The elemental hydrodynamic characteristics of prismatic planing surfaces are discussed

and empirical planing equations are given which describe the lift, wetted area,
center of pressure, and porpoising stability limits of planing surfaces as a function of
speed, trim angle, deadrise angle, and loading. These results are combined to formu-
lale simple computational procedures to predict the horsepower requirements running l

trim, draft, and porpoising stability of prismatic planing hulls. Illustrative are
included to demonstrate the application of the computational procedures.

FUNDAMENTAL research on the hydrodynamics of

planing surfaces has been actively pursued in both this
country and abroad for well over 40 years. The VLL~ULCH
ImpeljUS for this research was motivated wide attention
by the of followed by
based aircraft and to a somewhat lesser Sedov [5
of planing boats. In recent researchers
ever, research emphasis has been on describing the
with application to planing boats and dead rise

2 Numbers in brackets designate References end of paper.

Cf = friction-drag coefIicient D f cos to gravity, f distance between T CG

V j 2Ab2 (measured normal to
Ib
= lift coefficient, zero deadrise, =
V 2b2
CL{3 lift coefficient, deadrise surface,
V 2 b2
= dynamic component of lift coeffi-
cient
hn,",ur,n+ component of lift coeffi-

Cp = OlS"LaIICe

also
D
due to

where
b
Df = rnc:1JlOml.1
D' a
COS'T 1:1 sin 'T keel, ft

1964
Reprinted from MAR!NE TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 1( No.1, pp. 71-95
 _)..b--

'---_~IP-"---V
Fig. 1 \'7 ave rise on a flat planing surface LEVEL WATER
SURFACE

SPRAY THICKNESS

u.s. of STAGNATION LINE

Stevens Institute of undertook Fig. 2 Typical pressure distribution on Rat surface
a theoretical study .and of the
phenomenon of planing. study produced 16 tech-
nical reports (listed in the Appendix), which consider
planing-surface lift, drag, wetted area, pressure distribu- The planing coefficients used in the sub-
tions, impact forces, wake spray sequent analysis are based on law of similitude
dynamic stability, and parallel surfaces. 'Vhere and are the same as those used in the of water-
possible the ONR sponsored utilized existing based aircraft and Each IS
planing data and theoretical results but in many areas cally defined in the seetion on nomenclature. It ,vill
additional results and new theoretical be noted that the beam is the
were provided the Davidson -,--"'-"'VV.LunJV dimension i'ather than the
In 1949, Korvin-Kroukovsky and considered the naval The
lished a summary report on the then USl:,mC;alJJlOn for this is that for )J.la,HH.lF,

of lift, drag, and wetted of the boat varies with

utilized these results in deVelOrnng the wetted
tational procedure for
In Savitsky
ONR study, developed an extensive
\vhich increased the
UU,ll.lV.l.l0

Area of Planing Surfaces

In
The purpose of the
suIts of the studies [9] to
characteristics of
faces and then to combine these results to
computational to
power requirements
matic planing hulls. Some the material is re-
peated in this paper since had a limited distribution
and is out of print.
of Prismatic
A knowledge of the elemental character-
istics of simple planing surfaces IS
the design of
boats. In this section of the
to the of

, "'""" ..HF,u,""vvu

sur- over water pressure is

assumed to have constant constant forward thrown spray
beam and a constant trim for the wetted this sense is
Variations from conditions will be
the

72
 4 ~------------~------------~--------------.-----------~

w
()
«
LL
0:::
::J
(f)

0:::
W
~ 3 ~------------~--------------+-------------~--~r-------~
-.l
w
>
W
-.l
Z
o
o
w
(j)
« 2 ~------------4-------------~---?L---------r-----------~
m
o
I-
« A= 1.60 A,-0.30 AI (0<
2
I)
0:::
{
:::?! + 0.30 (1~ AI ~4)
«
w
m
I
:r:
I-
<..9
Z
W
-.l

o
W
l-
I-
W
3: o ~~~~~~~~~-L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

o 2 3 4

WETTED LENGTH-BEAM RATIO BASED ON WAVE RISE I A

Fig. 3 Wave-rise variation for flat .... ,,,.,,,.,,0- surfaces

at a short distance aft of the line. At very

small values of trim the line and
root line are coincident. As the trim
creases) the line moves farther aft of the spray-
root line.
data from all available
SOurces are shmvn in the form of A versus Al in
3. Here A the mean 1vetted A 1.60 Al 0.30 (0 ~ Al ~ 1)
length-beam ratio and Al the calm-1vater and
length-beam ratio obtained horn the relation Al A Al + 0.30 (1 ~ Al ~
sinT) where d is the of the of the The wave-rise relation is m form of

