similar to Guidoni's). The foils were posi-
tioned 4 inches apart, set at 30 incidence, hand vt camber depth
of 8% chord, and the upper foil was located 20 inches below the
water surface. So by 19119 aircraft developed in Fr'ance, itFih,
Great Britain, and the United States had sur:eeded in conductin,
sus.tained flight off water.
Another 1.911 American seaplane, The Michigan Steel Hlont

t
Company'as "Flyinp Fislw was equipped with a sing] e, beam, width,
narrow chord hydrofoil mounted below the a]•uninum hull. A .iiigl,
seat tractor flying boat of short wingspan, the "Flying Fi.1h"
skimmned along the water" suirface supported bh\ the flat hyd 'ofot I.
anol n planing srct.ton of' the hull afterbody - possibly the First
plInning tail hill. During 1911, this design trave.Ied from D.tr'oit
to C1evelanl at an aver'age speed of 50 mph, -ilthough
•,•lainattlm
sr)pou- of 70 mph wepv rfacorded when the "IIF.ying Fishl" IIf'ted c,,,i'
of' the water except for the planing taXI.
The first significant attempt to develop an airplane capaldle

of irough water or open-sea operation was supported by the British
Admiralty during 1911. Lt. Charles Burney, 1?.N. conducted towting
experiments that year leading to the design and developmenrt of
tile Burney X.2 during 1912, and the final. X.9' conf'igurationr of
11iI'l intended for shipboard stowage. (Fig. 1. ) hnifl].rneced by the
wor1 of' Forlanini and Guidoni|, the flufrie' 3esi.gu'is employed 1 sp] lt
Tictiens cascade hydrofoil svstem with two st ruts forwi•i'd fnd one
aft. Water taxiingr power was supplied bI, small counteri'otatirni
propellers tandem mounted between the forward foils and driven
f''orii the engrine tli'ongli a clutch sNstenu. Tn theor'v, tile wv-to-
propellers would got the X. 3 foilborne, thie 'ight
I propel le' world
he clutched in, and take off throug1 voulri. sens completed in
ri rp]rune fas9hion. In practice, vario-s stahilt it prohisll]-m r-a•u.ited
from both water and air torque reactions when tihe respective
propellers were engaged, compounded rio doubt by inadequate asov-
dynamic control during unporting. Wrecked duiI r.ug m towing eni-
counter withl a hidden sandbar, this tutes't ing pro.ije(t was
lorm rinated during late 191.3. Tire v•i'iou- torquie pro11(s•,li hiIinI, f'.'
MODL. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. o- 2

CON__ SANFORD, MA11A1 DATE
Fig.I
Burney X. 9 Hydrofoil Seaplane
Tiet,jens Split Cascade System
Power- Plant: 200 lip Canton-Unne

Span: 57 1-1 Ol
Length:
Wing Area:
W6-8"
500 sq.ft.
I
MOD _________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, 91

CANT-. SAMFORD, MAINE DATE_________
PI
t 1A X. q wrAi a AmlI -- 1-~ ~ h fP.C4 ~

In 1929.
Durin, 1914 the Wright brothers were again testing hydrofoils

in the Miami River. Their main interest Lay in stopping water
from breaking away from the upper surface of cambered foils too
soon (speedwise) and thus preventing the subsequent loss of lift.
Tests were conducted with cambered sheet steel "hydrovanes" having
an auxiliary narrow cambered strip of steel placed Just above the
leading edge. While this slotted hydrofoil was apparently success-
t'tl in delaying breakaway beyond the speed possible with a plain
(subcavitating) hydrofoil, it was only applied by tile Wrights to
one seaplane design built in 1915. Possibly they were really
seeking a means for obtaining an improved C1 for their aircraft,
thit if so, such a design was never flown by them. At this same
timeHandley-Page in England was wind tunnel testing and develop-
ing hi.s slotted wing to a new level of lift and stall attitude
eapability; apparently neither group being riware of the others
efforts in the same field.
World War' I terminated hydrofoil seaplane research for maany

years, until the series of Schneider Trophy Contest races revived
determined interest in the development of high performance water
b;Ased aircraft. Although the only seaplane attempting water take
ol'f from Lydrofoils never made tile starting line, the configura-
tion and design data for the Italian Piaggio P.C. 7 represent n
hold design attempt to achieve seaplane performance comparable
with landplanes by minimizing frontal area (Fig. 2).
Designed by Piaggio's Chief Engineer, Giovanni Pegna for the

I1029 Schneider Trophy Contest and financed by both Piaggio and the
Italian government, the P.C. 7 was a relatively small airplane
of 3709 pounds gross weight. Described in Jane's All The World's
Aircraft of 1932, page 232c, and more fully by Benjamin Posniak
(now a Senior Pro j ect Manager at N S R D C ) In
an article for tile Italian press published in 1994, the P.C. 7
used a split Tietjens hydrofoil system having two foils forward
instead of floats and two small foils superimposed aft below the
tail surfaces. Initial tests revealed difficulties with the water
screw due to torque as well as clutch slip caused by oil and water
seepage; when attempts to correct these problems proved unsuccess-
ful, further development of this interesting design was abandonied.
However, since this configuration was so far ahead of it, time,
and could serve as a stepping stone for future high performance
seaplane development (with jet engines precluding propeller
problems), a few of the P.C. 7 design details are presented fori
reference purposes:
Type: Experimental, single seat cantilever monoplane

racing seaplane.
Power Plant: 850 lp Isotta-Fraschini engine of' 12 '?,
ctinders
Wing: Cantilever; 3 spars; plywood covered and watertt'ght;
wing surface water cooling radiators.
Fuselage: Built-tip watertight plywood strtcture; fiel. in
fuselage.
MODIL THURSTON AIRCRAFr CORPORATION REPORT NO. 091 _2

CON_ 8ANFORD, MAINE DATE
PAIII 6
Fig. 2
Piaggio P.C. 7
Schneider Trophy Racer
Tiet~jerii3 Split Flat Monofoil. Sy'st em
Powe~r Plaint: 8-C)n lip Isotta-Freachini

Lengtfi: '-?(0"I
Wing Areoa: i06.3 sq. ft.
MODEL . THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RtEPORT No, -

CON? SANFORD. MAINE DATE ________
I
I I
Tail Surfaces: Same as wing; watertight
Flotations Watertight structure having two watertight
compartments in fuselage plus welded aluminum
alloy tanks; rests on water by floating on
the wing, fuselage, and tail
Operation: The 850 hip IF engine drives the water screw

until the P.C. 7 is foilborne, at which point
the propeller is clear of the water and engaged
for flight.
Span: 22'-2" Heights 8'

Length: 29' Wing Area: 106.3 sq. ft. total
Weight Empty: 3093 lb. iticludirg fuselage ara-
616 1. 90.1 sq. ft. net
Useful Load:
Gross Weight ,3709 lb.
IK-timated maximum speed: 373 mph.
Following the failure of the P.C. 7 to achieve water borne

flight, primarily due to mechanical causes rather than basic
configuration, hydrofoil seaplane design received virtually no
emphasis until Edo Aircraft studies begun in 1957 developed the
JRF-SG amphibian equipped with a Grunberg supercavitating hydro-
foil system (Fig. 3). This configuration was extensively evalu-
ated by Edo and at the U. S. Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent
River, Maryland through 1964.
The Grunberg foil system aq adapted to the JRF-SG consisted

o a supercavitating hydrofoil near the air'plane center of' gravitN
i.ii•d two planing bow skids; this arrangement was used to permit
evaluation of the hydrofoil while providing safety in the event
of foil failure. This system used the largest supercavitating
hydrofoil built up to that time and the first supercavitating
foil mounted on a seaplane. The bow skids erved the dual pur-
pose of (1) properly trimming the airplane during transition
through the hump speed regime and (2) preventing the air-plane
from diving if the submerged foil failed. Both the large hydro-
foil end the bow skids were retracted hydraulically to permit
ramp approaches and land operations, and were locked in the up
and down positions.
The water perfoT'mance and test result.s obtained with the

JRF-5G are discussed under Section VI of this study.
Subsequent to the JRF-5G program, Edo initiated design and

tank studies during 1964 to develop a single, surface-piurcing,
supereavitating hydrofoil for application to the Grumimain HUI-1.6
Albatross Amphibian. To flight test this concept in sc-]r ,'orm,
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 69)

CONT,_ SANFORD, MAINE DATE
(I] PAGEI
FRONT VIEW
SIDE VIEW
rig. jJRP-5G Airplane
I BuNo 37782
TEST AIRPLANE WITH GRUNBERG HYROFOIL SYSTE24
Span:
Length: -31-1
Wing Area: 937) sqt. ft.
Gross Weight - 9570 pounids
MODEL.________ THURSTON AIRCRAfT CORPORATION RE~PORT No, 691 2

CONT__________ SANFORD, MAINE DATE ________
SPAE g I
the Thurston HRV-1 (Skimmer LA-4A) Amphibian was equipped in

1966 with a single foil similar to the Edo design bmt ]/•.47
-cale size of thfit nece:ý,qary for HU-16 eva]nliition (Fig. 4).
This sipercavitating foll was flown on t1i- HRV-I dur-ing
Ito November 1966, r'epre.tnting the first ;<iowii I'light ol' an
a irplane equipped with ii -ingle surface-p ie iciriL Iydrol'oil.,
The detail flight test program was successful,]l completed with
4I1 data runs recu:'d(d; opc,!rational restilts n', presented in
So,:tion V.
MODIL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION IMPORT NO. Q)12,,,

CONrT UNFORD, MAINE DATE
A ZA 170 5Q Fr N1-LV-i A,-LMr~Ej
7&5T w'r. 23c00 LSS, LA'If

JýP , r i Ns
Lu iI-4 HYf)I2oF-olL- Q0. I
MODEL THURSTON AIR~CRAFT CORPORATION RIPOM, No, 6c 12

CON?__________ UAJIORD. MAINE DATE _____
MI
IT. Description and Classification of H-vdr'ofnil S-ystems,
Since no comp rehenisive de script i on of1I tlis vnrl jiii hN-d '- '0(ii I
systems is available, an effort has been ma~de to classli t'N tfested
as well as possi hie nirrangements. Refer to i' itgi rns ') Ilirooolgh 21
Fig. 5. The Single Hydrofoil system consis-ts of' one hydr~ofoilI

placed slightly ahead of the cg, with sonic type of vehicle sta-
bilization providled in addition to the LoiLl; such iis the wing,
tail, and control 8surraces of a seaplane. The singl~e Tiydrofoil
Hiipports a predetermined percentage of tlie gross weight at unpori-1
lo g. Conceivably the single hydrofoil arii'nugement could be either
ft monofoil, a hoop foil , or a ladder foil.; tho Thin-rston HRV-1I
the only seaplane flown with this type of' a rrangemenzt , employs a
sHingle, positive dihiedral, 5uper-cavitatluittg ionofoil..
1 o.6. The Griinbei-C sys-tem employs a inn i~i f oil. (cant irniciis,
ior monof'oil ) positioned behind tliiý ig, withi two hNvd ir)n- k
()t floats for-ward ý-kimnmiiig the water suirtnire ;trd Stahl I i'zirip t. i
,-liic, [5. With tfii.ý rcvsign, the main foil .i-ugiei 10
uitOf the MImportillog de!Sign load, WIAiI V s011li.l~.illj', jIIIui*W'il-
%ide a small1 percentnt,-eý ol the designi li-I ( witht resApoct to loand
distribution, the Gvitinherg System is simti.i or to the Caniard .te)
This foil arrangemenit has been used on the JRF-5G seaphine (see
Fig. 3).
Figs. 7-1-0. The Tanidem Hydrofoil systems consist of' foil. ararango-
motits at the bow and stern with each foil array cairrying about
50 of the unportirig dlesign load. The r'oil s coul~d be mono11foils,
!split., or continuou!4 hoop or ladder foils, or A Comiii)iatiofl ut'
uiijv of' these; liowe%-ei.-, most of such arrangemrents aire nlot pvafctIion I
Mins.ideririg the as~soriated drag, weight, rand cost.* A,, A result,
i his system is iinsiiitabl a for seaplane applicat ion compa ree to
the singl~e hydrofoil system. Fulrther, 1imndeSjiallMe 1 stPrn 1 and
1 utigi Luidinal trim problies could devel op diitring tinpo iitilug in lien' v
k'a
R
Figrs. 11-1)4. The Tietleris Hydrofoil syst eit tihau a arwaird mainl1
Iiydro foil that carries most (60% - 90)%) of' ths tinpoitiihg, designt
load, with a smaller hydrofoil arrangemterit in the stern c~arry ing
t he remainder. The lifting surfaces at the ho0w amiid sterin ra ild
consist of mono foils, or' split or' cornt iinioii s haonp or' ladd er
i' i~d n-
l'oils ; again these arrangettents are not pianc LIcal 1,o' niirc r; lft
appi icaftioln. One split Tietijens nvi'i'nigemiuiui that wii s te.- te-d 1I'oi
seaplane operation, the Burney X. 2 and X.13 of' 1 91.2 and 191 '1 hald
two cascaded foil, strutts at tile how and a s;1imihir s;Ia sel
ol' foils at the stern (see Fig. -
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, 69 12...

CONT &WNORD, MAINE DATE
SPAl| 12
Description and Classification of Hydrof'oil Systems (Con't)
Figs. 15 and 16. Thle A. G. Bell Hydrofoil system, named after.,

the inventor who employed hydrofoils on his 1ID- 1 4 boat of 1919,
is one of a number of move complex hydrofoil systems. Tie avir'ange-
ment consisted of' a main foil at the cg supporting over half of
the load, with smaller stabilizing foil arrangements at the bow
and stern. Bell's original split system hlad two ladder arrange-
moiits amidships, with smaller single ladder' arrays Fit the bow and
stern. Due to drag, weight, and cost, thiis and similar complex
s%,vtems are consider'ed impracticnl for aircraft use.
Figrs. 1.7-20. The Canard Hydrofoil system positions a main hydro-

Foil arrangement located behind the cg carrying 60%-90% of the
iinprting desi.n load, with a smaller hydi'of'oil located at thpe
how. The array at tile bow and amidships couldi consist of mono-
'ols, split or continuous hoop or ladder foils, or a combination
Sf' these. Again, this system results in too much drag, weight,
wid cost to be practical for modern aircraft application. How-
over, one split Canard system, the Fabre, ising cambered hydrofoil
fl'ats, achieved tile first powered flight from water in 1910
(Scle Pg. 2). Using another design approach, Guidoni flew a twin-
Float mounted tandem split Canard system successfully in Italy
dliving 1910 and For several years thereafter (See Pg. 2).
It is evident that many of these foil systems overlap. Since

f'oil arrangements are frequently mentioned by the designer's name
as well as by planform arrangement, it was considered advisable
to present configurations under both classifications.
A comprehensive illustration of possible hydrofoil arrange- -1

ments is presented !n Figure 21, together with conventional no-
menclaturie for each configuration.
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6

CONT SANFORD, MAINE DATE
PAGE
FvjLE
14YRPIu Sys TC-MT~ ERG 5 rL4Am
TR11.1 1i? -3 .1A
AMAM
I 10.
THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REtPORT ma. 6- 6912

I~
* IMODEL____
UT IIANFORD, MAINE DATE_________
II
Tte:T JtW H', P-or-01

HY~o~OL/~r~M~PAIR
T~eT~#J
L i
',/ST-. 5
1!4
C.4, ,
!BIT
6 VoF5,iL' I]-"--
DD
A,1 , 1eLL
%'AT-F.S Hy-4F0L- -
L i-..T29 ,PLIT
F I,&I••
I:CI L (A .6. B E'.LL)•
60 be'k MA,&.

- II
ICAQA I I
PI E
ZLD H-VZ0F-COIL
17 , Ia ... .
2c,
5IPLT,.LT ..]
FMODEL
CONT__ __IANORD,
THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
MAINE
REPORT NO.
DATE
2•LL
t.. '.....•'-.. .•• -i....i-i .. 1

_ N1 t n n 1CI F -21 FoiLl
I I- I A1AýJ6 &•JT5
k r
a. bc .
CASCADES
MA' BE" MULTiPLE- 01;.

5i66LE- 5T(Zur (AS
5HoWhj)
H •P5 -- HopIi•I TAL FOIL MA/ -•AVE- DII.4CEDWAL
h, L, L K" AJ K.
LADEE-".5 -ioLS MAY BE OUT-B(OA-AD
V1 0
NOMENCLATURE
a. Flat monofoil k. Split dihedral hoop foil

h. Positive dihedral monofoil 1. Continuous flat ladder foils
c. Negative dihedral monofoil m. Continuous positive dilhedral
d. Cantilever monofoil ladder- foils
e. Cascaded flat rn. Continuous negative dihedral
f. Cascaded positive dihedral ladder foils
g. Cascaded negative dihedral o. Split flat ladder, foils
h. Continuous flat hoop foil p. Split negative dihedral
i. Continuouis dihedral hoop foil ladder foils
J. Split hoop foil q. Split positive dihedral
ladder foils
MODEL_ THURITON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 61Q1.2

€ONT SANFORD, MAINE DATE
IJ I
III. Hydrofoil Configuration Data
A. Hydrofoil Operating P~iuclples
A hydrofoil is the marine version of the airfoil as u1sed

in water to create dynamic lift for the support of' a vehicle; or
as ai] element in a propeller type device. Subsonic airfoil section
shapes perform well as hydrofoils when operating at low forward
speed-5. At equal Reynold's Numbers, the forces and momr:tis created
i n ti•i and water are essentially ideoitical. for these foils when
tile flow is completely attached. A foil operating in thi.-i condition
is s;i d to be "fully wetted" or "subcavitating".
At higher speeds, separation of the flow occurs causin&

changes in the forces and moments and resulting in a considerable
loss ,,f efficiency. Separation of' the flow is termed "cavitation";
when the entire upper surface of a hydrofoil is completely free of
attar-fled flow, the foil is considered to be "supercavitating".
For operation at bigh speeds where cnvitation cannot be

avoided, hyidrofoils specifically designed t,) operate in a super-
(a Ivltating regime are superior to foils des Igried for suhbcovitat inf
fi i],,. Slpercavitating hydrofoil sections are characteri/,ed by a
shavp Leading edge with entrance angles of about six degrees. The
most common section shapes aret plane faced wedges with blunt
trailing edges; the ogive, consisting of convex circular arc sur-
fatces with sharp leading and trailing edges; circular arc concave
cambered lower surface with cotoured upper surface; and more complex
shlapes designed for increased efficiency, the best known being
developed by M.P. Tulin and V.E. Johnson, Figure '22 (a) and (b).
B. Cavitation
A hydrofoil moving through the water in a subcavitating

condition and at an angle of attack producing lift creates an
inc-rease in water pressure on the lower surface and a decrease on
the upper surface In the same manner as an airfoil. The p'essllres
are a function of the hydrofoil shape and: 1) velocity, 2) angle
of' attack, and 3) the operating depth. With increasing speed and
angle of attack and decreasing depth, the pressure on the upper
sui,'face reduces until the pressure drops to the vapor pressture of
the water as determined by its temperature. When this occ'i rs, the
water starts to boil or "cavitate" at the chord point where minimum
pressure occurs; normally coinciding with that of maximum thickness.
Further increases in speed or other factors causing additional
decrease in the pressure, lead to enlargement of the cavity along
the foil surface until it covers the entire sur'face. Still further
pressure reductions cause extension of the cavity several chord
lengths behind the trailing edge. The process of cavitation is
MODL THURISON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPOnT No. 6.2.