1964
..--_ _C~.HINE

8 c

ON

2--
 3.00 r----,---;--y--,---,:-----,--------------,

SPRAY ROOT LINE

2.00

(J)
:?!
<!
W
ill

0 1.50
-l
I
~
-l

/.00 1-----\-_+_4--Jr---l~-~:____+_--~,...__j.----

o 4 8 12 16 20
TRIM ANGLE, DEGREES
Fig. 6 Lk - Lc versus trim and deadrise

two equations since, two oblique lines

usually than and 4. to a trim
duced to very = Al 15 deg there appears to be no nOtlc:eaOle of water
empirical wave-rise nr."n+".,Y\ similar in form to was at the keel line. For trim '-'~J''''H.J.lJ''.J.''''-' and
also J. indicate a water at the keeL
As with all some Aft of the initial there is a rise of the
bound must be range of ap- ,vater surface the spray root line
plicability of discussions in [9] con- ahead of line of calm water intersection. The loca-
clude that is in the trim range from 2 to
CUfJIJUvCU11J1v tion of the line is seen from underwater
24 . A :::; 4.0; 0.60 :::; :::; 2;3.00. such as that shown in It is gener-
found that the convex, but
Wetted Pressure Area of Deadrise Surfaces since the curvature is Thus the
In the case of the inter- of a
section of the bottom surface with measured
HJJ.J."" UJ.J.>.J
 Cv =

Cv 2,01

Gv

Gv

Fig.7 Variation of shape of of wetted area with speed coefficient.

in., T =

the transom to the is defllled

The difference between the
chine b
with T
 I'he wave rise in the spray-root area is accounted for of 4 and at five values of The calcu-
the consideration. the r = 17° It is seen at 3.02
wave rise for a two-dimensional a and the spray-root line is one continuous line and
fluid surface vertically, and found that actual wetted the value of with that com-
width of the was times the wetted width de- 1.0, the l.va,UJ.1Jl,>;

fined the calm-water intersection with the bottom. a broken line

The motion of deadrise surface can be repre- forward ~A ·,~~r"~ ...

sented as a the
water flow between two
of of the planing surface. To an ob- ment of the IvQ'Ul.U;;:;-vUl;;:'

server located between these two planes, the passage of keel which would
the prismatic Vee planing surface will identical· section with the bottom.
to the vertical of a the pnen1011'len.on is in evidence
case, the wave-rise factor is "",,'O,;,_,'I,nT portion of the line is reduced.
applicable, and the difference between wetted
keel length and chine length for a sur-
1.J1.1,';'l1JlGbtJ.lv jJJlGLl1..1l1'>;
Wetted-Spray Area of Deadrise Planing Surfaces
face is given by The total wetted bottom area of a surface is
b actually divided into two is aft of the
7r tanT
spray-root to as the
area and the other is forward of the e<"""O.,"' .. Y'r'AT

It is seen that this is a factor times the cor-

ferred to as the The pressure area)
responding length defined the level-water intersection
has been defined sections of this
with the Vee planing surface. A of this
is the load-carrying area of the bottom.
is given in Fig. 6. Since the wetted keel forward area contributes to but is not
defined in terms of the draft of the aft end of
to support any of the load.
The flow directions in both wetted areas have been
then the mean wetted A, which de- determined of tufts such
fines the pressure area is 4 and 5
d sketch of the flow direc-
8 of this
b
evidence indicates that
.J..:JAjJvJl.l1.1tvH.UW1.

for deadrise and trim combinations

coefficient is than 2.0. This indicates a
full of the and water
deadrise surfaces of 10
<.V1J1.J1.J.vU> ....Hv at = 1.0.
= 1.0 and T ::::; 4°,
than those
breakdown of the
spray-root evidence for 30-
deg deadrise surfaces similar effects except
at = 1.0, the formation breaks down
when T ::::; 6°. It for = 1.0, the spray- and nel:LQI'lSe
root formation to break down for a [13]. The
deadrise, the trim is reduced to a value such that root line forward to
theoretical value of to tween the keel and spray measured in
1.66b. This of the bottom is
A
llla tan <I>
1
,;:,vl.1.v1.Gb11.UC;U that the
to break- where:

1964
 TAND:: TAN q) COS f3

TANT
TAN a::
TAN f3

FLOW DIRECTIONS'
SPRAY LINES

SPRAY EDGE

LK

VIEW OF BOTTOM ON PLANE PAR ALLEL TO KEEL

Flow direction along planing prism and extent of spray area

and Lift of Flat Surfaces

The. total projected on a plane

along the

1
4 tan<p

In making visual observations of the wetted chine

1-'H"'U~.HF1 run) it is to u.J..JUJ.JlJ.:",'l.UW'U

intersection and the

the chine. 9 illustrates
It is seen that the
of the

and static effects.

Lift of Planing Surfaces
be recalled that the fluid-flow directions over
discussions \vill first PA""''''O area of a combination
surfaces and UU~UH~~J flow across both
to account

78
 Characteristic features of vee-bottom surface.
B-transom; C-keel; D-chine; spray;
edge; G-spray-root region

DAn
tanr
For surfaces of very
small span A the flow is CD)
If the difference between tanr and r1.1 is rll::.,,,·I,-,,,,.c,rj

in a transverse direction and lift is r."'.... ~"""+, can be written

Hence for a normal low
lift can be in the form
= AT + BT2
For the range of A-values to 1J.l<-<>UJ.U""

the second term takes the of a srnall correction to

the first term and it is found that can be
VA.llll'';I,lit:;U by r to the 1.1 power. I-Ienee +
there are several ways
Sottorf's analysis of. Hl~'U-,,"""·:C' 1 jJ.iQ,lll.Ll5;::..
lift. The form
hydrostatic term is HV:F-,"" ,F-, H./.l V ,
nr"n""rl of
trim the
varied as lift and is
to be of the form: The constants and n are
the formula to the collection of pH111lng
data contained in the literature. The mechan-
where is a constant to be determined. ics of this evaluation are described As a result
The of lift for a flat of this the for a
b) mean wetted A,
of trim r can be written
(11)
that (A
C011- 0.60 :::;

OCTOBER; 1964
 0.05
TO TO TI.I

2 2.14 9 II. 21
3 3.35 10 12.59
4 4.59 II 13.98
5 5.87 12 15.39
0.04 6 7.18 13 16.80
7 8.50 14 18.23
8 9.85 15 19.67

0.03 \-----j------t--------,t---t----+--+----Tt----:;r<-i:------.7""--1

-
f-.

"" o..J
U

0.01
1.1
2 )
T (0.0120 + 0.0055

o ~~~~----~----~------~----~----~----~----~
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Fig. 10 Lift coefficient of a flat planing surface; {3 0°

is in the resultant lift and that cor-

a wide range of static lift
this at a fixed value of ~ !-,","u>uU"6 surface.

contribution to lift is coefficient for three

The solid curves

between the
load is limited to
surface at very low since this is the range of of
 0.5 ,,-------,----,.----,---...,.-------,

0.4 i------t----+---l---+--yL,.LA

0.3 1----I----+---J---:T~Sf_:,-L-----l

0.2 1------+---+--,4£~,..f---I_---I

0.1

0.09 .----,..--
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

0.08 I----+---.----..----.--.---..----.----+---I---,.L---l

0.07 I__----+---~----J----L---~-----+-----+_- __I__~-+~L-~

=c -0.0065 (3c 0.60
La La
0.06 I__----+----r----,.----,------,-----+----I--"r£--f--:.,,£-:::-b.,c----l

0.05 1--------+---+-----+---+-----+---+--"fIL--~-_"tif!.!---=-

0.03 I------+----+----+---_f----"L----+-"r£---,!£----..~--+-------+-----l

0.02 I-----+----I--...,-L

0.01 1------+-

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

CL
a
1 Lift coefficient of a deadrise planing surface

approaches zero, it is GAI.JGvUGu.that the calcu- Lift of Deadrise Surfaces

lated load should load. It is trim and mean wetted
12 that in the range 0.60 ~ In(3reaS]nQ' the deadrise
~ 1.00, the motion of the surface reduces
the lift below the value whjch would be on a
purely basis. This effect is some'.yhat
similar to vessels
at low load is
load.
reaction of the fluid IS
on the 1-'H."'H.LlJ.F, bottom increases as the
mcreases.