CONT IANFOD, MAINE DATE_
MI
B•. Cavitation (Continued)
similar to the stallingafa wing and is accompnnied with a similar

loss of lift. Since this occurs with increasing speeds, it has a
significance similar to critical Mach effects in aerodynamics.
The aerodynamic pressure coefficient, Cp = - which

exists on the surface of an airfoil in subsonic potential flow is
independent of velocity. The same coefficient in hydrodynrmics Is
independent of velocity uip to the point of cavi tntion inception,
where flow separation occurs. In the zone of beparation, the
pressure coefficient has ,eached the lowest attainable value for'
cavitation and is defined as CPi = ._____ , wheve p i the Vapor
q00
pre~ssure of the liquid, p,, is the static pressure of' the liquid at
at the operating depth, and q is the dynamic pr-essure. In hydro-
dynamics, the negative of the pressure coefficient is used and
defined as the cavitation number: 6" - Pv.
Figuires 22 (a) aFnd (b) show the shapes and equations f'or fo,,r
supereavitating hyd rofoils.
The effect of .-
<'e cavitation number on the flow pattern
nboiit nr hydrofoil :Is 3chematically illuý- rated in Figure 2?. (c).
Tire patterns shown -tr'e iot static but are% t-pical averaee of a
dyvraml.c situation. At zero speed, Cr=oo ; as speed incrcases, 6'
decreases, eventually reaching cavitation conditions. When cavita-
tion occurs, the value of 6r is known as the irncipient cavitationi
numier, being equal to the negative of Cpmin; a'i = GCpw.. 1 As 0-
continues to decrease, the cavity size spreads over ;,n-, f,.t L surface,
and goes through a phase which creates foil erosion u'u.r c avita-
tion. When the cavity lengthens to a collapse point -iý :iat the
pressure pulses created by the cavity collapse clear t; , ailing
edge of the foil, the erosion phase ceases. In this .oew!i~ion,
however, the eddies and the re-entrant jet which exist . the down-
streatm end of the cavity may impinge upon the foil trailing edge
and cause severe buffeting and foil vibration. Upon further reduction
of Or , the cavity lengthens downstream such that the re-entrant jet
is dissipated before it reaches the trailing edge of the foil,
Figure 22 (c). In that condition, the flow is said to be super-
cavitating. Thus, cavities associated with supercavitating flows
are relatively long, usually well over two chord lengths, and are
filled with either liquid vapor or foreign gas, or, a mixture of
both. Flows in which the cavity is filled with atmospheric air have
come to be called "ventilated" or "vented" flows. The term "Srper-
cavitating" applies to all cases of sufficiently long cavities,
regardle-ss of whether they are filLed with water vapor or ,i i'.
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6. 12

.., S.ANFORD, MAINE DATE
C. Ventilation
Naturally vontilateci fl~ows frequentL'y ut-utir dtixLing liydrufoil

operation due to the pToxililittV Of the lifting and ,supporting dev 4 ~e'i
to the free water siil'rfne. Natural. ventil'it ion i the passajfe (-f
at iict-,pleric ait, iinti the I ~'pressiire reglinri.- ot, tile Upper
olI the hydrofoil, it-ikingr 'th along tie I ,% 'ýx essureP sid!fý a
stirfaFce piercing iloi long the hblunt iii-;ii inp edge of a sr
f'acFi piercing stri'it. or foil.I Natural k'ontlt'jia P occuris onl1y atfter'
Cavitation has boone~-itL.~~~ and de 1 uj. aiutl to Its fiill.
Where the foitl is operating undor partial crivitatiot- conditions,

ie. not siipercavitieting, ventilation cnn re-3ult in the immediate loss-
of' 71 percent of lift, dropping the supported vehicle into the water.
Na Ltral ventilation occurs at high speeds, iin roiirhi water and duir-
ing unporting and tuzrning mtaneuvers. Once \Pritila-tion has been
established, it tends to continue even though cotiditions become lebe
fa vorab'le. Ujnfo6rtitnatel1y, the onset of' natto al \P31tilation cannot
Ijo piodicted easil% Potit li fiory or model testsý, iiid stultal-ly sittipl '
]li
tg' laws -for vif i hin onset err- not iI~ii tilkle.
Forced 01 u c IIa vent ila Vltio i s ,,' ItttIi. Lshed by arti iV ci-
aillN isupplying eli' utide-' pi~essure to that poi-ti on (if' the hiydrol'o.I.I
Wile;',,--tie cavity Is desired. In this case, o!!;tuibluished cavitation
1., n Li im ,es sary * Whbait the cavity size i5 chiiing-*'d hy u iilug fore: ed
ai'u, the cavitation rtiumibei' will change and re.suilt in change., ini the
lif
iii.nd drag;
For a foil that is operating under' sipeircmvitating condItions, -

vent -IItiuun will hiivo little,- effect on fhe in1[ft and drag. Fo-r vetiiti-
IhatIIon, the cavitation number is computed by using the air pressiire
in the cavity, p , in place of' the vapor pressure, p * The character'-
ist~ics; of optimum ventilated foils and superca-vitutting foils are
idonti cal if the cavitation number is the samie.
D. Ali-craft Applications
Since cavitation and ventilation cannot he avoided f'or air-

* craft applications due to operation at the water surface ond at
high speeds, hydrofoils for aircraft use should be designed to be
supei'caviltating and rea-.dily ventilated. By uising this approcach,
the l ift and drag on the foil will remain smooth end continuous, and are
essential condition,- for successful liNvdrofoi. aircraft opo t'a tion.
*E. Lift, Drag and Moment of' Hydrofoils with Zero Sweep ind - i-
Dihedral at Tnfinite Depth
The lift, drag and moment cfiaractei'ist ics of' hydi'o foll's are--
- ' dependent on the samte factors of shape, attitiude, velocity aind fluid
MODEL________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6 1

CONl SANFORO, MAINE DATE_________
SP~iIE , 20 I
E. Lift, Drag and Moment of Hydrofoils with 7,rn qwo•p -•r eo
Dihedral at Infinite Depth (Continued)
da.Ait, that affect airfoils, but in addition are dependent upon

depth and cavitation ruimber. With these additional parameters,
the amount of data required hydrtoftil characteristics
to catalog
becomes exceedingly large. In order to avoid the use of a great
number of charts, the approach taken in this study is to show the
characteristics of typical hydrofoils favored for aircraft use,
as well as the effects of these various factors on performance.
Furthermore, the volume of experimental data in the hydrofoil
field is far from adequate, thereby inhibiting any comprehensive
compilation "of systematic data.
Figures 23 and 24 suhow the variation of lift, drag, and

moment coefficients and the L/D ratio with angle of attack for suih-
cavitating and supercavitating flows. The data were taken from
several sources and were combined in the fioires to compare the
characteristics of the different types of foils.
Figure 23 bhows the subcavitating chlr;.ctei istic.s ol' a

conventional airfoil (NACA 661-012), a subenc't•tting liydrol'oll (DTMi"
Sea ;os HF-I), and six der'ee wedge (opti.1•tiu f'or supelcavi nt•olo)
wit a blunt traili tg edge. The lift curve slopes, of the wedge
appear to be higher than the other two by a sma]l amount, but the
dat;i did not extend sufficiently over the railge of aspect ratios
and maximum lifts to permit a through comparison. The wedge ap-
parently produces lift with characteristics similar to foils designed
for subcavitating flow. The drag of the NACA 66 1-012 foil is con-
siderably less than the wedge at those low angles of attack where
the L/D of the NACA foil approaches a maximum. At higher angles
of' attack, the drag of the NACA foil exceeds that of the wedge,
while the L/D diminishes rapidly, and if extended, might drop helow
the values for the wedge. Moment data is provided and is of primary
significance in the structural design of the foil and strut.
Figure 24 shows the supercavitating characteristics of the

six degree wedge, the NACA 66 1-012 airfoil, and the Johnson 5 term
supercavitating hydrofoil. In supercavitating flow, the John-
son foil shows slightly higher lift than the wedge end the NACA
toil lift degrades almost immediately, developing at most only 21
percent of the lift of the other two foils. The inferiori tv of a
foil designed for fully wetted operation under supercovitating
conditions is clearly shown here. It is interesting, to note that
maximum L/D values for supercavitating foils are reached in the
first four degrees of angle of attack from zero lift, too near zero
lift for sustained aircraft operation. Since normal trim angles
would be in the range of about four to twelve degrees above the
zero lift angle, normal supercavitating foil operation would center
around that portion of the curve producing 50 to 75 percent of
maximum i,/D. These lower L/D and consequently higher draf; vaLues
would be occuring at
MODEL. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6

I!1 ~PAGE "
Zf-t Sweep al~id 'Zero

F.LLift, Drag and Momi-tit .)f Hydr-ofoill MWitt)
Dihedral at Trifiniitu D~epth (Coiitintied)
uiipurting which is the critical phase of the tnk('-nf from a pei-Torm-

ancn and coritrollahility rFtandpoint. The high 1I /r!.-snciatedl
' with
the low angles of Attack woujld occur at the Iiigli speed end] where
it im not as critic-al.
1. (. 3cu1 tion 01 -"ovitatIn EInception
Fig-tre ?5 (a) Is a nclmograph foi tbe i I :lnion ol' the

sper-d at which cavitation blegi ns. Data is pres'' ifed for' F two
dirti-nsional foil operating in s4ea water at a ta'iirpe~ii ct'ie of, 5.5F
ainit i'ucjiires knowl-doge of' tlif, inception crtAA1.LaI. o iiiiii11ela. For tjHat
In I-'. 'The valiues obhtained ioxe low in compai'Ihoi 1.o the tlui ee
1
dowi i-oional case. Howexei', nio known work It 1.,'' pukl ishod r'over'-
iai- 'j three dim!ns-iiniii I Or' the ( f~fu:( t. t ta-,I~poiI ( \t
lioin,- ati lift anal *IVni.
t
f -(ar' pressllr'i var ithi mu o witli W;ii1 - tCIjwri-'EO.
t ii'0 ra-sented Il ~in
F 'ui 're '15~ (b).
G,. I l'i~cts of Cavitation Number on F~oil P1eito rwarlcp
Figures 26, 27, and 28B show tire variations9 of- C , C Da nd 1./D
with cavitation number for the NACA 66 1-012 airfoil. The horizontal
pot i inri.' of tire curves atre regions where ca\'itntt Aonl doos riot exist.
Wit- :itation hregins theret is a9 rapid dercei'-a(-v In 1,/I) vato eve,
Figrure 26 'Faows an Uiti- ease in l ift withItsmo 1l.1 amtouints.of'
Jt fion at ringi rs of att-iirk greater than, thiieo die~ees. At
ilion, the iiii:reani Iii dIrag is proportionate I\ gt'r Pter titan
111t ,,:rease to 1 1 Ft Fni'thev reduction in thle caivita t i n numbe r
(.n4 the drag cov-:ffrlt~erit toa peak and then docreraso. Tihe ii Pt
coolr' I c rant, lloWeVe t' , decr-eases rapidly- wi thr cilvi tnation ntimber and
t 11- dilctliot Ill thog ( oefficient mve.i'eiv onnses a iedtiction in the
Io)f4 the [J/D 'n tin curvves.
Piguires 29 tl!Tr01?7I1 41 qow

'Ib thre variiatl. ons. of (I' C~ 1), CM an d
1./P with cavitation numnber' for oi six degree wedge hydirofoil with
thin'tt trailing edge. at aspoct. ratios of one, two and fonil. The i ft,
d r,'L: and moment plots h1ow 1lines of constaiit caa.-itv length, givenl
in chord lengths of x/C. The lift plots show that the lift starts
to dec-tease when the cavity size equals one chira d l ength. Thre drag-
changes approximately in proportion to the lil't With the resuilt
that the 1,/D ratios tend to remain contant~r or Jnl-ptit,.~ gitl
Aspe-ct r-atio does niot affect Lift and dvarg ~pr.i lr~l
a gi ight. improvement of 1,/ r'atio does occur', withi inc-renainfg Isjpect
-ratio.
MODEL_________ ThURSTON AIRCRAIFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6(

CON?__________ BANFORD, MAINF DATE _____
H. Ef'fect of' Depth of Suibmergence on Foil Pert or11llvCe
Tire effect of depth of submergence on thfe lift riirv#- slope

ofsubeavitating hv'drofoil is of various a~spect rni' ios i!s shown ill
Figure 11 1* The l ift uriive slope decreases fis flit. foil fippr-oacht-s
tho surface, with rho most marked reductioifi oý, 4tt-iiLe VVILhlL Mle
ch,)rd length of tire witter s-urface * The% of I'ht on foiils .) a spetc
rat ios less than ten is essentiallv the same.
For supercnvitatingr foils, tile,, effect of' depth on the eff'eo-

1l1vo angle of attnek dune ton camber also decrent,-) rapidly within
L onle chord length ot' tho wsiter Purface, as shrown in Figiirie 4:2. The
viLation of lift atin dru~g coeffici ents due to -,0hrnergeu cr', within
otif. chord length of.' the suirface arqre given in Fl gt.jre 11'3. 11 is shownr
th.if for tie, Tufl-Ii-Bitrka it, (cambered) foil , Chua Lift find Irag (I., unift.
vit I However, ii-~ fl at plate lift does .IncrIeI.5.i slipigit.ly as the
FoilI approaches 1rt muvrirfco, with the dravini iemaitirun nsý- etitiall.y
',on tant. Figui-s 14, (Ra) Itill (h) -;how thllitt, th0 itrej11IaSO finl:i ft'
-nPft'icient near tilie izr-face is slightly Iriglirer for higlrei, aspect
r'atios.
1.* Effect of' Leadl.iirig E ge Sweep and Taipoi, on I'nilI PeiT

Fe rinrce(
The most stgituloiiriot. eff'ects of leadtinfg Pcdge sweep) on

hvd-rofoil a-r.e a dpkxyi iri CHvitation incepti on ant( clocreiise(l I i itt
L/D ratios, and l.ift' cuirve slopes. Sweep is highly advatntageouts
for subcavitating systems, attempting to achiFeve maximum speeds.
Conversely, sweep hats a detrimental effect ori sripercavit~tring designs.
(uthe to cavitation delay an'd loss of lift. Taper iratio has negligible
effect on cavitation speed and force characteviirticA.
Figure 45 is based on analysis and shiowm the effects9 of

swoep and aspect ratio on the lift curve slope of sinbcavitnting
hrydrofoils. The lift curve slope reduces as aspect ratio becomes
smalnler and sweep increases.
Figure 46 presents the physical characteri~sticsA of' Four

hydrofoils of various sweep angles and taper ratio-s but of equal
area`. All have the NACA 65AO06 airfoil section parallel. to tile
free stream velocity and were constructed of heat treated chrome-
vanadiumn steel having a modulus of elasticity of approximately .'3
million. The hrydrodynamic characteris tics of' these foil.-;ia u given
in Figuires 47 through 511.
Figu-re 47 shows thle anguilar deflection of thle swept-hack

hrydrofoils and the -resulting reduction in maximum lift loading
capability of the 60 degree sweep foil due to twist.
Figuire 148 (a) through 51 (c) present thle lift, driag and L/D
ratio data for tire foujr foils.
Ftgiire '): shows the increase of cavitaitioni Incepti on speed

ait v-arious coefficients of lift.
16withi sweep
OO THUR$TnM AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT MO. cj(.j

CONY__________ SANFOR, MAIME DATIE _______
PAI
Efetof Leading Edge Sweep and Taper oni Fuil Performance
t
Figure i'j shows the decrease In lift r1i ;t ratio with swe-31
rit narioiisq coefficients oi lift.
Figure 54 shows thamt taper ratio has ýislight effer't. apora

u/n ratios.
J, Effect of Dihedral on Foil Performance
Dihedral is an impUv'Ltnt desigii parameter, for' dArem.,f't

apjplication, since thle hlxvii ufoil in t~i s ca-ýse shoil d irvi i 'sh~li~v
hie of th,ý surface pie-rcing type.
The surface pieficing hydr~ofoil hast a Mi' tuiral yen Liligt Pot' h
:liocl, tlvere.oi-e, tends to 'n--At rea'dii ". Pria' to i till v-ent iIntir
lot-ce S pircoda c ed by the -I- dagree wedgre a iv' s' ivrtF inJi's -(
isv the livies labeled fiii 1\ attached (hasp. -' or!) . As st ped or I
our!t , e of' attack arei-P e'"i flow .seplfii'tri :clt's9 (A or' (11 leio'l,p
ann1 stu(f
lld faui1l kva'st-j I t i1ni is achiepved. I. I'[t fol~o 101,1
t' ediirel c~ i (I...ral' i I-Ati t-re lp1AVEII [\ [tI, Inisl fo ' ll Is
\Yeni lated. 'Pile direig t'toz'ce,, site given liit I q-;u i e '55. (1).
A factor whiich bear~s mention is the chiangte of a;.3pect raitio

withi immersion of a surface piercing foil. * ince aspect ratio
aft tts lift and dr~ag, the relationship ov Isenisii-ion to as-pect
rat~io shiould be given cons-ideration when designing a sur11face
pier~cing foil system.
K. Effect of' Hydrofoil Leading Edge Angle liti Siitputcavitatinig P'low
ledngidedecreaises, inel requiiring teentr~ance

;iiý,
o b fie irkrt umpermiiitted hY sti. sctihral consideis'ntl nts,
A Inctiluded angle will, allow opesi V.lust i i ilowes stt'isst,
5 iiii! uotiseq~itettjti.v. ltilghsui' Is/p a, )i- ut"ý gjI\ 1:5 IsOLI(jilt i eI
Itholoading edge, tile priessures dsrt to tanlgle 01' 11; a;1
pi'eno'.l mit-1t lu'O itigh anges of attatcI mid i s 0i if -Is thle !'lre
striittu-Ra design conditions. Design presstitres ovel, the First: fouri
to five percent of thle chord are thus independent of ocamber and
bottom shape. A reduction in these pressures couild he ichieverl by
sacrificing leading edge sharpness, hut this entails a loss in foil
V T/D and cavity inception characteristics. The leading, edge prof'ile
shmouldr he maintatined as shar~p as st'uactuarall v% fetis.' in *
Fl[gure 56 qho-ws chite dwise ben~dilag sti'essse10 Oil LIl H'aIMi p 1 ead-
hIg odgi' c~P a .f'n i operating at 12 degi'ees angl?,'e ol' aitV;nu' whinch
M0DE0-91. . THURSTON AIRCRAfT CORPORATION REPORT No.~i~

SANFORD, MAINE DATE-
Pug 1
K.Efectof HvdIrofohil Leading Edge Angle in Supercavitating Flow

K. Continued) (p 2 s. I
sujects it to a loiading oU approximately "cl"
if reasonably small %.edge angles and therefore moixitrinir L/D'-i HP('
to lie realized. The l oading of 1q11 psf arnd oriiespouding angle

of' nttac-k of about 12 t&Vgreaes are reasonable -~ahIi#-s for stiiictira L
demign. This loadiiig ia-t an ultimate stres.-i oi .-i')t),CO0 psi req4izii'(.
a t~ading edge wndfge a~iiji Of 3. 1 degrees 1't a ma N Im1rn.,xiN-lire
spi~ed of 100 knots, and 6..' degrees for a iiitxinitii ."-Iilcli -4peeri of'
20(1 knots..
L. Effect of Trail.ing Edge~ Flaps on Hy-dr'ofoii Pf-i'ioimaiii o
The L/D valties of' %vi~irioiiehydro foils dritgnjped for' super-

ctvi tating flow tiv.' all %v'ivsimilair when plotted versllq iligie o f
Rt -t dik. However, when pi itted versum L'I thue prnik valuito. of L/rn
0oirI II at dIif ferrlit. vt 1 11es ifCL dopending upori flio* bottom sliape
tI tht' Foil F (I I wedgeo" ii Il Filat bottom.-', tin tl~ 1'Mi' /I
If.,_111m1
in '.;I' erv low C Aicitiii1'i inctouist?! and ;i- t l(-' Lottom ii ¼ape
1), ~ms more optiirmi'i, l'i !xtimple the .Tohns~~I ii teA I , the
in., hiiiwi 1/n occtit-ý- ;it piingi-,,-iive1 htighier' \~., it t L*o Ito
ii 1i
lv the cuinbe r~ed design is
o of that hig~h I I I't is obtirtiied at
maNi iniiim L,/D value-i. Such profiles would be tidlen I f'or- optimizing
conlditionIS at the criticail point of hump speed anjtd unportli g, where
dIrag VIs 0; a peak. Their disadvantage, however, lies in thle fact
that cnmt-t~red hydrofoils must be operated at angqlos of attack of
aboitt fiiii' degreer, nhov6 zero lift to obtain optimum L/D values.
Thi.I. i natrrow range Is4 impractical for aircralft application since
ciimparitively large ti'im angles will he realized during hteave, pitch
*and unporting. As a result, the advantages of a sophisticated
* foil suchi as the Juhnson aro diminishied, and tho wedge shape becomnes
* mar' attractive. ThoE penalty paid for' using.the vedge is a smaller
*va1lue of' C compared to the Johnson typo at eqjual valiies of L/1D.
A wedge can be iiado to perform ili ~i\tor n cambered foil

li\v the iise of' a t.1-ail ing odge flap. 'In thii wFs , thle aid Vii tages
of' hot li foils crti hP realizo.d. For' a Supel ( v~i t::ting foil, ecper'i-
mrrits hitve indicnotd that trailing edgec flanpsQ alj'art effective way-
of' maintaining lift at speeds below cruising. At a fixed foil
Incidence angle, thre flap pfirmits lift to loe maini~tained at lower
* speeds and with less drag than would be possible by increasing the
foil incidence without the aid of the flap. Furthermore, it
combination of iricidence control. and flap dleflection provides even
higher lift forces than with flap alone. On an aircraft, incidence
control is obtained timply through changing the pitch of the aircraft.
MODEL. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPOif No. 69..~i2......

COMT... S1ANUOND. MAINE DATE_______
U
PA {
11. Lffect of T-rR nili a-ri-- i.pn- . I 4 L itfilutinanc
J4& ;()fnlnle
Figure 57 (a) and

prmvioe lift (1,)
daota foi a naturally Veintli ted -nr! .! ,- ,u e'rielj l.1
six degree we',l.e Ii, V1,ofor o .itvIt1
a 25 percent chord trailing edge flap.
As ,an bh geen, both I.i fr;
and drag respond proportionaLly to flap
deflectiom.
Bly progres!ting from the

the (CI,/CD versus. CT, plot, figure lower left to the tipper rT•ght of'
58 (c) shows- thl-•t: the 11, 1) r - to
v'an be improved with flap def'lection.
Figure .59 provides ditta for establishln•ii

of atteck required to maintain a fully tlre minimum ang,'les
and 1(.TRou] water. developed cavity in m.onth
This should assist in deteimrnriirif the lower1
limit
of' •n ') e of attack.
While of Ititeretit Cor cruise range u'Ia

semplanes, the addod structural and mechanicr.i ,i' v ellc*. Los ii ll ',,o
hydrofoils must be weighed a;painst their complexity of flapped
operat ,imi-il. •can,•.
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, J..,

CONT_ _ SANFORD, MAINE DATE
PUT 0.2
(DiroIalaAre
AM 0*1
w1i" I a0) ~.
Refeo Linwe
M
CIxMjAR ARG .
2
0*UO0 SIAP
Raf~aene Lue~
0.
1 A
PRefsteno. Lli -
0 0. 0.p.g.-05 06 . .
Ref wenee Uina
flGe 22 (a.
SUPERUMIATZING HT70F0L D0TTrh SWAES
?no strom dfreetion votneldee with Sef~amnh Am"e for' MC 0.
Ref I Griumman Rept. PB 1617M9 Fir. I1I *
MODEL _________THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. L..

SAr
NFOID, MAAINE DATE________
I II
ICI
: k
°,,
a'4
MODEL. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO,

PAN
TVPE OF PAOF16E CONDITION Of FLOW
SBuf feting i
r Vapor or Air Cavi ty)
2= Supetcayltating
S, t, (Fully Ventilated Cavity)
(Bose VetdCavity)
Fig. 22()
-The Effect of Cavitaltion and Ventilation on the Hydrofoil Flow Pottern.
Ref: HycdrOItLI-LiCS fluch. Rept. 001-7 Pi 9. 1
MDLTHURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO.

CON?_________ 9ANFORD, M11AINIE DATE________
-FOIL CM!'hfACT~l?15TJC-5 FOR 5-iBCAV/IAi,'ON
IL - - -
-6 WEDvCE (ItEF LINE LOI.JR SUFFrACE) - CAL.) N547.oO-TcCI.
DTmB SERIES HF-I FOU - DAY TAYL M'OD. 045. ~RF'o
------------------------
A 66,-012 -IOWA
/80/ P!
MNST, OF N"PR, RES. Rpr C0N'rN9omo.-9380 S
,..5
.8 .4 //
-1Z/
30 0020 3
04
/OSNA'V FOLL../
/22
AZ -
0 0
010 01-e20 30 0 /0 01203
A ~ ~ Fig 23O
MODIL TURSTN ARCRAT CRPOATIO REORT o. Q41
CON- IINODMAIEDT
II
mu~~PS Fi qLAP
rVI'
If j lf % 1 " " .I."~ 0%0. I. 'j%
SUPERCA VITA TION

6° WEDGE(IFF LINE LO4SER SJRFACE)- CAL. INST. OF TIECH.
RP 47-•/4. SEPT 194,0
NACA 661.012 - IOWA INST. 0'PYDR, RES. RP" CONT.N9o,,r-53805
,2 JUL/Y 1961
JOHNSON 5 T:RM 5UPE'CAV.FOIL 4, 00.)944 - NACA MEw.MO
5"-9-""L JUNEI2F9.
28 .4
CL c.
, .3 e-
o Z•. - - - 0 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1o0 20 30 0 1o 20 .3
MOMENT ABO'UT FOIL L, r. 14
.I 12
-.3 • •L 4"-
-0 20 0 JO 20 30
MODE.L THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT

NO. 6912
CANT_____, ________SNFORD, MAINE DATE_________
PANl "•
Xomograph Snowing t•ie• ilationshin of Depth of 5uhmerg,,nce. Cavitation Index,

and Sn-eH of incipient Cavitation for any Body u
7
TWO DIMENSIONAL 81
Refi Davidson Lab (SIT) Tech. Mem. 133 Fig. 8
10
ote; This chrrt applies to sea water at 55 F

.
-- 200
20 15
S150 7o estimate th(, speed of incipient_ -
0
c,1v-tntion for a body, lay a -
_ styallahtedge on the given h and
- c ; the r!sultant cav4.tation speed- 10
-is the intercept on the, U scale 20
7 100 i 0
~- go I25
G .-
: u, i , U
: r I . -, ,4).
"'~ .40•.
40 40-
30
30 S/ ,- 0.
',: /•--0.5 350

.0 o•- 0.4 0 "
-.-- -- 0.3 60
10 0.2
'-- L0.70 8o ---
o0 Fig . 25 (a ) 0 1-0
L--
100 -- "l
MODEl. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION KEPORT NO. 6c12

CONT?_ _ _ _IORE, MAINE DATE
_ _ _ _ _ _ PAN _
2.0
1.6
1.A4
Wu 0.6
0,4
040 60 80 /00 120
kV(q7ER TE ipr7plvFtc
1 ,'
Fig. 25 (b)
H.ef: Grummatn Rept. PB 161759 Fig. 1.8
MOILTHURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REsPORT mo. 6 1

GONT__________ SAFORD, MAINEI DATE ________
II PAGE.~ .
66.O02I
NACA
/ , 4
' iT! ipE I~R I

ACE I L tAK o
ANGLE 01 TC. .0
04*
i / ; " ,, ,'
0
C 04 II 14 m
o0
CAVITATION NUMOER,
Fig. 26 - .ift coefficient as a function of cavitation number at

constant. angle of attack for t1" NACA 66 -012 hydrofoil.
Each an-Ie of attack represci-ts one test run.
NACA 661 " 012
I I .. I--
0 0 ----
I1?_ 0 _
o .,. TA...
0 04 I 30
tAo 14 as
CAVITATION NUM,• E R
Fig.27- L u.,- cz, . -l2cientas a function of cavitation nunber at constant

S- '.' r ,NACA 6 1-012 hydrofoil. Each angle of
~~on,; zkb run.
S Ref?. Cal Tech Rett. 47-7 Firs. 7 and R
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION IEPORT NO. 69 12
iNT IUlUl, MNAIN DATE
ANGk5. 0,F ATTACK, a 6
77.
77..
I..
1~104
NACA 661 012
aIac -o
o"2/ h-A6 02hdool
C~VIMAVPT$6UMBR. ION
CONr________ MAINE
0MOI, ...DATE
II
6 degree wedgej
,1 , J , . . 1.5
J'j .4-•.' ,- ...• . - o "-
7•,---------. .. .-
.6.
. O, T U O CAVITATION N COMBrRP.O R I 3 I . NO. 6.
Fig. 29 Lift Cs,2fticiont

at ConstantanAngle
a Function of Cavitation
of Attack, AR = 4. 0. NuAber
-44-
t•i
.. -" .. " .. .
at Costn _______ ofAttack,_AR = 4.0

p : .3 Cal Teh/p 71,Fg n
.~, - 4,
..-o - . -'. ~ <
" LL
I -, ,1 .". •s , • I .0
Fig. 10 Zo'ag Coefficient as a Function of Cavitation Numnber

at Gonstant An~gu of Attack, AR• = 4.0.
_ ,,, R,.hf': Cal Tech Rept /47-hi! Fig.' 8 and 9 ,,
MODEL ______'___ HURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 691
CONY - - ANFORDO, MAINE DATE-
CAVit O, NUMIJ•
O
. _,... _. __ 9 .___ ,0 1. . 14
,,, • -, _. ... _ .... .. -.. ._.,__-.• :
- -- --- -
. - "-i'---...--/---•" ' -- '--- .- ... - "-"--
S-.5"'
-,6,
Fig. 31 Moment Coefficient as a Function of Cavitation Number

at Constant Angle of Attack, AR 4. 0.
Moenent about foil leading edge.
* 6 degree wedg ,
9k I r
FC.. ATAC4
2'W
I *-~I
0 0. . . . . ' •.-. .9 1.1
..•I,'1.0 :2. , - '
C,CA
V ITA
TION NUM BER
.I . 1? Lift-Lrag Ratio as a Function of Cavitation Number

at Constant Angle of Attack, AR = 4. 0.
R c V: Ca 1 rech Rept b17-121 Fig. 10 find 11

CONT _ANFORO, MAINE DATE
}I,
deg"e•P wedge
----
, .......
u .4 Ap
, ."' ,; " "'\n 'o .
CAVITATIONNUMBER
Fig. '3 Lift Coef:'cient as a Function of Cavitation Number

at Constant Angle of Attack, AR = Z. 0.
6 degree wedge
'.7/" ," --
.3 : ff. CAIATO Ne,
'of at Contan Ang, ,.0 Atak AR =.
., .• ,,8,1 ,1 , 9 IO ,I ,,2 I.' I4 if

•-, CtAVIIATION N7lUM{I*4
Fig. 34i Drag Coerficient as a Function of Cavitation Nunmber

at Constant Angle of Attack, R :. 0.O
~ ~
L1~ ResClTc ~ ' et 47-1~4 Fg 2ad1
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, WJ 12-

CONT IANFORD, MAINE DATE
I
4.o 1.
_ __...0 1 I IS i4
" - .. .-
i '
V..
-~ _______ wedge
Fig$ . Moa~ent C,-ificient as a Function of Cavitation Number

at Constant Angle of Attack, AP = 2. 0.
Moment about Coil leadli.n, edge.
6 degreo wedge
'ROL
O, ANGLE
COW MAN DE
i0 o i**
, '
Q,0,.
' "-•"T '.- -.----.--- -----.--....

{•• •I ...
"' " -"
- .. . .. . ". "." . .. .. . < • •--.-
CIm-
rOIV
GV• TOVI•, UM,. ON
V,'I. '36 Z.it-Drag L;tio as a Function of Cavitation Nun'ber

at Consta~nt Angle oi Attack, AR 2..0
flef: Cal Tech Rept 4 Z-IJI

7 Fig. 12# atnd 15 I
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RlPO1RT NO. •..

CONIT. SANFORD, MAINE DATE-
iI
6 degree wedge .,o
' Ii .-..,--• '4 . .- .
.•
at Costn . l f Aa A
NB
CAATO A
,. 6 - .. ,,.- w 1-. Id
.,CAV A1.ON NU/.. .
Ligt Co,,iciont as a Function of Cavitation Numbe r
II
at Constant A-,-yi'L of Attack, AR =1. 0.
MODEL, THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO.

0091? SANFORD, MAINE DATE_________
I
.
a
5 ..•,
Costn Angle of Atak
N .. . . .
An
I I
,. /
6 Ir,(,dt-'re
. wedge
Fig. '9 X:orent CoPfaicient as a Function of Cavitation Number

at Constant Angle of Attack, AR = 1. 0.
Pf Icr1
(r t )47-
IoP 114 leFi 18 a et "'.
+i ~6 degi'•'t wf.dge
CO.I M _.N
S- ----- i-' --- -
THRSO AICAT OPRAIN * EOt N.6

MOE
J - 6 ' 9 F0 II ' 5 14 1.5
,, A•/,tA+,,J3 INu8EP[
Fi•011) L-r,9 R tio as a Function of Cavitation Number

atCo.,-;cant Anl of Attack. AR = 1.0O.
fief' C:I ITech1 Pept J47 -11 . 18 n•nd

'iVA 19
MODE., _________'hURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. -- 691 "2...--.