OCTOBER,
 --TOTAL PLANING LOAD=6/1/2Pg ::: T
1.1 [
0.0120 \
1/2
Cv
2
+ 0.0055 ]
3 2
- - - - EQUIVALENT DISPLACEMENT LOAD=l}.11I2 b=(\-0.30) TANT

0.70 lAO 2.80

0.60 1.20 2.40

0.50 1.00 2.00

f'I)
-0
en 0.80
Q.. 0.40 1.60
N
"-

""<J
0.30 0.60 1.20

0.20 0.40 0.80

0.10 0.20 0.40

o '----1_--1._--1._--'=_-'-_....1 o ~~--~--~--~~--~ 00
o 2 3 o 2 3 2

Fig. 12 Planing load versus calculated displacement load for a flat planing surface at various velocity coefficients

creases so that full pressures are no ",~.~"n+,,~.~· at the same

developed; hence the lift is reduced. In effect T, A) and as U,-"evU.l.lUv >JLli. .l(;~\J'-'
then, the presence of causes the line For convenience in use) is m
to be aft and leads to a lift reduction not unlike 11.
that on a swenL-r)~WK
To formulate an the U~U'UH."s=..
of a deadrise the lift coefficient of a Vee ULU. .lU>'JV

was with that of a flat

of r, A, and It was found in
lift of a dead rise surface can be ref)re:se11tE~ci

where

lift coefficient for a dead rise

(3 deadrise

82
· to the bottom the resistance due to
pressure forces is shown in 13 to be
~ tanT
vVhen the viscous to the bottom
IS the total 13 to be

D ~ tanT + COST

The friction C01llDon ient [9 J to be com-

the
0) FRICTIONLESS FLUID

where
Schoenherr [14] turbulent friction coefficient
= average bottom velocity
The bottom D=l':!. TANr
r

l':!. TANr

from
was based
the case of a zero U""",,,,-1.1.O'-'
b) VISCOUS FLUI D
tribution to lift is
Fig. 13 Drag components on a planing surface
to be

The load on the bottom is

(21)
The average pressure is

Pd 'Ab 2 cos T

Applying Bernoulli's A.-.,,...,+,,,,,,, between the free-stream

conditions and the '"'~/"',",''''f' and condi-
tions on the bottom of

for!3 = 0°

The average bottom

is in an co-
efficient for deadrise surfaces The ratios
have been for four dead rise and
the results are 14 in a convenient form
for use the
It will be used in IS

OCTOBER, 1964
where is plotted in and Cf is the Schoenherr An exact definition of the
turbulent-friction cO(~rnClent, The number is The
defined, js the kinematic UlC,nr.C,.t-u

Drag-lift Ratio of Planing Surfaces

From ratio of a
surface can be calculated as
D
tan T +
rtnr1E'",nn' the second term of the
for T12b2 results
111

D
L1
tanT +

variations in

curve for
each test trim over of A and I t is
also seen = 1 there is a very
rapid increase the ratio for all test trims. At has been used to the ratio
T > 2° and at > 1, the ratio 10° and 20° deadrise surfaces at trim
stant for any combination of and 8 0. 1\1ean wetted len,2'1Jl1-Dlea:m
For T = 2°,the curve of and
constant value for ratios of com-
The above variations of can be associated with As
observed of the flow conditions around the for T
It vvas found at > 2.0 there stant when
Qt:n-,o,'·nT',,,,.. of the fluid from the chines and was
at :::; 1.00 the of flow suIts of this corl1nlLlta,tlO
the effect of
lift ratio. Each "0,,.,,,r\11T
of five different VV"HVJ.U~~UJ.\JUU
from age, there was appr<)Xlm2~tel
force is increased and hence the ratio is values combination.
until complete flmv has occurred For more exact values it is recommended that
chines and transom. detailed evaluations of be carried out for
If is defined to exist when the fluid breaks specific cases.
the transom and It is evident from 16 that for any
Cer)tlo'n of can be rlrd,,,,,',rl there is an trim for lowest ratios of
> 4° and at = 2°, Small decreases in trim below the ontm1UIl1
J:'H,~"UUb occurs when the

84
 VI AVERAGE BOTTOM VELOCITY
V FORWARD PLANING VELOCITY

>
"'-..,. 0.90
>-

/3

0.80

1.00 T=
T=

"'>-. ,. 0.90 !----==--~""'-----_+_----+_---___1

/3= 20 0

1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

A A
Fig. 14 Magnitude of average botton velocity for a planing surface

tan r which is the in the

'-"'-'\./\'.d..-' UU..U.l.V this paper.
The difference _U.""U..l,Ll.r, the 1l10ments taken about transom for each
tan r and the curves ,'o,-"'oc'c>n't,, the cornp(ments of the total load and then rinnri',nO'
due to viscous ,,.v,r\'Y'c,,,.co·,r\Y) for the distance

that at low trim the total . . . . '>'"""',,,,'" +rn'nu",rl of the transom.

friction and force
pressure for f3 = 0 is
one pressure and one friction drag.
foregoing trends in resistance variation with trim 1
and deadrise have been shown by
in cross plots of their specific test data. 5.21 Ix 2 + 2.39
the results of computations and includes a
of the fact that Dill ratios -for a trim where is the ratio of the distance from
essentially independent of various combinations the transom to the center of pressure divided the
Ix providing that ~ 2 for T = 2°, and mean wetted length.
for T ~ 4° A between and actual test data is
17 of reference Excellent
Center of Pressure of Surfaces the formula and data.
It has been shown in [9] that the resultant center of
pressure of planing surfaces can be
evaluated considerations of the 17 of this paper.
and force of the lift. The center coefficient are value
of pressure of the taken to be at determined from this chart.
75 percent of the mean wetted forward of the tran-
.....,Tr,h,I,T" limits
som, while the center of pressure of the force
is assumed to be 33 forward of the transom. >J~'~""'"' is defined as the combined oscillations of a
These distances are, of course, are and in of sustained or

OCTOBER, 964
 0.30
- T= 4° '--
T=IO°
0.20
OIl:;

0.10
f--

/
V
-I
0 i I I I VI I l I

0.30
f-- T=6°· T=15°
r- (
0.20

OIl:;

0./0
f--L ~/
0 Vr I I I VI
0 1.0
I
2.0
!
3.0
I
4.0

CV
0.60

T=2°
040
{J =20 0
OIl:;
b= 9"
0.20

4.0

Fig. 15 Variation of drag-lift ratio with speed coefficient

of certain derivatives which could

be obtained eXl)er.lm!~ntal1} In the eXT)erllmEmtli.!

36
 0.20

0.16
<J
'-
0

0.12
I
VI SCOUS DRAG
f-
lJ...
:::::i 0.08
I
t9 TANT
« TANT
0:::
0
0.04 PRESSURE DRAG PRESSURE DRAG

2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

TRI M ANGLE, DEGREE S TRI M ANGLE, DEGREES

Fig. 16 Variation of drag-lift ratio for prismatic planing surfaces

of tests of constant deadrise to avoid ,vith the trim

to determine results in minimum resistance. It was shown
The . . . "",..,.,'"\<:", 16 that a trim of 4° to 5° re-
DOrD()ls]~ng limits
In as 1 ° to 2° to
achieve boat.
because of
the boat at an n,-,h'":rr,,',,

as a guide
hulls.

which

surfaces. combinations of
T which the limit curves indicate stable
operation while those above the line indicate the existence
of porpoising.
It is seen that, as the lift coefficient is rlPI"l'p>1c:.~'rj
loaded hull

inertias.

Method for
is to move Prismatic
If this cannot be and if
the addition of a small transverse
bottom at the transom 'will Imver the
a small cost in added resistance.
It may of this compare

1964
 to tions of the hull at a and center
of location. shows the
mornents

speed ranges and for al'bi-

and inclinations of the shaft
line relative to the center of of the
In [8] a pro-
cedure for which was based on the
elemental available at reference
(7]. No consideratiori was to the effect of pro-
peller thrust on the hull lift and moment and,
since porpoising information was time avail-
limits were not defined. The
Dl'!eSEmt,ed in this paper on where
much lower speed coefficients T= thrust, lb
and, in addition, the D.A = of boat, lb
pressure is much
DuCane