CoN?____________ AFoRD, MAwIE DA.TE_________
WE
I
T1 i p.._1 V %o-rr
-7- 7
fe t
-~~ I
I I
K: ~ I:2T
K~*~ -A
SIOS O7
rig. 41
K-
Ref: Grumman Rept. PB 161759 Fig.i.4
MODE________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT COOPORMlON PtEPORtT No. 6912iL.....
M~~&IUIDII MAINE DATE________

U PAN
K" " atzK
*L, L. Li
* it:,.. it
THURM ONDTMN
PCRM (11
PAI
Effect of Depth of' Submergence on
-Supercavitating Hydrofoil Performanice
IND
0 '
.2016
xy Vv V
.8 1.0 0, A2. .6 .6 1.0

C, .2 .4 .6
(b)b FlatI.
:il~ (11'r~i'ivjt.SCOni.,. ;.:")]I or
Fig. 243
Reft NASA Tech. Rept. R-93 Fig. h6 and 50
MODEL _________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, 69ý

CON?_________ SANFORD, MAINE DATE _______
4 4)
PE 44
4- ... 44'
V4
1 -W
IV 0 0
0 0 0
04 ýt
C)U.)
0 0 ..
[ ]"••I ._II i
S.. . . . . .. ....
CONT UNFORD, MAINE DATE

J 4S
om i U) 0
41)
I eet
I 0
W Q)
MODI THRSTO AICRA"CORORATON EPOR NO

.7'T &kN.D DATE 0AN
I J A'1
V1 s
j I ..
711
-,.
L THURSTON-. RCRA-
i~Ii C-. 6
U -M . .. DT
E.
q • -- j--- ,, ,.
, -- I
.i i-
-- *.
S.... iN IN I I n II l UUl I ul I
coeI... Aam au t I A'

; .: /' •
,'-/ li'
"- / -' /,
• 11.1
iZ1 • ,..
/ J °-
C" .... , " -UT)• I
K( 00 0
I C.I• I 0
co", UHOD MANI DLJ

. - -- "•-'
... . . . '"--. . .. •' r'-I
11.. _.... '

L..
.. ,-i
--
;,C•*J.•
' 11
C)
NODEL., THUIRSTON AIRCRAFTr CORPORATION REPORT NO.- 1j1

COW? SANFORDg, MAINE be! ____"____
_________ ________________________________________________
,
141
I I 9.'
, i -
I• /
S I '0 "
C / ,•• H .,
I I I H'
- I, / I Ho °'C)
0
0 3
oo
H 0 In-
zII l I
:" I 1/ ',
I4I
- II• U I I
S.
......• • j i " i ...• . i . . . " " i.. . . ..
"44
. ...i . .. . ii
to v ' . . .. . . . . i . .. --- ... . . . -L " .. . . .. . .. . ....i .. . ... . i . . . .
S MODEL. THURSITON AIRCURL' CORPORATION REPORT NO. 69 12

f CORY SANFIORD,~ MIAINE DATE
Ref: NACA RY L52J1.O
j ~2050 1lo/rt"
Oboorvod
jcavitation~
L IG
C.
-10
.4I
0 10 2 3Z0 40 50 60 70 GO 0
Speod, V, fpa
Fig. 48 (,1) Li :' coclý'iciont.
- \'r~aicnWýthl 51peCd 01' J13hroV0tyna~ni.c! charnoteri~jti cs

0,' 0-4-0.6 hydrofo-1l.
MOhh2. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 9

CON?______ _ SANFORD, MAINE DATE______
77 1" i!
,•,,80 I" 4--

\- - ---- - - - - ....
- - - -
_ _........ I _
. . ., . I 1,o
I
,Spood, V, fpa
Fig' 4 8(b) Drag coefficient.
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION nEPORT Nwr q1

_o_ _UAFOR MAINE
o, DATE
!51
L So
L
: . I I- Ii {
' ._ ".Fig -8
,'.0 Ob-arvod cavitato itcn .,
[ ,5 r- I_ - -
"~ ~I I I rt I~
II I I- II-II-I*I
MODEL. THURSTON AIRCRAFTl CORPORATION REPORT 0O10. ;

PONT WJll*, MAINE DATE
Refs NACA R: 152JI0
1..0i
.'.5 .0 0 '1
-
2.0/-; • -?I L'
' I 1I i J I,I 8
.0,k _-_- _-. - _ _
c'•l .6 , 0 • ,
. iI '_
I°•-71.•7--'
3. - j
F----
- I
: ---
-- 1 _--.,--,_
o
F-I--Ij--- I
--
Q 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 v0
Spoed, V, fps
Fig.49 (a) Lift coefficient.
- Variation with speed of hydrodynazic characteristics

of 4.-4-0.6 hydrofoil.

CONT SANFORD MAINE DATEI _
PAU 53
,Ref8
i
I 1•.7 L52J C
' t o- ... . . -'7-
.24 -.
y---T---
7 - -0
.- A.
1_
14o, N
S.12
•120
l -o
20,- - -
0 , -
10 20 30 '0 so 60 s00 O
Spood, V, fps
Fig. 49 (b) Dfra c¢Ifficient.
MODE._THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION mrPoRT NO. 6-1

tO.T &ANRD, MAINE DATE
iI
eft ~NACA RM L52JIO
' iI ,____ '
__ I I ii I I. __
S[ I /
3.2 , 2
a oviotaton-
o0eog
L) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speod, V, fps
Fig,. 49 (c) Lift-drag ratio.
THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPOnT NO. 69 12

MODEL
CORY&OwrNUOng, MAINE DATE
Reof
o107
P 200
.1- 7 21
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Speed, V, fps
Fig. 50 (a) Lif~t coeffricient.
-Variation with speed of hydrodynamic charaicteristics

of' 60-4-0.6 hydrof~oil.
MODEL________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RtEPORT No. 6912J....

COUT_______ SANFORD, MAINE DATE _____
II
--:I--i----'
-I -
Iapuod
_1 ,.. . . .. . I-
.L - . - . ......
.24
'0 K
.0:5
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Spood, V, £fs
Fig. 50 (b) Drag coefficient.
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 69 12

CONT""popANPO, MAINE DATE
:;:ACA .. L,52j1Vj
10 1iICL~
100
---- 2
0E-10 20 350 40 80 60 70 Go~ ?

5pood, V, fps
Fig. 50(c) Lift-draG ratio.
moon. THURSTON AIMRMRF CORPORATION O -6OT

CONT__________ MAMINEMN
nE~m DATE
Refat ACA RM L52J10
loadin~ I
2
IT 13CC lb/r
1.0~
.7
.6
(.4
T- L
.2
010
0 ....
0 2.0 20 30 ".0 b0 60 70 so go
Sveeci, V, fps
Fig. 51 (a) Lift coef'ficient.

-VcariaLion with speed of~ hydrodynamic characteristics
of 45-4-0.3 hydrofoil.
MODEL________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION NgpON? No. 6912

______________ gupou M~INE DA72________
I
IIM
Ref
, . /11I.. I
-. .. .- :., -_ -A--1-, ...- :i I J ] -•
---,+'--1
o.36O .
"j .... i' . - .. ..... , .. -
-.
7 t'" ', "--Z1
. --
.. ,--,,---- -..-
--- -,--- __ -
° I
°°
.02 h ZI ],• 2()o - ,-- ] - - - - - -
IOU
I 100
.0 10 6(l 3 40 bo 00 70 00 90
Speed, V, fps
Fig. 51)(b) flratr coef'ficient.
MODIL _ _ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 69 1

cOla __NMI D,MlAINE DATE .. ..
II
Reft NACA PM L51-10
I~
'- -...-------- -•
:~'10 - -bse.vcd cavitation-
0 10 2o 70 C o
spooI, V, p
F1 51 (c) Lift-drag ratio.
monO ________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION EUPO~r No. 6-91..

GOUT__________uwn MOINK DAME________
PM1
Ref s
J J
U IU
I J, 1,'T
c~.i,
I % ~
___I.
, C F'2
'Ped
1
-
I 'I
-r~~v
mom~~~~ THRTNMUM ~~~~ OPOAO tpw o
-ON W0-,- AKDT

PN 62
II
Refa
"7ACA 1. LT.,2JI0
II
L_ 60-4-0.8
w'
12'
0 '---
______________"__,
.
4.r,'0.
Lift .4coeffCiciet,
.6
0
, .
L
600-4-0.6
4.
,
(a) Speed, 30 feet per second.
i6-~
12 - 45-4-0.6
0 Speed, II 60 feet per second.
Fig. 53 Effect of sweep on lift-draG ratio.
NOEl- THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. .....6,

II uONT iE DATE
I
Re f I'ACA IRM L52J10
6 16
1 45-4-0.3
12 I
0 I I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Lift aonfficýrt, CL
(a) Speed, V, 30 feet per second.
16 I
0- ,I .. .I I
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
Speed, V, 60 feet per second.
Fig. 54- Effect of taper on lift-draG ratio.
MOD. . THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION WPORT NO. ,

ONT SIUSOD, MAINE DATE
LIII
LIFT CHARACTERISTICS
m_
0.60
0.50 I
FULLY ATTACHED
(BASZ VENTED)
3.30 '
S 0.20
4.) FULLY VENTILATED
0I
LO 0.10
-0.20
2
t
I
*I
-0.20 ____
I-I
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
XCOS r (DEG) r=dihedral angle
Fig. 55 (a)
Ref: Davidson Lab (SIT) Rept 952 Fig. 2
moon THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6912

CONT ?_Oh1, MAINE DATE
PIIAN
DRAG CHARACTERISTICS (FULLY VENTILATED)
0.08
0.07 i-
0.06i o
0 .0 5 -
C CosC0S ./
0.04
0
_ _ _
6.03 -_
0.02 __ __0_ _ _
01i
0 .01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.00 006 0.07
LCSIN O
Fig. 5ý5 (b)
Reft Davidson Lab (SIT) Rept. 952 Fig. '3
THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 69 1 2

MOM.
MAINE DATE
CONT__ANFORD,
L0 IN L
~di
L.L P E J.
V- c om or
44
D-
O
b f
* I 2
Si--. N~3
ReT:Rpt Grman
B 1679 i. 1
M
__
o_u__
r_(
n. _ _ _ _ T
_H_ _R_ T
_ _N
_ _N_ _C_ A T C RP R T O Ex X ~tOa
lOUT ________
___ ____ A77
0.1 0.2 -
0~0.1
6 a 10 12 14 is is 6 6 10 12 14 16 1
0.61
6a 0 12 16
i4 is6 8 10 12 14 16 18
a a
~ Velocity
0.6 -20-0 12 fps
A 14 fps
D 16 fps
C L .5
I8 tfps
0.41 6 degree wedge naturally vented
al foil submergence
0.3, 1 1flap = 25% chord T.E. flap
Fig. 5 7 (i;)Vorlation of Steady Lift Coefficient with Angle of Attack, AR =1,l/
Ref: U. of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Rept 68, Fig. 2
MODEL THURITON AIRCRtAFT CORPORATION REpoRT No, 6 912

CON?________ SAPID, MAINE DATE_______
PAlE 68
0.60.4 - ~I
82
0.12 0003
0,00
6 8 10 12 14 16 183 6 8 I0 12 14 16 Is
a
~aI2O
CO 0.2 C0 .
0,
6 a 10 12 .'j 16 Is 6 -8 10 12 14 16 Is
20 - 7 Velocity *
0 12 fps
C3 16fps
0 Is fps
6degree wedge naturally vented

07 a = foil submergence
6 8 10 12 14 1618s flap a 25% chord T.Eo flap
Fig 57 (b r-Variction of Steady Drag Coefficient with Angle of Amtick, AR = 2, d/c =I
Ref: U. of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Rapt. 68 Fig. 3
UOU. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION MEPORT No. 6

C~l___________AIIOI, MNEPATE______
- PA N
Mo Q
0I- I I4
I 0 N a-
°°---- - ,-o _s 0"

Sd 00
a co U.
Cr,
20 w
h If-
1 0 Uus o V0 0 a
0 0
-0 " 0
Ln
0 0
U
0 I
0U -VI t
-flu
do pýONT
0 0J0 CDhodTEfa
inc~
~
'UO Nt, T 40ro
AIRtRA URPRAiON -[or 0O
6 degree wedge naturally vented
d-foil submergence
flap =25% chord T.E. flap
MOLTHURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, ~

CONT_________ sLuwm, MAINE DATE________
I-0I
a min. mil
4-- 4
20 0.5 Lo 15 2.0 2.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 LO0 2.5
12 12
1
min.n
W Id
16 0 12fps
_______ 14_ f ps
0 min. 0 is fps
Solid symbols ore data taken

In waves, others in smooth water
a x 0.1 ft
____X a 3 ft
o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 6 degree wedge naturally vented
41 = foil submergence
flap = 25% chord T.E. flap
Fig. 59 - Minimum Angle of Attack Required to Maintain a Fully Developed Cavity in

Smooth and Rough Water
moonTHURSTON MECGRAff CORPORATION REPronR No.691
CONT________ WWORU, &KINK DATE______
lj itPAR 7I
LVO. Strui Conziguration Data
A. Design factors affecting strut selection
Selection of a strut to support the airplane on the hydrofoil

will depend upon the rollowing factors:
1. Airpiane gross weight

2. Aerodynamic lift curve
3. Take off thrust
4. Hydrodynamic drag of entire airplane including estimated
foil system drag
5. Hump and lift off speeds
6. Lift and drag characteristics of foil for all operating
conditions
7. Type of hydrofoil system
The strut must be designed to achieve structural soundness

within acceptable performance boundaries. The main considerations
for strut design are: low side forces, low drag, provision for
venting the hydrofoil, adequate structural rigidity, and resistance
to flutter.
B. Drag
Drag is most critical in the region of hump speed, where

the unporting phase of take off begins. If sufficient excess thrust
exists at hump speed to provide necessary longitudinal acceleration,
strut drag requirements will be reduced in importance.
C. Side Forces'
Strut side for4es must be kept as low as possible to minimize

highly undesirable aircraft rolling and yawing moments. For this
reason, struts should e made from hydrofoil profile shapes that
develop as little lift as possible. The most effective configura-
tion is a supercavitatlng strut having a relatively large leading
edge wedge angle, flat sides with relatively high thickness ratio,
and a blunt trailing edge. The blunt trailing edge provides early
separation and a path for ventilating air 3to the foil. The
relatively blunt leading edge induces early cavitation and a cavity
wide enough to completely surround the strut. Any yawing of the
strut should then provide strut clearance from the cavity boundry.
Under these conditions, the side loads on the strut are minimal.
The actual configuration must take drag into consideration, while
the final design will be a compromise between drag, side forces,
and structural rigidity.
MODE. THUISTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6

tow.., _Wo_ MA"NE DATE
I
I I
D. Typical Strut Cross-Section Shapes
Figure 60 shows two typical struts; one a streamlined

subcavitating shape with a blunt trailing edge and the other a
rectangular supercavitating cross-section with a wedge leading
edge.
E. Subcavitating Struts
Figures 61 through 67 apply to struts that are fully wetted,

is. cavitation is absent. They provide a breakdown of the various
drag components and spray height. This data permits calculation
of the total strut drag and the spray height for a non-yawed
condition. Side force can be approximated by using the subcavita-
ting lift data for the DTMB series HF-i foil from Figure 23 for
the appropriate aspect ratio.
The drag of a subcavitating strut can be divided into

profile drag, wave drag and spray drag:
1. Profile Drag; Applies to a section in two dimensional

flow and is the total drag for fully submerged struts
(pre-hiump speed). This term is the sum of shear and
viscous pressure forces.
2. Wave Drag and Spray Drag; For surface piercing struts

(post-hump), wave and spray drng are two additional
surface effect drag terms.
Figure 61 presents the profile drag for three NACA airfoils

(with varying thickness and size) plus one ogive section, versus
Reynolds Number. A comparison is also made with the skin friction
drag of a flat plate surface. Figure 62 shows the ogive strut data
in more detail. Figure 63 provides wave drag versus Froude Number,
and shows this factor becomes insignificant at higher speeds (for
example, above approximately 20 feet per second for a strut with
a one foot chord). Figure 64 presents spray drag data for struts
of varying thickness ratios. Figure 65 is a plot of the residual
drag for a typical strut, defined as the total drag minus the
profile drag; or in other terms, the spray drag plus the wave drag.
For speeds greater than 20 feet per second, where the wave
drag diminishes, the residual drag is approximately equal to the
spray drag. This is the region of interest for a seaplane, since
unporting will occur at speeds above 20 feet per second. Figure 66
shows the direct influence of thickness ratio on profile drag, while
Figure 67 provides spray height information versus speed.
MO-._ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION smpon" No. 69 12

GONT _ _11M MANE DATE'
I- I
F. Supercavitatinor Struts
For supercavitating struts, Figure 68 presents drag coeffici-
ents for varying leading edge anglesl the leading edge of the wedge
is the only portion of the strut in contact with the water. The
cavity left behind provides the boundary wall which limits the size
of the strut. Any size or shape strut can be introduced inside the
cavity without affecting the drag or side force. Figure 69 pro-
vides the cavity width, while Figure 70 presents cavity length
information. The effect of strut yaw (with the strut remaining
inside the cavity boundry) must be considered when selecting lead-
ing edge angle.
With this data, it is possible to select a strut configitra-

tion providing the desired performance and structural strength.
This is a preliminary step toward testing the system for further
refinement.
MODi. THURiTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. r

CONT "WNFM% RMANE DATE
Subcavitating Strut
Rel'4 Thlurston Aircraft Corp. Strut No.2

TAC Report No. 6702-3 Feb 1967 Fig- I
F ..i=• --- -•-•. .

Supereavitat.'ng Strut
Fig. 6o
OML THURSTON AIRCRA4T CORPORATION WOW N

CONT SANMOR, MANE DATE
(.JPAN 7
STRUT PROFILE DRGcowTicIu
7-'
... . ...
....
j.
- ~ ~ 00 0- 0- L - --
mit i7
Fig. 61
Ref Daido La (SIT - R-59 Fig.2
M001L~~~~ TH1.*-O ~~~ OPRTO EO -ICO

CO WI0 AIEDT
PAN Z6
aa
CY
0g
.4 0
0 0
l . . dI a. ... ,...
IIIIII • 0 HI
MSal. .T U 8 ' N N G A T G R O A I NR
P R O
O O N T8 ANF IUI, MAJ ~ DAT
co-f
"APN6OMIDT
PAIR
M .
VARIATION O THEORETICAL WAVE DRAG COEFICIENT

AT HIGH N FOR SLENDER STMUTS HAVING
MJDE NUMBJ
S0.60
C.)
0.50
0.40 -
. S0
0.35
0.30
0.25
S0.20
0.15-
S04,0 -
S0.0%
02 2 3 4 5 .7
F = V ,/7c Froiide Number
c = chord length In feet
V w Velocity in fTet/sec
= 32.2 foot/seo
Fig. 63
Ref: Davidson Lab (SIT) Rept R-596 Fig. 1
MOO_ _ _ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPoRT NO. 9

GON SANFORD, MAINE DATE
flSTL'_S UT' GRAF1ICAL DLT1U•IMA2OnS
Cl? SPRAY MOAC YnnM VARIAURS
2.0 Reference: Kaplan P., Stevens Inst. of Tecim.
Letter Report No. LR- 1188, 1953
and
Davidson Lab (SIT) Rept R-596 Fig. 4
S1.6
S. ~Thee retic cI
S~Wave Rcsistarce
6Symbols Thclaiess Ratio
a ETT .12
E-,4 0 2-B .2 5
a 1B4ACA .12
o Cr)STANZI .25
1.2 .18TT
I;Ar .12
0
o -I
+ 1%+NACA
C
x IiAGA
.12
. I'
.21
o .0 0NACA .13
y ETT 615
A ETT
0.8 J ID A\
"0.2 -
2 -. -ý-or- -Y- . ," .
l i • I~~~~.. 0 lI . . .I.. . . . . .
- 10 20 30 11o 5o 60 70 30
Spoed-Length Ratio, V.4/rc
Fig. 64
MODIL THURSTON AIRCRAll CORPORATION REPOnr No. 6 c)12

cOiT_ __ANPORh,
_ MAINE DATE
7Q
LLI j04 i
1-41
Lul
-J . 4
~LV~ Lz
-LAL
N .D1
£7N
KAPMMN DATE:
PAU 80
4.012
~.008 NACA 1 Digit Series
-1 NACA 65 Series (Smooth)
.0 .08 .12 .16 .20 .24

Thicknoess astio t,/a
Fig. 66
PROFILE DRAG OF TWO SECTIONS AS A FUNCTION

OF THICKNESS RATIO
Reft Davidson Lab (SIT) Rept. R-596 Fig. 3

and
Theory of Wing Sections, Abbott and Doenhoff
McGraw Hill 1949, pp. 152-3
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT No. 26912

SORT __AN__ _IFO, MAINS DATE
al
0.-
e.N
O~44
-~m -- - o!.
couc
N4) W f
Hl
1h
C\i 0 00 I 0
spazoqo 1ýj~ jo o3pe 3uj ~vj4;v qT4.wt Av
moonL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION IMPORT NO, 6 912-...