CG
€ = inclination of line relative to
resultant of pressure forces to
bottiom,Ib
a = distance between and CG ea~3lU'ed normal
to ft
j = distance between T and CG ,-.\A normal
ili,-,U,OILH

to shaft ft
c = distance between and CG -'U'-''-''''-''~U'-''--' nonnal
to ft
moment is
" " T n ... "'.... '" fJ deadrise
can be assumed the viscous b ft
the center of n·"o"n+"n

of EoebePs transom to spray root

are included in this paper. ft
There are in the literature test results on related series
of planing boats which provide excellent informa- tral1sorn, ft
-tion on families of specific hull Davidson and
Suarez present the results for Series 50, a
For Vertical1CJu"IhIA.LUI Forces:
of boats DTIVIB. Clement D.o = Slnr

presEmt,ed In For Horizontal Forces:

the per- T COSr s1nr
are similar in
conditions those J11oments:
a - = 0
Performance Prediction

of a TH'lQn-,Q1"l

it be a mernber of a tested series.

method involves the determination
and \vhich will for

88
 Table 1
drodynamic
Planing Hull

REQUIRED:
EQUILIBRIUM TRIM (Tt )
at which (30) = 0 fj, ::60,000 L8 Osl39FT POWER REQUIREMENT
line AR interpolation' between LCG=29.0 FT ':0.50FT PORPOISING LIMIT
and T = 3°
VCG"2.0 FT €" 4°
b :: 14FT (AVERAGE)
j3 :: 10° (AVERAGE) V=40 KNOTS
Horizontal Drag Force
V :40 KNOTS (67.5 FT/SEC)
3
D = 9424 - (9434 - 8304) 10
D = 9095lb
"'0.069
_----::c-::-
6_7 _.
5 = 1115 hp

Equilibrium Mean Wetted length-Beam Ratio Row Quant I tv Source 'T "',l 1: .. ]0 1: .. 40
1:1.1 ,..,
3 I -LCI
2,14 315 It 59
At = 3.85 - (3.85 - 2.60) 10 = 3.29 Figure II .085 .085 .085
2, CLa
3 Clo/'!' 1. I (2) / (1) .0397 .025<4 .0185
Wetted Keel length
b 4 )., Flqure 10 3.85 2.60 1,86
Lk = Aeb + ::---- 5 Vm Figure 14 67.0 66.6 66.2
6 II!! Vrrl- b/v 3.61 x 108 2.42 108 1.7) 108
7 Cf Schoenherr .001]4 .00184 .00192

Wette,d Chine length Cf ATlC Stands'd .0004 .

9 Cf 6. Cf (]) (8) .00214 .00224 .00232
Lc = Aeb - b tan = 36.1 ft
. T pl~b2( :f + 6 :f)
10 7.340 5.160 .760
at Transom
Draft of Keel 2 CO'l/3
d = Lk sinTe = 55.9 X tan 2.3° 11 tan,. ,0349 .0524 .0698
d == 2.24 ft 12 lIn,. .0349 .0524 .0698
13 co'!'!' ·2~ ___ .9986 .9976
14 f}. tllln,. 2094 3144 4188
15 Of/COS'!' (10) /cOH 7340 __ 5160 3760
0.0345 1 / 2 = 0.186 16 0 (14) + (15) 94J 8304 7948
17 Cp Figure 17 .59 .65 .70
18 Cpi--b 31.6 23.5 18.2
19 c LeG - (18) -2.6 5.5 10.8
20 (b/4)tanB .616 616 616
21 II 'leG - (20) 1. 39 1.3~ I .3~t
22 $ln('T+~) .1045 .1219 .1392
23 I - s n'T sln('T + c) I (12) (22) 9964 .9964 .990)
24 (23) (cofr) -2.59 5.46 10.70
25 f sin,. 0174 0352 .0349
35 (24) - (25) -2.6 5.53 10.73
27 6. (25) -156,500 332,000 645,000
28 (a - f) (21) - f .89 89 .89
29 Dda - f) (10) (28) 6540 4600 3350 __
.1Q (27) + (29) Eq 35 149,960 336 600 648350

OCTOBER,
 Table 2 Computational Procedure Hydrodynamic Performance of Prismatic Plan-
Hull When all Forces Pass Through CG)

!J. 60,000 LB POWER REQUIREMENT

LCG = 29.0 FT PORPOISING STABILITY
VCG= 2.0 F T
b = 14FT (AVERAGE)
/3 = 10° (AVERAGE)
V = 40 KNOTS
a = c= f:::: E =0 V= 40 KNOTS (67.5 FT/SEC)