CONY_______ MW"oD MANE DATE ______
6ý0M DOAG C~FP
FOX .5TP.UT W1774 VARIOUS LEAD)ANG FP&rANGLES
TWO J'WMENSIONAIL
K0.4
TWME PttAEN5ScO!RL
'*1
U Vm~Pes
20 40 to 80 too /20 )140 160 /do

APEX HALFP 4NGLF; 06
Fig. 68
Ref i Cal Tech Rapt No. 47- 4 Fig. 15
MODL ThiURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REsPORT NO. 6.a) j....

CONY____________ SANOD, MAINE DATE______
MEI
4k
00
0.05' Jo 2%
n
CAVITAh, NAlum ar, PO' P
Fig. 69
Ref' Cal Tech Flept No. 47-4 Fig. 16
MO THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RtEpoiT 40, 6912

SANr
FORD, MAINI DATI
L.L
K4
77#
.I
.5.2 do .2 .3
Re s Ca.ehRp .N .4 - i -1
MORLTHRSONAICAF
gL2Z CRPRAIO MPRTNO
COT NFR40M' DT
SPA'. 85
V. Full Scale Hydrofoil Test hesults
A. U.S. Navy JRF-SG Vqiippad with Grunberg Supercavitating

Hydrofoil System
Under U.S. Navy sponsorship, during 1957 to 1963, the Edo

Corporation designed, installed and flight tested a Grunberg super-
cavitating hydrofoil system on a JRF-5G (Grumman Goose) amphibian.
Subsequently during 1963 and 1964 this airplane configuration was
further tested and evaluated by the U.S. Novy at the Naval Air Test
Center, Patuxent River, Maryland. Front and side views of the
installation are given in Figure 3. This installation used the
largest supercavitating hydrofoil built at that time and was the
first application of a supercavitating hydrofoil to an airplane.
References 42, 43 and 44 cover the work done by Edo, while reference
139 reports on the flight test evaluation performed by the Navy.
The Grunberg supercavitating hydrofoil system used on the

JRV-5G was developed jointly by the Office of Naval Research,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Bureau of
Naval Weapons. The system consists of a Tulin supercavltnting
surface-piercing hydrofoil (Cl=O.2) near the airplane cg and two
planing bow skids, Figures 3 and 71. The bow skids were incorpated
for the dual purposes of' properly trimming thp airplane during
unporting and to prevent the airplane from diving in case of hydro-
foil failure. For an operational installation, the hydrofoil would
be located slightly further forward with the bow skids eliminated.
The hydrofoil was constructed of AIST 416 stainless steel

heat treated to 150,000 psi tensile strength. For the purpose of
providing corrosion and erosion resistance, a hard electro-plated
nickel coating was applied .003 inches thick over the entire foil.
The test airplane was instrumented with a photopanel,

oscillograph, and flight test boom. Water speed data were derived
from airspeed recordings and wind information taken by an outside
observer. The hydrofoil and skid struts were equipped with strain
gauges to measure water impact loads.
The bow skids and hydrofoil could be raised and lowered

hydraulically to permit operation on land or water. 1,and operation
was limited to taxiing performed with the skids and foil raised.
The main landing gear oleos were extended and stiffened to provide
adequate ground clearance. Water entry was gailned by taxiing down
E ramp: once waterborne, the skids and foil were lowered and locked.
The skids and foil remained down and locked for all water take offs
and landings, as well as all, flight work. Raising the bow skids In
flight would make the airplane pitch up uncontrollably. The hydro-
foil could be raised in flight and would permit an emergency runway
landing on the stiffened landing gear in a three point attitude
(to provide a ground clearance of the lowered bow skids).
THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RuPoRT No.61
IONS
&UMR, MAINS DATE__
PAUE
II
A. PT.ý. Navy JRF-5G Equipped with Grunberg Supercavitdting
Hvdrofoil qvxtam ( r rn- in- Ae
The take off maneuver was difficult to accomplish due to
marginal excese thrust plus marginal stability and control existing
during unporting. This, of course, wa- the resoii of the airplane
znot being specifically designed for hydrofoil operation coupled
system. The bow skids created considerable spray when approaching
and during hump speed, necessitating complete depondence upon the
flight instruments for control of the airplane. Airborne, the
airplane was nearly neutrally stable, both longitudinally and
d'rectionally, due to the large bow skids and supporting strut area.
L.anding technique was similar to that of a conventional seaplane
and was different only because of the marginal stability of the
airplane exhibited during approach.
In the hydrofoil planing condition, the pitch attitude of

the airplane could be varied from the lower limit, where the bow
skids contacted the water, to the upper limit., determined at low
speeds by elevator control. limit and at high speeds by bouncing or
a heaving motion of' the airplane. Figure 72 shows trim angle data,
plotted against speed and the upper boundary for bounce-free operation.
Bouncing occured on nearly all landings regardless of the airspeed,
rate of descent and wave height. Under calm water conditions, the
bouncing could be prevented by keeping sink rate and airspeed to a
minimum at touch down and immediately decreasing the pitch attitude
after touch down to below the bounce boundary.
When planing on the hydrofoil, the JTRF-5G tended to diverge

slowly from a selected heading and diverge rapidly from a selected
bank angle. These tendencies, coupled with weak directional and
lateral control effectiveness at the low speed end of the planing
phape, required many large, rapid aileron and rudder control inputs.
Both directional and lateral control power improved from barely
sufficient at low speeds to satisfactory at take off speed.
The power required to plane on the hydrofoil decreased from

an estimated maximum of 760 BHP at hump speed (21 knots water speed)
to a minimum of 400 BHP in the 40 to 45 knot range. This data was
determined during stabilized speed runs shown in Figure 73. Beyond
this speed, the power required gradually increased to 560 BlIP at
70 knots. Figure 74 shows photographs of the JRF-5G planing at
various stabilized speeds, including side views of the accompanying
spray patterns. Figure 75 shows the longitudinal acceleration of
the airplane at various power settings. The hump speed is clearly
defined at about 21 mph waterspeed, with minimum drag at 40 mph;
corresponding to the minimum drag point shown in Figure 73.
Time histories of a take off and landing are given in

Figures 76 and 77. It can be clearly seen that below 30 knots
large rudder and aileron inputs are required to control the airplane.
Figure 78 presents impact normal acceleration at the
0omu THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RIPOrT NO. 612

, •NI' UI•IO00i•MANIN DATE
A. U.S. Navy JRF-i G Equipped with Grunberg Supernavitating
Hydroio:L. :ýys:om (continued)
airplane cg versus sink rate. Data are also presented in reference

131 for the foil loads versus sink speed. Tn both cases, the
relation of load and acceleration is linear with sink speed.
Figure 79 shows the variation of elevator, position, trim

anple, bow skid bending stress and hydrofoil main strut compression
loaf! with waterspeed.
Bi. HRV-1 (LA-4A) Equipped with Thurston Aircraft Corporation

Supercavitating Hydrofoil
Under U.S. Navy contracts, the Thurston Aircraft Corporation

designed, installed and flight tested during 1966 to 1968 a single
supercavitating, surface-piercing hydrfoil on a Skimmer L.A-4A
amphibian, page i, This airplane was designated Ifydro Research
Vehicle (}{RV-1), and was the same aircraft used for previous hy-lro-
dvnnmic flight test work with hydro-skis. This installation was
flit first applicatIon of' a single supercavitating hydrofoil on an
ai ',1lane. References 128, 129 and 130 cover the hydrofoil test work
pet lormed during thi:i program.
The IIPV-1 hydrofoil was a 6.25 degree wdt-e with a 30 degree

leaiding edge angle and a flow breakaway groove 1/21 inch behind the
1er npg ,dge on the uipper surface, Figure 80, and was cast from
,,-T' 1 aluminum alloy. The projected planrorm iten of 1Mt) squaie
inches satisfied both the desired foil loading speed requirement
and the scale/weight relationship compared to a proposed Ti11-16
installation. Figure 81 shows a profile view of the HRV-1 with
the hydrofoil extended to its maximum of 22 inches. The strui was
a subcavitating streamlined shape with a blunt trailing edge,
Figture 60. Two close-up photographs of the foil and strut installed
on the IIRV-1 are shown in Figure 82.
The test airplane was instrumented with an oscillograph

recording strut loads, hull pressures,pitch angles and cgacceleration.
Rrl',.rence 129 shows the restults of tests with the strut located at
1ý11I stnl ion 79, while refe,'ronce 130 shows the resul t., with the
strut ot. station 96.25; ther-, was located at hull slatLon 106 for,
both strut locations.
A comparison of data for the hydrol'ol|I xrSUs Ilit(airplane

basic hull showed the hydrofoil reduced the hull l,,,ttom pIýssures by
about 15 percent and the normal acceleration factor by abouýt 7,0 percent
in calm water. Under conditions of one and one half to two'fbot
waves, the hull pressures were reduced by about 50 percent and the
acceleration again by about 70 percent, as discussed in Chapter VI.
Hydrofoil take off times were reduced by approximately 30 percent
compared to the basic hull performance figures.
I____________ ___ __ __I_
MODEL__ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RIPORT NO. 69 12

CON SANFORD, MAINE DATE
I
PAN .8L
B. HRV-1I(LA-4A) EquIPPed with Thilrmlnt
A^4...f. Cro........
Supercavitating Hydrofoil (Continued)'
The JRF-5a and the HRV-1

seaplane config6urations developed represent the only two hydrofoil
and te:•ted in the United States
to date, both sponsored by the Department
of the Navy.
MODEL_________
OT - -THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 9J
SANFORD, MAINE
DATE
LI
Ic
/
// 0
U0
0-4
-- •co 0 /
o ""•'*°" C. V
411
4-1
\I III
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, 6912

CONT .ANFORD, MAINE DATE
! I
Bow Skid Configuration B

CG - 2L. 71 XAC
300 Flaps
S Gr. wt.-1b wave Ht-ft Headwirid-kt

0 0 9450 I ý, to 9
9450 1/2 j to 6
9570 1/2 tol1 2 to 7
[ -Planing runs on which bounce occurred
Planing run. on which bounce did not occur
00 o
Sa) 0
4 FPOR BOUNCE FREE-
52. 56 60 64 68 72 76 80
INDICATED AIRSPEED-KT
Fig. 72
JRF-5G Airplane
BuNo 37782
UPPER HYDRODYNAMIC LOrTG7TUD.T;AL STABILITY LIMIT
REF: U.S. Naval Air Test Center, Report No. FT2121-

35R-65, dated 25 July 1965
MODE. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION M*POlWT No. 6 912

CONT_ SNFORD, MAINE DATE
Bow Skid Configuration 13
Gross Weight -. 9,450 1b, CG - 21.7% MAC
Wave lHeight - 1 ft, Headwind - 5 to 10 kt
Surface Temiperature - 640 F
80------------------------ 030, FlapsJ

I - - -060 ...... 0
Flaps
R600o-....
700-
..
LIh
0-
•5C -- *-
0 -,- 0
0
400
30CF -L - -- I
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO
GLCULATED WATERSP['l-R(T
JRF-5G Airplane
BuNo 37782
POWER REQUIRED FOR PLANING VERSUS' WATERSPEAlD
FPit. 7'3
PEF: U.S. Naval. Air Test Center, Report No.

FT2121-35R-(;5, dated 25 July 1965
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, .. 12

CONT,_ UNFORD, MAINE DATE
tI Agit 92

Gross Weight-L ,450 Vh 1.,M.
Wave Height ft -1
AA
C.l 'ýjL ""1 - 3d'i t

2,c 1 s rk . 43.
1-LbIwin - U k;. (3 L
10' p M'.pFl ap
lc-FT22135R65
ta2pm date Jul 1965-p~d47k
-OPRO
MDI..~~~H ad"ITO AIRRAF R7POR NOk61
CON
____________ FAlapRD 9A.NDATE _____
93I
f.r
rq~
iC t
6 -~ I
4-q E4 4JC
4.44
U)
U
0284/iNOWN~oW30V IYNIGiLLONO1
MDLTHURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 69

SONY__________ UNPOW MAINE DATE ________
Gr,3s sWBow Skid Coilfiguration
ei~ght - 9,570
W'ave Heiqht - 1/2 ft. lb, CG - B21,7ý` MAC
Surface TemmorAý-11r-
%
Wind Velocity - 7 kt from 20O' Loft
i I
I
' V
I i
. I
.= ...... L • .....L i
_.
i "
7. -' ..
~1L.iTF7
TM
04 IN I F A A- A
*i--i.... - r---.•- -. I' • I .. i--
JRF-5G
A.Urp]ane
•BuNo 37782
V -:F' TI.i.
Nriol TIME
Atr HISTORY OF A TAIE-OFF
date
25 Jp Tl
1961 l' Vetiter,
li., pw l
Nis. F I') I')1
I .61,
MOD L -THURITON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION *P NO.I1RT

SANWU, MAINI OAtK
PME 95
Blow Skid Configuration B

Gross Weight -9,450 lb, CG - 21.7% M.AC
,,iv~11ljiL- 1L/2 ft, Surface Ixernpcature -64:"
60 F'laps
C4 -
q 1 ~ffiL
Ci1
10IC -
'o.7
SINEHSOYO OMLLN~
REFU.. Nvn Ai' Tst E'ter Reortto
FT2213~-65 dte 25duy 96
MOEL___________ THRSONAICRFTCQPRAIO RPOTWOoo1
CON_______________ UAUDD, AIN DAE ________boo_

CG Position - 21.7% MAC
600 Flaps
je jj~mn-ijb VTI Qt~---lb W-jRc -ftndI

tI
through 45 945016 E
A Gthroucjh 63 9570 1/2 to 1 5 t 1
-- 01----- -m
cr Uv in*ntmPo
00
4 5 6 7 a 9 .10 11 12
RATE OF SINK AT TOUCHDOWN - FT/SEC
Fig. 78
JRF-5G Airplano
BuNo 37782
CG NORMAL ACCELERATION V"' SINK RATE
REF: U.S. Naval Air Test Center, Report No. FT2121-35R-65,

dated 2.5 July 1965
MODEL________ THIURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPoRT NO, J91~2J&..

CONY__________ MIANNN, MAINE DATE
Bow Skid Configuration 13
Gross Wz.ight - 9,450 1b, CG - 21.7% MAC
Wave Height - 1 ft, Headwind - 5 to i0 kt
20
'0 30°° •I•
m":60, Filaps
Ci
lo-j
•00
" 200CLu io "'K

o 100
2.8000 .
p.
1500
20 30 40 50 60 70 s0
CALCULATED WATERSPEED - KT
Fig. 79
JRF-5G Airilane
BuNo 377 2
CONSTANT SPEED FOILBORNE CHARACrERISTICS
IREF: U.S. Naval Air Test Center, kpmrt No. FT212i-'iii-(65,

dated 25 July 1965
MOon_. THURITON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, 69192

DONT &WIWORD, MAINE DATE
r4-
,-,TIzLJT Q0.2
i6i250
IT 4.
HU-i 6 5W0.
22
+ '/32~
4~-L M?:LE. 9G.25WI4T
~ (737
TIME-5 size-
FIG. 80 i3s.
ý-ND CI-0L ýCO. I wK. STIZ07 Q'o. 2
1/8 SCALe-
A F-T LOCATI(ON C4J6Lras ,-re--r
REr: Thur'ston Aircraft Corporation, Report No. 6902,

dated February 1969 (Rlef. 130).
~M uLTHURSTON AIRCRAfT CORPORATION WORT NO. 6912
CANT______ UNiiu UNow DAT1 _____
IlI
! 'I ' i
%L
- -
r, •
0 CL
,I,,. ,.
i
u
S_ +
lK 4 J
Z:0
-- i
CONN
U*PW100I
TtURI
Fig.82A Hydrofoil No. 1 Retracted
Fig. 8213
Hydrofoil No. I
Extended 22"
on Strut No. 2
(Ref. No. 129; TAG

Report 6702-3)
MD THURSTON AIRCRA"f CORPORATION RIPORT No, ..~aa....