=0.069

Row Quantity Spurce Value

1 CLa Figure 11 ,085
2 'pI LCG/b 2.07
3 A. Igure 19 3.45
4 CLoh 1• 1 Figure 19
5 '11.1 (1)/(4) 2.1+2
6 1" 2.23'
7 tan. .039
8 l::J.\Jtan. 2,340
9 A.b 2 0) b 2 675
10 vn; ~./! Figure 14 66.9
II Re Vrrf'-b/v 3.22 x 10 8
12 Cf Schoenherr .00177
13 ATTC Standard .0004
l::J. 'f l:l"""nhn<>"<it

14 Cf + lJ. Cf (12) + (13) .00217

p"~b2(f l::J. ;f)
15 Of 6670
2 f3
16 Of/COST 6670
17 D (8) + (17) 9010
18 EHP Ox V/550 1100
19 JCLf1~ ,186
20 7 pO'poising FIgure 18 «4.5 0

procedure is recommended, COSE =

tional the LlL~tHVl10 are
as follows: cos E =1
It can be shown that

90
 1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - , - - - - - - , - - - - - - r - - - - - - ,

C =0.75- - - - - - - - -
P 5.21 +2.39
0.80

II
0..
U
0.60

0.40
l.L
o
0::
W
l-
Z
W
U 0.20 1---- . - - t - - - - - l - - - - - - + - - '>"=Lm/b
N= RESULTANT OF NORMAL N
BOTTOM PRESSURES

o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

VELOCITY COEFFICI
17 Center of pressure of planing surfaces

N COST + 6. sinT + E) condition

in their
SO that
The moment c;u ·LtctLJIVLl.

COST

and into

6. { - - ' - - - - - - ' - - - - - ' - -

COST
the conditions of
o f = c O. There are
,\Vhen T) c) and wherein these
in equilibrium and the
are then evaluated. Performance Prediction etnlods--U:::>moultatilonal Procedures

Case }Vhen Thrust Axis is Pm'aZZel to Keel

U.v").1~l~Cthe shaft axis is
is assumed that E

o
can
Case When Thrust Axis and Viscous Force Coincide and Pass
Through Center of General Case
to achieve I t is assumed

and care

OCTOBEP. 1964
 12 r--------,---------r--------~------~--------~

10
REGIME OF
PORPOIS ING
U)
w 8
W
0::
(!)
W
0
' .
w 6
..J
(!)
Z
«
::2E
a::
I- 4
REGIME OF
STABLE PLANING

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

Fig. 18 Porpoising lImits for prismatic planing hulls

the initial information is ",,,,r,,,,,,r.rl by a mathematical foril1ulation or

Given: plots contained in this ; and Columns 3, 4
Dimensions and lines of boat b) 5 are the computed value each of three as~;urrled trim
of L1 angles. The last line of this tabulation contains the
Propeller shaft line location E) value of for each of the trim
Center of location c, between the and
Speed of boat, is obtained results
Required:
Running trim calculate
vVetted length area, resistance and power
Total resistance
"'Y'r'l'ln,rll1"-C. for estimat-
Draft of keel (d)
Power boat. The
Porpoising stability limit the
The detailed computational
the values is
eX~l,lnple is worked out. The trim co 111-
is to assume several values ~la.'lULi>; boat is
the carried out for the entire
It will be restriction that ;::::
conditions for force and moment
value of trim angle that makes
Case When Thrust Axis is ParaJfet to Keel
zero is the required solution.
Column 1 in Table 1 is the to be evaluated; The the IS

Oolumn 2 is the source this

92
 1.8 2.2 2.6 3.0

P/b::
- 3.0

I- - 2.6

2.2
.0
"- -
E
..J 1.8
II
--<

f: T'
o r~~ tIll ILl I I I 11 ~~I I I I! I III I ! III LIL~ ~~Li ~~~ IIt I I I I I 1 I 11 liLI Jlll ~l II IIII
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Cv=VI
Fig. 19 Nomogram for equilibrium conditions when all forces act through CG

Case When Thrust Axis and Viscous Force Coincide and Pass
Through Center of Gravity
For this condition the em-
wetted area, and center
into one
such a '\vhich is ,'C.l"'·j"\rl,,f>C\r;

as 19 of this paper. From this the

trim and wetted area are obtained without the
for between assumed values of
for the Table 2 the