CONT_________ SANFORD, kAINK DlATE______
II III
VT. Hydrofoil Application to Seaplane Desigi
A. Longitudinal Location
Development of a hydrofoil configuration for seaplane operation

must be conducted parallel with the basic aircraft design. The foil
longitudinal location along the hull bottom is most critical due to
foil-strut L/D force vector oscillations occuring from heave, trinm
changes, and wave front variations experienced during take off; it
is imperative that the resultant L/D vector angle does not m~ve
excessively - creating pitch trim oscillations that cannot be cor-
rected by normal pilot control reaction.
While this operational condition is more critical for relat-

ively small seaplanes of low mass and moment of interia compared
to long range open sea boats, any sudden shift of hydrofoil result-
ant vector will necessitate a rapid trim correction adding to the
horizontal tail load and so prolonging take off (due to increased
loading of the wing and foil).
Reference 130 presents tho results of an initial, study concerned
with the comparative location of a single surface-piercing hydrofoil
on the HRV-1 test bed. Flight test data confirmed that the hydro-
foil-strut combination L/D vector must be located to pass ahead of
the most forward center of gravity location anticipated during
seaplane operation.
The hydrofoil must be positioned with the realization that

the nearer the foil-strut L/D vector approaches the seaplane cg,
the greater the landing load impact factor will become relative
to a more forward location. Of course, since the hydrofoil is an
excellent water landing impact load alleviation device, any foil
maximum landing load factor will be considerably less than that of
the basic hull (Reference 129, page 16). Countering the more forward
location of a foil to reduce impact loads is the additional considera-
tion that a forward location tends to increase longitudinal pitch
changes with foil lift variations during take off and will result
in increased nose up pitch during the landing run out.
As an initial approximation for basic design, the single
hydrofoil center of lift should be positioned .35 to .50 MAC ahead
of the airplane normal cg location. The proper longitudinal location
of a hydrofoil for the HRV-1I is shoWn on Figure 83 referred to the
normal gross weight cg.
.9. Extension versus Sea State Capability
While it may be properly agreed that no substitute exists for

thrust and lift to reduce water contact time and run during take
off, these factors cannot reduce landinp impact into a rough sea to
the degree possible with a surface-piercing hydrofoil. Therefore,
"NO_ __ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6912

CONT IANFOSO, MAINS DATE
FARE 10
B. Extension versus Sea State Capability (Continued)
tne amount ot roil extension to provide Rea state capability In

rough seas becomes another major factor to be considered as the
basic seaplane design develops.
Neglecting power, a hull capable of handling four foot seas

should be able to negotiate eight foot waves if the hydrofoil is
positioned four feet below the keel. Actually, this will not be
so, since the airplane first must have the capability to climb over
the hump and plane before it becomes fail borne. While excess
thrust at relatively low hump speed will materially assist in
reducing damaging wave impact duration, the airplane must not
experience foil unporting prior to attaining sufficient speed to
permit aerodynamic control about all three axes (see discussion
of following Section D).
Hydrodynamically, subject to the limitation of hydrofoil

support strut drag on the margin of excess thrust, a properly
designed hydrofoil may be located as far below the hull as design
sea state conditions require. Practically, design compromise will
be necessary in the areas of handling qualities, support strut
column rigidity and weight, as well as retracted storage require-
ments and retraction system weight.
As shown by the test results of Reference 129 and Figure 84,

increasing the strut extension from 17 inches to 22 inches on the
HRV-1 reduced the hydrofoil landing impact factor by 40% in rough
sea conditions. Since the surface-piercing hydrofoil tends to
submerge upon rough water contact, it is apparent that increased
strut extension provides a greater deceleration time interval;
resulting in reduced hull bottom contact velocity. (As a matter
of interest, a 22 inch st'rut extension on the l1RV-1 corresponds
to a 54 inch extension for the H11-16 "Albatross" amphibian.)
While maximum strut extension is desirable for rough sea

operation, intermediate extension positions should be used for
take off in reduced sea state conditions. Through this procedure
strut drag is reduced, permitting minimum take off run and time
under conditions usually accompanied by relatively low surface
wind ities. .However, it is recommended that all land!ngs be
made a, maximum strut extension to reduce hull bottom plating
pressurL loadings.
C. Impact Load Factors and N-ottom Pressures
The effect of hydrofoil extension as a landing load alleviation

device to reduce maximum impact load factor and hull bottom pressures
is demonstrated by test data for the IIRV-1 presented in Figures 84
and 85. Impact loads with the extended foil were 1/3 the basic hull
values, while maximum bottom pressure loadings were reduced 35%.
Carrying these reduced loadings into the hull structure will

result in considerable savings in both airframe complexity and weight.
MODEL THURITON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT No. 6912

COUT. __ANFORD. MAINE DATE
PAN
C. Impact Load Factors and Bottom Pressures (Continued)
Rni a 4van vvnx aivfa riatlr-.4 aaa will 1ho v-a*1lwad a

reduced airframe cost. Experience with the hydrofoil system
installed on the HRV-1 has indicated the complete system, includ-
ing structural provisions and retracting mechanism, can be installed
for less than 4% of the airplane gross weight. A 35% reduction in
bottom pressure loadings should provide at least a corresponding
weight reduction in hull bottom plating and supporting structure;
a saving in weight and cost that will permit installation of the
seaplane hydrofoil system as a balanced structural trade off. As
a result, seaplanes designed for hydrofoil operation realize in-
creased sea state capability without weight penalty. In fact, TAC
preliminary studies have indicated that a complete hydrofoil system
for a 90,000 pound seaplane designed to unport at 60 mph should
weigh less than 3% of gross weight, including foil, strut, retract-
ion system, and supporting structure. As presented in Chapter VTTT,
the larger the seaplane the smaller the percentage of gross weight
that must be allocated to the hydrofoil system; the attendant re-
duction in hull weight permits incorporation of a hydrofoil system
plus increased payload and sea state capability at a fixed gross
weight.
To take full advantage of the hydrofoil system described in

this study, hull design requirements for hydrofoil seaplanes should
be revised to include load alleviation benefits associated with
hydrofoil operation.
D. Hydrofoil Size
The hydrofoil size for a given seaplane configuration must be
based upon:
1. desired unporting velocity
2. hydrofoil section properties
3. airplane trim angles during take off run
4. available thrust versus velocity during take off
5. hydrofoil and strut system drag versus velocity.
1. Of all these parameters, the desired unporting velocity requires

most thorough initial consideration. The airplane must be aerodynami-
cally controllable about all three axes at unporting speed or it will
become unmanageable; resulting in an aborted take off, or, more likely,
a damaging water loop at fairly high speed.
For small seaplanes up to 6,000 pounds gross weight, sufficient

aerodynamic control should be available at unporting speeds of 45 to
50 mph; larger aircraft with higher wing loadings will require higher
unporting speeds to assure sufficient aerodynamic control. Once foil-
borne, the single hydrofoil seaplane is perched upon a pivot hinged
MODEL THURITON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6912 ,

CONT__r SANFORD, MAIN DATE
ri
at the water surface, requiring *urfaoo control responna in muffleient
degree to provide trim and stability until airborne. Therefore,
unporting speed is basically an aerodynamic consideration rather
than hydrodynamic, and must be established prior to determining
hydrofoil area.
2. Fir aircraft use, as prev iously noted on page 19, the hydro-
foil should be of supercavitating type; configuration properties
are set forth in detail in Chapter TIT.
3. Airplane trim angles are required to determine wing and hydro-

foil lift during the take off run and at unporting. The hydrofoi.
incidence angle relative to the seaplane reference line must be set
I
to prevent hydrofoil ILft from heaving the airplane into an unpoi'ted
condition prior to the desired unporting speed (and related aero-
dynamic control velocity). Most seaplanes trim at approximately
8 degreesduring planing, and this angle could be considered for
preliminary design purposes.
4. An adequate thrust margin must be available to assure rapid

transition from hull displacement to the planing hydrofoil regime.
This requirement is particularly critical for heavy sea state
operation where wave impact duration and relative hull velocity at
impact should be at a minimum. Since hydrofoil aircraft may experi-
ence two hump regions of operation, the first when the hull planes
and the second when foil lift displaces the hull above the water
surface, it is necessary that the thrust margin be maintained at
higher velocities than necessary for basic hull transition from the
displacement to the planing mode. As the foil. comes into action,
sufficient thrust margin must be available to overcome hull, strut,
and foil hydrodynamic drag as well as the aerodynamic drag of the
airplane; and with sufficient margin to continue take off accelera-
tion through hydrofoil unporting. Complete ventilation of the
hydrofoil and support strut will materially reduce system drag as
velocity increases toward unporting speed.
Propeller driven aircraft characterstically experience a
decrease in thrust with velocity during the take off run, and must
be designed with an excess thrust margin prior to hydrofoil unport-
ing. Turbo Jet aircraft normally experience a slight thrust increase
during the take off phase, permitting a matching of static thrust
to the margin desired during unporting. For either type of pro-
pulsion system, other design factors such as STOL performance may
determine thrust requirements; however, to assure smooth unporting
and a controllable take off from the planing hydrofoil, adequate
excess thrust margin must be maintained at higher speeds than is
necessary for conventional hull configurations.
5. Hydrofoil and strut drag during take off must be determined

with the view of establishing the minimum strut cross section
necessary to provide adequate structural. rigidity, and the minimum
MOD _ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6912

CONT? SANFORD, MAINE DATE -
I II I
D. Hydrofoil Size (Continued)

foil area required vo provide desired iift at uriportirng. Examples
of hydrofoil area calculation follow.
a) 2300 pound gross weight HRV-1:

Hull trim angle upon the step = 7.50; wing CL at this hull
angle = 1.65; S 7 170 sq. ft.; desired unporting speed of
40 knots (67.5 fds).
(i) Wing lift . 1.65 x .00119 x 170 x (67.5)2
S~w -L 1520 lbs.
(ii) Foil borne load contribution = 2300 - 1520

LH = 780 lbs.
Foil CL = .27 (Ref. 45, Pg.13)
-o 62.4/32.2 - 1.94 for fresh water
SH LH
CLH/
780 = .67 sq. ft.
2 .27x1.94/2 x (6775-
It should be noted that an axial load of 780 to 800

pounds was frequently recorded in the HRV-1 hydrofoil support
strut, but was not exceeded. The HRV-1 support strut, foil,
retraction system, and hull structure reinforcement weighed
73 pounds (3.2% design gross weight).
b) 90,000 pound open ocean seaplane (preliminary design):

Wing CL at unporting a 2.2; Sw = 2000 sq. ft.; desired
unporting speed of 50 knots (84 fps).
(i) Wing lift = 2.2 x .00119 x 2000 x (84)2

Lw = 37,000 lbs.
(ii) Foil borne load contribution a 90,000 - 37,000
LH = 53,000 lbs.
Foil CL = .26 (Fig. 24, aC- 80, AR = 4)
LH
SH = 2 -2ý000
4
T4 28.5 sq. ft.
C'LP/2 v2 .26 x 1.9 /2 x (8 )
Span (AR of 4) = 13 ft.
System and structural support weight (60 wedge, steel

foil) are estimated at 2540 lbs, or 2.8% of design gross
weight, including hull reinforcement and retraction provisions.
NOTE: Since heavy sea state operation will normally be afcompanied
by surface winds which decrease the water speed for a given wing
lift value, the decreased contribution of' hydrofoil lift (or,
conversely, the incrAased hydrofoil area required) will have to be
taken into consideration when determining unporting speed at the
design sea state conditions. The use of a flapped hydrofoil could
be most beneficial under these conditions.
MODI.L THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATON HPORT NO. 6912

CONY .a.fO.., MAINE DAT
Q MI~T'I% T ^1M9A 0"Td% A . till. i
L~mi Wh&ýAmi .LJi Ku

MAC * 2.13 in..I
IT
I,. O1 I..
2"
H UL ISITo) I*A)*HI
*OI THRTNARR~fCROAIN 61 ,"N.
"Wm"Ni DA~TK
Iill..84
LLOADFATR e 4
WIND & WATER CONDITIONS
150Basic HRV-1 Hull & Hydrofoil No.1 l

0I
V1 owI
-J m
-vI
I Am.Akj I
(N
01 I1
I ;er :T. rait' 6 7 d-3j
CALM~ SL*A I',- allC.OP 1b"-2.4" WAvC-S

Ic-ISgo 2- 3ok
WIJ wA'reQ.. co&j~iTicAJ5
M~urn______________ THURITON AIRORAPT CORPORATION REPORT wO. 6.912.....

CON?________ SMUFORD, MAIN DATE_______
41H
.I~~vI~t~1 Fig. 8
HULL BOTTOM FRESIURiES 17F-
t -7.-
t
WIND & WATER CONDITONS - 1
for---
a BaiT HRV-i Mull & Hydrofoil No. 1 -
ti . L~-77:
vi. .
IL
Lb IIL
0 4.
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFNT CORPORATION REPORT NO. fi. 2.L...
INOD AIEDT
FAIR 109
VIT. Hydrofoil Seaplane Design Optimization
A. Design Factors for Integration of Hydrofoil and Seaplane
As discussed in Chapter VI, a successful hydrofoil equipped

seaplane must consider hydrofoil effect upon airplane performance,
handling qualities, and structural design. Thv hydrofoil alters
the mode of operation on the water so dramntically that ndding a
well designed hydrofoil system to an existintr senplane without
modifying the powerplant or control systems would probably result
in an unsatisfactory combination.
Factors to be considered during the initial design of a

hydrofoil seaplane are:
1. Hydrofoil unporting speed

2. Excess thrust at hump and unporting speeds
3. Airplane stability and control, particularly during the
unporting and foilborne phases.
4. Spray pattern in relation to powerplant ingestion and
airframe impingement
5. Hydrofoil performance and load capability
6. Hull design considerations reducing required hull strength,
and resulting weight savings
7. Hydrofoil retracting design to maximize airborne performanre.
B3. Stability and Control
Experience to date with two full scale hydrofoil test seaplanes

has shown that basic airplane stability and control are inadequate
at the low speed end of foilborne operation. The airplane is placed
atop an extended strut at speeds below stall; and must remain stable
during unporting and take off acceleration maneuvers through its
inherent aerodynamic stabil.ity and by the pilot's control. During
planing, a conventional seaplane is acted upon by hydrodynamic and
aerodynamic forces which combine to produce a stable condition in
pitch and yaw, with a mildly unstable condition in roll; however,
to maintain a wings level condition, seaplane ailerons are designed
to provide adequate control at very low airspeeds. At higher
planing speeds, the elevator and rudder become effective to provide
aerodynamic pitch and yaw control.
When equipped with a hydrofoil, the seaplane is raised out

of the water and the stabilizing hydrodynamic forces nre replaced
by a destabilizing force vector from the foil. This vector acts
about the airplane cg, producing upsetting moments which can only
be counteracted aerodynamically. If the design permits large foi l
vector moment arms about the cg coupled with inadequate aerodynamic
stability and control at these slow speeds, the nirplnne hecome,
NOOK THURITON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6

CONT__ SANFORD, MAINE DATE
11I
0. St at I I it ty
II
tid Con t rlI (con t. inued)
uncoiiti-clldlble al. utiporting; under such conditions transition to

ft(- pinaning c'ondi tion woribi~not he attainable and tile take of' imust
Ov aborted.
For this reason, tile low spe&~d (-lirlr'arter'ls tics ot' the airplaine
and thle liydr'ofoi 1-struit rombiriatLon must be oarefully analyzed. Th e
hyd roFo ilI.- st rut -'esuiltant 1./I) vector must riot only pass close to the
rp (pet, Chapter VI . A) , but must also stay as nearly constant asi
possible during tinport~ing and at slow speeds. Any change in i./n
wil1 hange the verctor moment arm about the airplane cgr, result-ing
.I, p it. cl trim changes,* Figure 86.
'File upJSet t itg e~l'ertS Of' thle I./D t'orce vector' changes can be
min in izi erl by reduc ing the Str'ut length. As revilewed in Chapter VI,
this lenigth normally will be a compromise bet~ween handl ing qual ities,
Atriit sys tern weight , desitgn sea state wave heieIghts, and minirinurr
*sprav pattern conditions. Sinoe any foil will ventilate when I t
* ~~~inports, in ordler to ma inta in nearly steady state F'o I cond t ionns
* hlim itrignpo rt i lug and tile niarly phtase of' f'o)iI planing, cav itat ion
itid vent il1ati~on of' thle CoiI ind strut must occur prior t~o u~npor'ting~r.
Ii r'trf' 86 -diows I hso'ci actinug oui the Foiliboi ne itirpi one

in thle I onri tud inal plane.* The t'ome and a ft location of' the hrydro-
fol iIs related t~o 'oiigitud mia control power. Moving tire hydrof'oil.
alft shortens tile moment arm of' lthe ta il about. the hydra t'oi I , thereby
.in t only requiring more nose ripl frim but larger elevator deftlections
to mainota in control . In addi ti~on, this Increases the loaading on
ith Foil and wing, sitirie the tail Force is increased in the down-l
ward direction.
' Vr~ tkiions itl fieF'-,tu oistuI ,I) nIt- mesull tarit
teorre of' the fo ilI) wiI requi re changes in H (resultfant. rorce of'
the ta 1 omait n qiIiritma1 icnrT
From the aerodynamic( viewpo int , the a i rnl ane rmust p~ossess
sufficient tstabi I ty and control itri p1 tchi to permit holdi1ng the
desi red trim attitude. 'This c(an mearn larger thari nor'malI control
surfaces, or' incrmeased effter'tiveie~ss th roilgh houndry layer coat ruI
ais tiise onl some S.(II i ri'planes.
In the ma! mode, filet a i rpl;rnisi destali Ii red when loil borne
due to tile inc-reased t'o iI-strujt to rc, vic tor moment a r'm ar't i ri abont
the (g. 'IiiIs dtecrteased s tabh Ii it v re~sul t s Iii a more rapid( "wing-
dr0o)" mrot i oi r'equi ri rig- I aIr'ger aridI rolre ra.pid a11 I eror i Inipat to ma), ill-
fa inr a w i rigs- I evvl at t i tude . lI'l pr-tdorniruiril I ta-'tots a IA'f t i ng
r'01I I Stithl) i t V akt'e St mut !erit'th :1l '
t[II - t i-iit iuarnbl rit ion Sidvt
lastIly) thile ; i%,odt-

yo di i-(, jt aili 1 st ali I I i i is a I so cteperiieii
ulpon till lonrii tuildinal locat ion of' file t'oi l-s rut system wi Ill roespect
in) tho 0 r'plaiir' -rg al wellI as- Iit" side Volit'5 restiul t rigj I'ioii taiI-
t I'ia I vow. Nlov inri thle ta j I a id ý irlit
si a f t Wi I I I-diri'e Ilii, S 1(1 Io-d
MOBIEL _______-THURSTON AIRCRAFT CiJRPORATION REPORT NO. 691)2

CONT ________ SANFORD, MAINE DATE ________
I I
B.
7 Stability and Control (continued)
capability, improving this condition. Yaw instability is of' greatest

Migniflannea dirnrig the ,nporting phase, when the strut can make its
side force contribution. After the foil unports, the strut is mostly
clear of the water with its side force input essentially eliminated.
The major side force contribution then comes from the foil and is
of relatively minor nature, acting at higher aerodynamic speeds
accompanied by more effective rudder control.
C. Performance
The waterborne performance aspects of hydrofoil seaplane

design center about the excess thrust available at hump and unport-
ing speeds. Excess thrust must provide bufficient acceleration to
realize acceptable take off times and distances. To meet these
requirements, available thrust must be as high as possible, con-
sistent with other design requirements, and the airplane total drag
must be kept at a minimum. Factors affecting the airplane total
drag are:
1. Hump speed
2. Unporting speed
3. Hull hydrodynamic drag
4. Hydrofoil-strut combination hydrodynamic drag
5. Aircraft aerodynamic drag.
IHump speed occurs as the hull transitions from a displacement

to a planing body and usually occurs at a speed where excess thrust
is minimum; normally coinciding with the speed at which total drag
is a maximum. In the case of a conventional seaplane without a
hydrofoil system, the total drag at; hump speed is predominantly
hydrodynamic with a minor contribution from aerodynamic drag. This
hydrodynamic drag peaks at hump speed as the displacement hull rises
in the water; then diminishes as the hull begins to plane. With
the addition of a hydrofoil system and Its associated drag, the
total hydrodynamic drag will be greater than for a conventional
hull at any given speed prior to hydrofoil unporting.
The normal take off thrust-drag relationship is further altered

since the hydrofoil can be designed to unport at speeds unrelated
to the hump speed of the basic hull. If the hydrofoil were designed
to unport at speeds below the basic hull hump speed, a comparatively
large foil would be required. With such a configuration, the total
drag would increase rapidly until unporting occured and then decrease.
This combination is undersirable due to the unnecessarily large,
heavy foil system and the poor handling qualities associated with
low speed unporting operation.
The more desirable configuration would be designed to unport

slightly above hump speed; permitting a reduction in foil system
wOo&G. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RPOR NO. 6912=

cap"NAwORD, MAINE DATE
ki
PAlS 112
1"C. Performance (Continued)
size combined with improved aircraft handling qualities.

If unporting is delayed to speeds considerably above hump
by further reducing the foil system size, hydrodynamic drag will
be reduced at any given speed; but will maintain an approximately
constant level beyond hump speed, since V2 drag of the submerged
foil and strut will balance any reduction of hull drag due to hull
rise. The disadvantage with this arrangement is the resulting
extended period of high drag accompanied by slow acceleration;
extending take off time and distance while exposing the airplane
hull to increased periods of wave impact at higher speeds.
Foil size calculations and other performance parameters

must also consider the landing mode, to preclude foil submergence
upon landing contact due to foil overloading. This requirement
is quite important since submergence of the foil would not only
defeat its prime purpose of protecting the hull from wave impact
loading, but could also create a strong secondary reactive force
placing the airplane in undesirable attitudes leading to a high
speed water loop or a violent pitch ejection high above the water
surface.
D. Spray Patterns
Experiments have shown that spray height and thickness

increase as foil angle of attack and submergence depth increaseq
occurring at the slower foilborne speeds where maximum lift co-
efficients are being generated. Figure 74 shows foil spray patterns
for the JRF-5G with spray height maximum at a water speed of 39
knots, decreasing as speed increases. To minimize drag, it is
important to minimize the amount of spray impingement on the air-
frame, particularly on flaps and tail surfaces. Excessive spray
represents wasted thrust, resulting in increased take off time
and surface run..
P:. Hull Design
The hull should be designed to reflect the reduced impact

loads resulting from hydrofoil operation, and to accommodate the
foil system in the retracted position. Hull bottom loads should
be calculated on the basis of operational speeds somewhat above
unporting but well below take off. Further reductions in bottom
plating should be realized from decreased bottom pressure loadings
presented in Chapter VI. The resulting saving in hull weight should
be greater than the total weight of the hydrofoil system (see
Section D. 5 of Chapter VT, and Chapter VITT).
MODEL THURSTON AIRCPAfT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 912

CONT "WORD, MAINE DATE
•)P•lE 11
F. Hydrofoil System Optimization
To realize maximUm performance, the hydrofoil should completely

recess into the hull. A single hydrofoil having dihedral coinciding
with hull deadrise, and supported by a single strut, is best suited
for seaplane hull installation. The support strut could retract
through the keel, with the hydrofoil housed in a hull bottom recess.
The Thurston Aircraft Corporation HRV-1 design is typical of this
installation (Figures 80, 81, 82 and page i).
MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPOT NO. 612

CONT_ _AORhh MAINE D04T
I I I Jil I
Rw
R
HI
Fig. 86
Forces in
Longitudinal Plane of Foilborne Seaplane
MO _ _ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. , .6912

I
VIII. Hydrofoil Seaplane Development
In conclusion, it is most importsnt to understand that

maximization of operational benefits offered by the hydrofoil
seaplane can only be realized when the entire configuration is
developed for hydrofoil operation.
In this regard, the following design areas require further
study:
(a) Hull hydrodynamic aonfiguration
(b) Hull structural loading reductions possible during
displacement and impact conditions
(c) Hydrofoil system weight versus seaplane gross weight
(a) Taking full advantave of hydrofoil lift, it is quite

possible that a modified semi-chine or chineless hull can be
developed. In addition, a stepless, faired step, or retractable
step hull configuration should be possible, using foil lift and
excess thrust to assist in planing at an early point in the take
off run. A proper study of these interrelated factors is beyond
the scope of this report; but should permit design of a streamlined
hull form capable of being pressurized with minimum weight penalty,
while offering a material increase in crilising speed and range
compared to prior seaplane configurations. The hydrofoil should
retract flush with the hull bottom surface, presenting no increase
in form drag when stowed.
(b) As noted in Section C of Chapter VI, a material reduct-

ion in impact load factors and hull bottom loading will be realized
from hydrofoil operation. To take full advantage of the available
reduction in hull structural weight and complexity, specification
design requirements must be reduced accordingly. The savings
possible from reductions in structural weight and construction
complexity will offset the weight and cost of the hydrofoil system,
while providing increased sea state capability and a probable
increase in payload for a given gross weight. Any serious effort
to design a new open ocean seaplane should be preceded by an
investigation of hull loading reductions possible with the hydro-
foil operating in heavy sea state conditions.
(c) As shown in Figure 87, the weight of the hydrofoil

system referred to seaplane gross weight should reduce slightly
with seaplane size. While this presentation is based upon pre-
liminary parametric studies, further detail design will be required
to integrate a working hydrofoil system into the seaplane conaigura-
tion and operational specification requirements. For preliminary
design study, the percentage of gross weight set forth in Figure 87
indicates that with attendant reductions in hull weight the hydro-
foil will permit development of a superior seaplane without weight
penalty.
MOn._ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATIOI IMEPORT NO. 6912

CON____ SANOR, MAINE DA
11FF
LL
1 17 71 17:f -44 I4- T
. . .j:
. ......
.~
I4,
L = T-.Ii* I.I I I ... t
LiiL
'Ii~QN~J,'~9
iH~~~~'i;M~: HSO19-TLA$
TNUST UPRTO
LLRF UU
4______ 1 ~ n3 1USA !____
I I II 4 117
IX. Bibliography and Reference List
A. Historical References
1. Aeromarine Originsa H.F. King; Putnam and Company Ltd.

(Aera Publishers Inc. in the USA), 1966.
2. British Flying Boats and Amphibians 1909-19521

G.R. Duval; Putnam and Company Ltd. (Aaro Publishers
in the USA), 1966.
3. Jane's All the World's Aircraft, 1932.
4. The Hydrofoil Boat, Tietjensl Werft-Reederei-Hafen and

The Yearbook Deutsche Luftfahrtforschung p. 1361, 1937.
5. Hydrodynamic Lift Through Hydrofoils, Design of a Stable

Foil System, Grunberg; L'Aerotechnique No. 174 and
L'Aerotechnique No. 217, p. 61, June 1939.
6. Brief Historical Review of the Hydrofoil Boat;
H.O. Hollenberg; Systems Analysis DiviLion, Report No.
RRSY-60-53, Bureau of Naval Weapons, Washington, D.C.,
August 1960.
B. Hydrofoil Bibliography Lists
7. Hydrofoil Bibliographyl Glen J. Wennagel; Dynamic

Developments, Inc., Babylon, N.Y., September 1957.
8. Hydrofoils, Ar. Annotated Bibliography SB-60-36;

K.D. Carroll; Lockheed Missiles and Space Division,
Sunnyvale, California, September 1960.
C. Hydrofoil Study Reports
California Institute of Technology
9. Report No. 47-2 April 1955 by Parkin, Perry and Wu;

"Pressure Distribution on a Hydrofoil Running Near the
Water Surface"
10. Report No. 47-3 December 1956 by Parkin and Peebles;

"Calculation of Hydrofoil Sections for Prescribed
Pressure Distributions"
11. Report No. 47-4 September 1955 by Wu and Perry;

"Comparison of The Characteristics of a Hydrofoil
Under Cavitating and Noncavitating Operation"
ThMTHURO AIRAR CORPORATION REPORT m. 6912

UGIT
oO .- I.eumm, -I[ IDATE
California Institute of Technology
12. Report No. 47-6 February 1956 by Parkin;

"Experiments on Circular Arc and Flat Plate Hydroftonl
in Noncavitating and Full Cavity Flows'*
13. Report No. 47-7 February 1956 by Kermeonl

"Water Tunnel Teast of NACA 66-012 Hydrofoil in
Noncavitating and Cavitating Flows"
14. Report No. 47-9 December 1957 by Parkin;

"A Note of the Cavity Flow Past a Hydrofoil in a Liquid
with Gravity"
15. Report No. 47-10 February 1957 by Parkin and Kermeen;

"Water Tunnel Techniques For Force Measurement on
Cavitating Hydrofoils"
16. Report No. 47-11 March 1960 by Cumberbatch and Wu;

"Cavity Flow Past Two Slender Pointed Hydrofoils"
17. Report No. 47-12 May 1960 by Cumberbatch;

"Cavitating Flow Past a Large Aspect Ratio Hydrofoil"
18. Report No. 47-13 June 1960 by Cumberbatch;

"Accelerating, Supercavitating Flow Past a Thin Two-
Dimensional Wedge"
19. Report 47-14 September 1960 by Kermeen;
"Experimental Investigations of Three Dimensional
Effects on Cavitating Hydrofoils"
CONVAIR
Aeromarine Test Center, San Diego, Cal.
20. Report ZH-083A - May 1952;

"An Exploratory Investigation of the Practical Aspect
of Hydrofoils as Applied to Waterbased Aircraft"
21. Report ZH-102 - July 1955 o

"Modal Experiments with Hydrofoils and Wedges for Rough
Water Seaplane Design"
22. Report ZH-I-3 - August 1957;

"A Hydrofoil System for the JRF-5 Airplane"
23. Report ZH-127 - March 19581

"Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Two MACH 3 Designs"
24. Report ZH - 132 - February 1959;

"Supersonic Attack Seaplane - Final Report of Design
Studies"
moon.r THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION upT #o, 6912

I,CONT____l__• MAIN...ATE_ Di.
I • I
CONVA3th
Aeromarlne Teat center, Ban Liegop Ual.
25, Report ZH-136 - April 19591

"A Hydrofoil System for a MACH 3 Seaplane"
26. Report GD/C - 63-021A - February 1963;

"Superoavitating Hydrofoil Studies"
27. Report No. U419-67-011 - September 1967, Conolly and Ball;

"Towing Basin Tests with a One-Eleventh Scale Model of
a High Density Seaplane Configuration"
Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory
28. Cal. Report No. BB-1629-S-1 - August 1962, Crimi and

Statler; "Forces and Moments on an Oscillating Hydrofoil"
Dynamic Developments, Inc.
29. Report No. 107, Application of Supercavitating Hydrofoils

to High Performance Seaplanes
Part I Summary Report; John Luack 1958

To High Performance Seaplanes
Part I1 Steady State Hydrodynamic Loads Calculations;
John Lueck, March 1958

To High Performance Seaplanes
Part III Structural Considerations; Thomas Shervington,
March 1958
32. Report No. 110, Gruen Tech. Rpt. 66, Prepared by

Gruen Applied Science Laboratories, Inc. Application
of Supercavitating Hydrofoils to High Performance
Seaplanes
Part IV Aerodynamic Considerations
33. Report No. 111, Gruen Tech. Rpt. 67, Prepared by Gruen
Applied Science Laboratories, Inc. Application Of
Supercavitating Hydrofoils To High Performance Seaplanes
Part V Foil Flutter and Airplane Waterborne Stability
Considerations
EDO Corporation
34. Report No. 4769 - 17 July 1958 by J. Kapsalia;

"Structural Design Criteriat Grunberg Hydrofoil
System on JRF-5 Airplane"
MUOB. THURTON MEORAFT CORPORATION Epol N. 6912

ouIr MAINE SATE -
Iii PAN
EDO Corporation
"The Development of a Damping Hydrofoil for Rough

Water Landings of Seaplanes"
36. Report No. 4869 - 9 December 19581
"An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Size on
the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a Surface-Piercing
Hydrofoil"
37. Report No. 4912 - 22 January 1959 by JT. Kapsalis:

"Water Loads for the Grunberg Hydrofoil System on
JRF-5 Airplane"
38. Report No. 4999;

"Structural Analysis of Installation of Grunberg
Hydrofoil System on the Grumman JRF-5 Airplane"
Part I Forward Skid InstallAtion
Part II Stress Analysis of Hydrofoil and
Supporting Struts
Part III Bow Skid and Hydrofoil Carry Through
Structure
39. Report No. 5741 - 13 April 1962;

"The Equilibrium Configuration of a Towed Hydrofoil -
Strut System in Two-Dimensional Steady Flow"
40. Report No. 5743;

"Final Report on the Development and Preliminary
Design of a Helicopter-Towed Hydr.'ofoil Sea Pallet"
41. Report No. 6487 - 5 May 1964;

"Proposal For The Model Test Development of a Penerating
Superventilating Hydrofoil Installation for The Grumman
HU-16 Airplane"
42. Report No. 6651 - November 1964;

Final Report "Design and Installation of Grunberg
Hydrofoil System on the JRF-5 Airplane"
43. Report No. 6652 - October 1964

Final Engineering Report "Instrumentation and Preliminary
Flight Tests of the JRF-5 Equipped with a Grunberg
Hydrofoil System"
44. Report No. 6653 - January 1965

Final Engineering Report "Flight Tests of the JRF-5
Equipped with a Grunberg Hydrofoil System"
45. Report No. 7016 - 7 February 1966 by L. Kaplan and

R.J. Miko; "The Design and Model Testing of a Small
Single Hydrofoil Installation for the i{U-16 Airplane"
mom THURITON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION napom NO.

OOSUT MIUORD. MAINE DATE
[|
-ph-f 121
EDO Corporation
0
• S"Development
of O givePinal
Seaborne Zqujp=9ntt Report" for Mk 3 Mod
Hydrofoils
47. Report No. 7489-1 - 23 December 1966 by P.A. Pepper and

L. Kaplan; "Survey on Seaplane Hydro-Ski Technology
Phase Is Qualitative Study"
48. Report No. 7489-2 - 28 March 1968 by P.A. Pepper and
L. Kaplan; "Survey on Seaplane Hydro-Ski Technology
Phase III Quantitative Study"
Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation

49. Report No. PDR-140-1 - 12 April 1957;
"Summary Report - JRF Hydrofoil and Dynamic Model
Test Program" Phase I
50. GAEC & DDI - 3 October 1958;
"Study of Hydrofoil Seacraft"
Volumes I and II
Volume I contains chapters on sub and supercavitating
hydrofoils, struts and bodies of revolution, e8timates
of strut and hydrofoil weights.
Volume I1, devoted entirely to hydrofoil boats, contains
useful information on hydrofoil configurations, hull