OCTOBER, 1964
bearn should be taken as average in the 10 H. i (The Phenomena of
area of the hull. The trim should be on " NACA translation
average of the keel and chine buttock lines. 1932.
Care should be taken to assure that the calculated 11 R. F.
and wetted do not result in wetted areas extend-
bow sections of the hull.
relations are not for
"\vhere there are extrerne vari- Jr., ((The Plan-
ations in deadrise and buttock lines. In a Two Prismatic Sur-
necessary area of research is to define the forces faces of Deadrise of 20° and 40°," NACA
on bow forms over a range of trim These data TN No. 2876, 1953.
will be of particular importance in the of hulls for 13 J. D. Pierson S. of the
hydrofoil-boat ""fJfJllv'''''u~v.u. and to
Vee-Planing Surfaces," Stevens Institute of
Davidson Laboratory 1950.
14 "Uniform Procedure for
The author is indebted tional Resistance and the
Office of Naval Data to Full Size," Bulletin No. 1-2 of
interest in and support surface research at 1948.
Stevens Institute of The many Stevens 15 J. B. Parkinson, "Tank Tests to Show the Effect
Institute of staff members who contributed of Rivet Heads on the vVater Performance of a ,,-,v'C~!-,.lU>.U'v
to this too numerous to mention indi- JJ NACA TN 1938.
to Prof. 16 F. VV. S. of
research
Davidson ..L.ia>VVJ.U.U'VL

17 D.
tion in the
References
Stevens Institute of,
1 G. S. £..l-n(H'lij~LLLL ~~~',","'~V 1952.

on

"Tank of Flat and Vee-

Bottom NACA TN November
1934.
4 A.
Froude
No. -,-"",·.u.V'VU. "The Effect of Deadrise
5 L. I. UDtm,lmn Relation t'Oll'Dc.lslng,)) N ACA
for Sea Surface February 1942.
1947. 22
6 F. VV. S.

1943.

and Center of Pressure of

Low

1954.

94
 of Cross Section and Plan Form," NACAReport 1355, dinger, Joseph A {i

1958. Chines-Dry Planing Body.

28 J. G. Koelbel, Jr., J. Stolz, and J. D. Ii How
1-<"''''f'>')'1:" No.
to Planing Hulls," vol. AIotor Ideal Sherman l\1. Publication Fund
Series. Institute of the Aeronautical '-'V1\./LlV'-'0,

29 1(. S. 1\11. Davidson and A. "Test of

Related 1Hodels of V-Bottom l\iotor Boats- B. V.; Daniel;
50,)) DT1V1B Report 1VIarch 1949. and vVilliam F. uvVave Contours in the Vvake
E. P. Clement and D. L. Blount, {(Resistance of a 20 0 Deadrise Stevens Institute
Tests of a Series of Hull " of Technology, Tank No.
No. 10, presented at the Annual 337, June 1948. l\1. Publication l?und
vember 19G3 of TRANS. Paper No. 1G8, Institute of the Aeronautical '-''-'H:;'.Ll\A:;0.

pp. New York.

10

Technology,
Reports and Papers on Planing Published
November Sherman
Stevens Institute of Technology Under ONR Contract
tion Fund 170, Institute of the Aeronautical
1 Korvin-Kroukovsky, B. V. and
('The Discontinuous Fluid Flow Past an
)JStevens Institute of and Lehman, \Villiam
Tank Report No. October 1948. Sherman Surface, Including Test Data on a Sur-
Publication Fund No. 169, Institute " Stevens Institute of
of the Aeronautical DClelJlCe,S, Tank No.
2 Pierson, John D.
of the Fluid Flow in the
Regions of l?lat » Stevens Institute of
Technology, Tank No.
Octo bel' 1948.

Sciences,
3
for a vVedge
Institute of
No. 336, l::iet)telnbler
Publication Fund No.
nautical Sciences, New York.
4 John D. and Leshnover, ,-,'-".un.1Vi,

and Loads
)) Stevens Institute Daniel and "Sonle
t!..iXpel:mllental Towing Tank Report No. 382, Interference Effects between Two
Sherman N1:. Fairchild Publication Fund No. Parallel to Each Other at
Institute of the Aeronautical New York. tute of
John "On Penetration of a Fluid Published in -,-",-,'-"\.A 'v" ...,
" Stevens Institute of
Tank No. 381,
Shern1an 1\11:. Publication Fund No.
Institute of the Aeronautical Sciences, New York.
6 B. ilLift of
Institute of
Published in Readers' Forum Section
1950.

VV1Hi'-'iV,,;.Y)

in Readers' J O?.i.:rnal
AeTlYnautical June 1951.
8 John D.; David

OCTOBER, 1964 95