structure to which the struts are attached, and some
applicable preliminary design analysis.
51. Report No. DA10-480.3 - 7 February 1962 by Baird, Squires
& Caporalif
"Investigation of Hydrofoil Flutter"
52. Report No. STR-MAR-100, 1 May 1962 by Dulmovits;
"Hydroelastic Effects on The Lift of High Speed
Hydrofoils"
53. Report No. DA Nonr - 3989.3 - November 1963 by Squires;

"Hydrofoil Flutter, Small Sweep Angle Investigation"
Hydronautics, Incorporated
54. Report 001-1 - June 1960
"Optimum Wing-Strut Systems for High Speed Operations
Near a Free Surface"
55. Report 0016 - January 1961 by V.E. Johinson, Jr. and
M.P. Tulin; "The Hydrodynamic Characteristics of High-Speed
Hydro foils"
iO00L TWURUTON AIRCRAFrT CORPORATION RKPORT NO.

OONT__amO, MAINE SATE
PAU 122
Hydronautic , Incorporated
50. Report 120-1 - March 1901 by M.P. Tulin;

"1"80 Knot Wing-Strut System Design and Performance"
57. Report 001-7 - April 1962 by J. Auslaender
"Low Drag Supercavitating Hydrofoil Sections"
58. Report 001-16 - September 1962 by V.E. Johnson, Jr. and

S.E. Starley;
"The Design bf Base-Vented Struts for High-Speed
Hydrofoil Systems"
59. Report 001-15 - November 1963 by V.E. Johmson, Jr. and

S.E. Starley;
"Low-Drag Base Vented Hydrofoils Designed for Operation
Near the Free Surface"
60. Report 343-1 -, March 1964 by J.O. Scherer and

J. Auslaender;
"Experimental Investigation of the 5-Inch Chord Model
of the Buships Parent Supercavitating Hydrofoil"
61. Report 463-i, Chapter 4 - September 1964 by R.A. Barr;

"Trim Attitude and Pre-Takeoff Resistance of Hydrofoil
Craft"
62. Report 463-6 - January 1965 by T. Heieh;

"Passive Load Alleviation on Supercavitating Hydrofoils"
63. Report 457-1 " November 1965 by R.J. Altmann;

"Measurement of Cavity Shapes Above Ventilated Hydrofoils"
64. Report 498-1 - November 1966 by R.J. Altmann;

"Model Tests of a 20-Ton Hydrofoil Sled"
65. Report 744-1Craft

"Hydrofoil - March 1968 by Guide"
Designer's R.J. Altmann;
66. Report 001-14 - April 1968 by R.J. Altmann;

"The Design of Supercavitating Hydrofoil Wings"
67. Report 121-5 - April 1965 by Marshall P. Tulin;

"The Shape of Cavities in Supercavitating Flows"
68. Report 343-3 - September 1965 by Scherer and Auslaender;

"Experimental Investigation of a Supercavitating Hydrofoil
with Trailing Edge Flaps"
69. Report 463-4 - June 1964 by B. Yim;

"On a Fully Cavitating Two-Dimensional Flat Plate
Hydrofoil with Non-Zero Cavitation Number Near a Free
Surface"
_THUISTON AIRCRAFT OORPORATION RIN? wNO. 6912

WINT JSANOR, MAINE DATE
70.
Hydronautlas, Incorporated
Report 4 6 3-5 -
July 9604 'by C.C. Nfiu;
"On Full Cavitating Hydrofoils Entering Gusts Under a
S 123
I
Fvso. Surface"
71. Report 465-1 - Deocember 1965 by T.T. Huang and H.H. Shih;
"Investigation of Base Vented Hydrofoila"
Iowa, State University of
72. Proj. No. S-R009-01-01 July 19611

"Tests of a Cavitating Hydrofoil"
The Martin Company
73. Report ER9433 - Jun* 1957 by E.G, Band and J.W. Cuthbert;
"Preliminary Design Data for Water-Based Aircraft with
Hydrofoils or Skim"
74. Report ER10135 - March 1958;

"Configuration and Model Lines of the Martin M329
E-8 Supersonic Seaplane"
University of Minnesota
St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory
75. Tech Paper No. 30, Series B, April 1960 by J.M. Watzel!
"Experimental and Analytical Studies of the Longitudinal
Motions of a Tandem Dihedral Hydrofoil Craft in Regular
Waves"
76. ProJ. Report No. 64 - September 1960 by Wetzel and Schiebel
"Lift and Drag on Surface Piercing Dihedral Hydrofoils
in Regular Waves"
77. Tech Paper No. 36, Series B - December 1961 by

Lorenz G. Straub, Directors
"Ventilated Cavities on Submerged Three Dimensional
Hydrofoils"
78. Tech Paper No. 37, Series B - December 1961 by Wetzel

and Maxwell;
"Long Motions and Stability of Two Hydrofoil Systems
Free to Heave and Pitch in Regular Waves"
79. Proj. Report No. 61 - May 1962 by Lorenz G. Straub,

Director; "Tandem Interference Effects of Flat
Noncavitating Hydrofoils"
ummn. TtUU9TlM tmsNu'ar sonAlnoU apm, mso. 6912

gY mANumE. mai' MAT
p• 124
St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic Laboratory
80. Proj. Report No. 72 - October 1964 by Schiebe and Wetzell

"Further Studies of Ventilated Cavities on Submerged
Bodies"
81. Proj. Report No. 68 - March 1965 by Wetzel and Foerster;

"Force Characteristics on Restrained, Naturally Ventilated
Hydrofoils in Regular Waves"
82. Tech Paper No. 51, Series B - May 1965 by R. Oba;

"Performance of Supercavitating Hydrofoils with Flaps,
with Special Reference to Leakage and Optimization of
Flap Design"
National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
83. WRL-725 - March 1944 by K.L. Wadlin;

"Preliminary Tar.: Experiments with a Hydrofoil on a
Planing-Tail Seaplane Hull"
84. RM No. 1_.9A17 - March 1949 by King and Rockett;
"Preliminary Tank Investigation of the Use of Single
Monoplane Hydrofoils for High Speed Airplanes"
85. TN-2453 - September 1951 by R.F. Smiley;

"An Experimental Study of Water-Pressure Distributions
During Landings and Planing of a Heavily Loaded
Rectangular Flat-Plate Model"
86. RM L52D15 - September 1952 by Land, Chamblias and Petynia;

"A Preliminary Investigation of the Static and Dynamic
Longitudinal Stability of a Grunberg Hydrofoil System"
87. RM L52J10 - December 1952 by King and Land;

"Effects of Sweepback and Taper on the Force and
Cavitation Characteristics of Aspect Ratio 4 Hydrofoils"
88. TN 2981 - July 1953 by Weinstein and Kapryan;

"The High Speed Planing Characteristics of a Rectangular
Flat Plate Over a Wide Range at Trim and Wetted Length"
89. TN 3092 - December 1953 by Coffee and McKanni

"Hydrodynamic Drag of 12 and 21 Percent Thick Surface
Piercing Struts"
90. TN 3951 - March 1957 by K.A. Christopher;

"Investigation of' the Planing Lift of a Flat Plate at
Speeds up to 170 Feet per Second"
THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION .MRT NO. 6912

T_ _wow "M OAT[
I
S• 12•
W.*4 eial --
A~wnA, 't4**&A far Aeranautios
91. RX L57A15 - March 1957 by Roy Stoiner;

"Statistical Approach to *ho Estimation of Loads and
Pressures on Seaplane Hulls for Routine Operations"
92. RM L57GO5 - October 23, 1957 by Potynia, Hasson and Spooner;

"Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Characteristics of a
Proposed Supersonic Multijet Water-Based Hydro-Ski
Aircraft with a Variable Incidence Wing"
93. TR-1355 - 1958 by C.L. Shuford, Jr.;

"A Theroretical and Experimental Study of Planing
Surfaces Including Effects of Gross Section and Plan
Form"
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
94. -Moro 5-9-59L - June 1959 by McGehee and Johnson;

"Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Two Low Drag Super-
cavitating Hydrofoils"
95. TN D-16 - August 1959 by Maki and Giulianetti;

"Loq Speed Wind Tunnel Investigation of Blowing Boundry
Layer Control on Leading and Trailing Edge Flaps of u
Full Scale Low Aspect Ratio, 42 degree Swept Wing
Airplane Configuration"
96. TN D-119 - November 1959 by Johnson and Rasnick;

"Investigation of a High Speed Hydrofoil with Parabolic
Thickness Distribution"
97. TR R-14 - 1959 by Wadlin and Christopher;

"A Method for Calculation of Hydrodynamic Lift for
Submerged and Planing Rectangular Lifting Surfaces"
98. TN D-166 - November 1959 by Vaughan;

"A Hydrodynamic Investigation of the Effect of Adding
Upper Surface Camber to a Submerged Flat Plate"
99. TN D-187 - January 1960 by Christopher and Johmson;

"Experimental Investigation of Aspect Ratio I Super-
cavitating Hydrofoils at Speeds Up to 185 Feet per
Second"
100. TN D-220 - February 1960 by Stubbs and Hoffman;

"A Brief Investigation of a Hydro-Ski Stabilized
Hydrofoil System on a Model of a Twin Engine Amphibian"
NIOUSTS AICAFT OIPRATIOM Rea NO. 6SmLE
DAT
S--• pm -. _
National Aeronautic* and Space Administration
101. TM X-191 - February 1960 by NcKann, Blanchard and Pearson;

"Hydrodynamic and Aeiodynaemie Charsr.ri*r 4ea of a
Model of a Supersonic Multijet Water Based Aircraft
Equipped with Supercavitating Hydrofoils"
102. TN D-728 - March 1961 by K. Christopher;

"Experimental Investigation of a High Speed Hydrofoil
with Parabolic Thickness Distribution and an Aspect
Ratio of T'
103. TR-93 - 1961 by V. Johnson, Jr.;

"Theoretical arnd Experimental Investigation of Super-
cavitating Hydrofoils Operating Near the Free Water
Surface"
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

(Administered by DTMB) (Now NSRDC)
104. Tech Report No. 2 - 1 Nov. 1962 by Ransleben and

Abramson;
"Experimental Determination of Oscillatory Lift and V
Moment Distributions of Fully Submerged Flexible
Hydrofoils"
105. Tech Report No. 4 - 15 December 1963 by Abramson and
Ransleben;
"A Experimental Investigation of Flutter of a Fully
Submerged Subcavitating Hydrofoil"
106. Phase I Tech Report Task 1719, SWRI Project No. OZ-15J46
by G. Ransleben, Jr.;
"Experimental Determination of Oscillatory Lift and Moment
Distributions on a Fully Submerged Supercavitating
Hydrofoil"
107. Tech Report No. 1 - 15 August 1958 by Abramson and Chu;
"A Discussion of the Flutter of Submereed Hydrofoils"
Stanford University
108. Tech Report No. 17 - September 1963 by Nimr and Perry;
"Cavity Flow Around Cambered Hydrofoils"
Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology
109. Report No. 517 - December 1959 by P. Kaplan;

"Longitudinal Stability and Motions of a Tandem Hydrofoil
System In a Regular Seaway"
moon THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION R00T NO. 6912

cUET, _ _ "Mo__nm"a DATE
•) ME 127
D~avidson Lal*UIU LuiýY sta-vrns lnztit± cf!e~
110. Report No. 596 - January 1956 by J.P. Breslin and JW. Delleurl
"The Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Several surface-
Piercing Struts"
111. Report No. 668 - October 1957 by J.P. Breslin and R. Skalak;
"An Explorntory Study of Ventilated Flows About Yawed
Surface Piercing Struts"
112. Report No. 698 - October 1958 by P.W. Brown;

"The Force Characteristics of Surface Piercing Fully
Ventilated Dihedral Hydrofoils"
113. Report No. 704 - June 1959 by Paul Kaplan and W. Jacobs;
"Dynamic Performance of Scaled Surface-Pierci-ig Hydrofoil
Craft in Waves"
114. Report No. 731 - July 1959 by P.W. Brown;
"A Generalized Theory of the Impact Characteristics of
Surface-Piercing, Fully Ventilated Dihedral Hydrofoils"
115. Report No. 732 - October 1959 by G. Fridsma;
"Longitudinal Stability of Surface-Piercing Hydrofoil
Systems Water-Based Aircraft"
116. Report No. 795 - November 1960 by G. Frisma;

"Force and Moment Characteristics of a Surface-Piercing,
Fully-Ventilated, Dihedral Hydrofoil"
117. Report No. R-856 - September 1961 by C.J. Henry;

"Hydrofoil Flutter Phenomenon and Airfoil Flutter Theory
Volume I - Density Ratio"
118. Report No. R-911 - July 1962 by C.J. Henry and M. Raihan Ali;
"Hydrofoil Flutter Phenomenon and Airfoil Flutter Theory
Volume II - Center of Gravity Location"
119. Report No. 952 - October 1963 by G. Fridsma;

"Ventilation Inception on a Surface-Piercing Dihedral
Hydrofoil with Plane Face Wedge Section"
120. Tech Memorandum No. 133 - April 1965 by J.P. Breslin;
"Simplified Procedures for Estimation of the Cavitation
Inception Speed on Two-Dimensional Foil Sections"
121. Letter Report No. 1096 - November 1965 by R.L. Van Dyck;
"Development Tests of HU-16 Hydrofoil Aircraft"
122. Report No. 1115 - December 1965 by C.J. Henry and

M. Railhan Ali; "Hydrofoil Flutter Phenomenon and
Airfoil Flutter Theory
Volume III- Sweep and Taper
"AM _ --,ThUITON NROAF' CORPORATION EPOmT NO. 612

OT__________N -DAT
, isum
Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Tnetitute of Technology
12 . .. ..- - f.t-.. 'Q

. . =Z! d•
CA t Z *;
"Finite Aspect Ratio Hydrofoil ronfigurations in a Free

Surface Wave System"
124. Letter Report No. 1180 - November 1966 by John Mercier;

"Force Measurements on a Rotating Variable Sweep Hydrofoil"
125. Letter Report No. 1332 - January 1969 by John Mercier;

"Tests of a Variable Sweep Hydrofoil with Cavitation and
Ventilation"
126. Letter Report SIT-DL-69-1347 - October 1969 by R.L. Van Dyck;

"Model Tests of Hydrofoil Equipped Floats"
Technical Research Group (TRG)
127. TRG-141-FR - July 31, 1961 by Bluston and Kaplan;

"Lateral Stability and Motions of Hydrofoil Craft in
Smooth Water"
Thurston Aircraft Corporation
128. Report No. 6702 -1 September 1966 by David B. Thurston;

"Structural Analysis of H1RV Hydrofoil No. 1"
129. Report No. 6702-3 - February 1967 by David B. Thurston;

"Final Summary Report: HRV-1 Equipped with Hydrofoil
No. 1 on Strut No. 2"
130. Report No. 6902 - February 1969 by David B. Thurston;

"Final Report: HRV-1 Flight Test with Aft Location of
Hydrofoil No. 1 on Strut No. 2"
Ministry of Aviation, United Kingdom
131. R & M No. 3285 - December 1958 by Arlotte, Brown, Crewe;

"Seaplane Impact - A Review of Theoretical and Experimental
Results"
U.S. Navy
David Taylor Model Basin
(Naval Ship Research and Development Center)
132. Report 1607 - April 1962 by Donald L. Blount;
"Resistance Characteristics of a 70 Foot Hydrofoil
Missile Range Patrol Boat"
0Iu01. THURrON AIRAfI CORPOAflTON REPOR NO. 6,M2

DORT, m o "UJNK DATE. .
I
Su 129
I U. S. Navy
David Taylor Model Basin

(Naval Ship Research and Devel.opment Cen~er)
133. Report 1676 - January 1963 by Ficken anda Lebay;
"Zxperimental Determination of the Forces on Super-
cavitatint Hydrofeils w4th Tntornal Ventilation"
134. Report 1723 - August 1963 by Nathan K. Bales;

"A Method for Predicting the Probable Number and Severity
of Collisions Between Foilborne Craft and Floating Debris"
135. Report 1801 - December 1963 by Jerome Feldman;
"Experimental Investigation of Near Surface Hydrodynamic
Force Coefficients for a Systematic Series of Tee Hydro-
foils, DTMB Series HF-i"
136. Report 1778- October 1965 by Wilburn and Haller;
"Experimental Measurements of the Steady Lift, Drag and
Moment on Surface-Piercing Struts"
137. Report 2160 - March 1966 by Eugene P. Clement;

"The Development of Efficient Hull Forms for Hydrofoil
Boats"
U.S. Navy
U.S. Naval Air Test Center, Patuxent River, Maryland
138. "Hydrodynamics Manual," Flight Test Division - May 1958,

by R.N. deCalles
139. Tech Report FT2121-35R-65 - 21 July 1965 by

LCDR Nicholas J, Vagianos;
"Evaluation of the Hydrodynamic Characteristics of the
JRF-5G Hydrofoil Seaplane"
U.S. Navy
U.S. Naval Ordnance Test Station
14o. NOTS TP 2346 NAVORD Report 6606 - 19 October 1959 by

T.G. Lang; "Base Vented Hydrofoils"
U.S. Navy
Office of Naval Research
141. Contract No. N62558-2896 Task No. NR.062-287 by J.K. Lunde
and H.A.A. Walderhaug;
"Surface Piercing Hydrofoils with Self Adjusting Incidence
and Shoek Absorbers"
mhomL,_ _ THUWTM CRAFT COGPORATION NgpalIT N9. 6912

Bow &qNPNNONE Da~
ATE_
a
11. S. Navy
Naval Ship R & D Center, Washington, D.C.
1142. Report No. 211214 - June 1967 by George Springaton, Jr.;
"Generalize(' Hydrodynamic Loading Functlons for Bare and

Faired Cables in Two-Dimensional Steady State Cable
Conf igurations"
Papers
143. Journal of Ship Research, Vol. No. 4 pp 5-13, by

H. Norman Abramson and Wen-Hwa Chu;
"A Discussion of the Flutter of Submerged Hydrofoils"
144. Journal of Ship Research, Vol. No. 3, pp 20-27 by

Wen-Hwa Chu and H. Norman Abramson;
"Effect of the Free Surface on the Flutter of Submerged
Hydrofoils"
145. Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers - May 1959

by CMDR S.R. Heller, Jr. USN and H. Norman Abramson;
"Hydroelasticity: A New Naval Science"
146. Am. Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Paper No. 68-472

1 May 1968 by E. Yates, NASA Langley Res. Center;
"Flutter Prediction at Low Mass Density Ratios with
Application to the Finite-Span Noncavitating Hydrofoil."
147. Society of Naval. Architects and Marine Engineers

Hydrofoil Symposium, 1965 Spring Meeting'
148. Am. Society of Mech. Engineers, 10 May 1962 by D.L. Stevens;

"Flying on Hydrofoils"
149. Journal of Hydronautics Vol. 4, No. 1, January 1970 by

P. Crimi;
"Experimental Study of the Effects of Sweep on Hydrofoil
Loading and Cavitation"
STHURSTON AIRGRAFT CORPORATION R~PORT No. 6912

oN_' _ _ _ "Ma DATE

Hydrofoil Seaplane Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrofoil Seaplane Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIS REPORT HAS BEEN DELIMITED

AMD CLEARED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASEJ

HYDROFOIL SEAPLANE DESIGN

Contract NOOO19- 6 9-C-04 7,,.,A

Prepared by: Nicholas J. Vagianos

THIS DOCUMENT iS BEST

Sr.;ft .tfl "W;

MODEL _________THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT No. 691 2

SECTION SUBJECT PAGE

I. Hydrofoil Seaplane History 1

TT. Description and Classification of Hydrofoil

ITT. Hydrofoil Configuration Data 17

TV. Strut Configuration Data 71

MUDS. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION EEPORTNo. 6912

V. Full Scale Hydrofoil Test Results 85

VT. Hydrofoil Application to Seaplane Design 101

VIII. Hydrofoil Seaplane Design Optimization 109

VTI.i, Hydrofoil Seaplane Development. 115

IX. Bibliography and Reference List 117

MiuoL_ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6912

aLift curve .Slope

A Aspect ratio b2/'S; and for foils with dihedral

CD Drag coefficient, D/+p V 2 S

f Trailing edge flap

F Froude numbe.r, V/q-g,

Re Reynold's Number, C cV//

S Projected area, feet 2 (S for wings; SH for hydrofoil)

x Distance fram hydrofoil leading edge, measured aft

y Distance from hy5rofoil chord line, measured upwa-rd,

MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT No. 6c 12

W Central angle of circular arc hydrofoil, radians

r Dihedr;al nngle, degrees

Flap deflection, degrees

Sweep angle, degrees

number, (p -p)/q. SCavitation

Trim angle; angle between hydrofoil chord an-d aliplane

MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 6•).1 ,

t~sing water its rA test medium, Moy towed . lightweighrt. Ionit.

During 1897 a catamairan boat equipped with a series of f'olrr

* ,.' Professor Enriico Forlanini of Milan f-pplited for, luidriet,

MODEL_________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. 9

Also during 1907, the American Peter Cooper Hewitt developed

While most of the preceding development programs employed

Finally, the first powered airplane to take off from water

It is interesting to note that on page 1116 of his 1918 Edition

Impressed with Forlanini's work, the Italian General A. Guidoni

MODEL THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. ._9_,2

Another 1.911 American seaplane, The Michigan Steel Hlont

The first significant attempt to develop an airplane capaldle

MODL. THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO. o- 2

Burney X. 9 Hydrofoil Seaplane

Tiet,jens Split Cascade System

Power- Plant: 200 lip Canton-Unne

MOD _________ THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION REPORT NO, 91

t 1A X. q wrAi a AmlI -- 1-~ ~ h fP.C4 ~

Durin, 1914 the Wright brothers were again testing hydrofoils

World War' I terminated hydrofoil seaplane research for maany

Designed by Piaggio's Chief Engineer, Giovanni Pegna for the

Type: Experimental, single seat cantilever monoplane

MODIL THURSTON AIRCRAFr CORPORATION REPORT NO. 091 _2

Tiet~jerii3 Split Flat Monofoil. Sy'st em

Powe~r Plaint: 8-C)n lip Isotta-Freachini

MODEL . THURSTON AIRCRAFT CORPORATION RtEPORT No, -