Marine Technology, Vol, 16, Me. 2, April 1978, pp. 119-143 Marine Technology na ae a ens cei ore ret | elit fast meg vem ee oh eas SSE Te The Speed of the SS United States John R. Kane? Following the maiden voyage of the passenger vessel SS United States in July 1952, on which she easily bettered by four knots the existing transatlantic speed records from Ambrose Light to Bishop Rock and ra- {urn, the curiosity of the marine World was aroused to know tha maximum speed capabilly of the phenomo- ral yessel. Wiliam Francis Gibbs, the architect of the United States, had other ideas, however, and the top ‘speed performance of the vessel, and the details as to how it was attained, remain today a wall kept secret. ‘Since the ship s now retired from the United States Lines, and is no longer viewed as a potential naval auxil jay in case of an emergency, Security has been lifted and suet iaformation can now be released, This infor- ration, although histori, is to some degree timely nonetheless, since it represents a yardstick with which ‘to measure the performance and potential ofthe larg@ fast celluar-lype containerships which are begianing torial in size and approach in speed that attained in 1952 by the SS United States. Presented at the November 8, 1977 meeting of the Hampton Roads {Wee brevident (Ret) Newport News Sipbailing Newport News, Secon of THE SOCIETY OP NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE. EN. a GINEERS, APRIL 1976 19025-8816/78/1502-0119$00.75/0 19Introduction IT IS, of course, well known that American shipbuilders and owners in the early days of the merchant marine were greatly preoccupied with speed. The clipper ships of that era (mid- 1800's), built of wood and full-rigged with the largest press of sails they could carry, sactificed cargo capacity to a degree in order to attain the slender lines and the speed so essential for the fastest. passages. Their speed also put the young republic on the map as ‘a maritime power to be reckoned with. This phase of American shipbuilding reached a peak in the year 1853, for in that year more than 100 clipper ships, built in shipyards from Maine to as far south as Virginia, but mainly in New England, were added to the merchant fleet. During the second half of the century, how- ever, the application of the steam engine to the propulsion of ships advanced greatly, and steam packets, not as dependent upon the vagaries of the wind, began to replace the graceful clipper ships for the greater part of the work at sea. By strange coincidence, in the same year, 1853, a new era was, beginning for American shipbuilders and designers in which speed would play an important role, the so-called golden age of luxury steam yachts. For it was in that year that Cornelius Vanderbilt, one of the handful of Arnerican empire builders who could efford such luxury, built the first large American steam yacht, North Star, a 270-ft paddle steamer, and set out on a grand ‘tour of Europe in the lavish vessel. In the years that followed, there was a wide-open race for prestige and supremacy es mil- lionaires vied with each other to produce the fastest and most, luxurious yachts. Speed was as important as luxury, we are told [1]2and many a yacht went up for Sale quickly when she suffered the indignity of having a faster vessel come up astern and pass her on the way to some fashionable rendezvous. These vessels ‘were at first essentially sailing yachts with steam as auxiliary power, but came in time to be true steamships in design, although they tended to retain the rakish lines and clipper bows reminis- cent of sailing vessels. The era of such huge steam yachts came more or less to an abrupt end with the great Wall Street crash of 1929 (except for those belonging to royalty), but not hefore one last mammoth was built, the Savarona IIT, the largest steam yacht ever built. This yacht, which was powered by steam tur- bines and had a top speed of almost 20 knots, carried a crow of 83 and had public rooms the equivalent of a small express liner. Although she was built in Germany, her designer was a 42-year- ‘old American naval architect named Williara Francis Gibbs. By not-so-strange coincidence, this same naval architect, who designed the last and most advanced yacht of that vanished era, also designed the fastest vessel of another great marine era which hhas now come to an end, that of the large, fast, regularly sched- uled transatlantic passenger liners. This era commenced in 1838 with the sensational race between the Great Western and the Sirius, two British vessels, to be the first steam vessel to steam continuously (albeit with the help of sails) all the way across the Atlantic from England to New York, and reached its zenith in- sofar as speed is concerned in 1952 with the record-setting maiden voyage of the American passenger liner, United States. The large, regularly scheduled liners dominated the transatlantic passenger trade up to as late as 1960, but lost ground rapidly after that to overseas airplane flights which by then had become much more reliable and comfortable than initially, and were an order of magnitude faster. William Francis, as Gibbs's friends called him, hhad the dream of a pair of 1000 ft, 20-knot passenger liners at early as 1908 [2], but it was not until 1917 thet he obtained the financial backing that enabled him to proceed with the detailed planning for such a project. Ironically, it was J. P. Morgan, who had developed a first-hand appreciation for the speedy vessels, hy building and cherging around the ocean in a series of pro- gressively larger and faster steam yachts, the four Corsairs, who provided him the financial support he needed. With the support ¥ Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. of Morgan's shipping enterprise, the International Mercantile ‘Marine, and with interest from the Shipping Board, the US. Navy and the Pennsylvania Railroad, the project almost suc- ceeded, but the sinking of the Lusitania by a German submarine about that time dampened the national enthusiasm that hed begun to build up for the project. Although the initial project foundered, the dream persisted, and 26 years later, in 1943, the Gibbs brothers, William Francis and Frederic H., began to fan it alive again. By that time the concept had matured considerably, and the vessel was conceived not only as a front runner for the blue ribbon of the Atlantic, but as the most advanced liner that American industry and know- how could build, a true American-flag superliner. With the sup- port of the Government, the U.S. Navy, and many others, the Gibbs brothers finally realized their dream, and a contract was let in April 1949 to Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company to build the vessel. William Francis had indeed set a difficult goal in his design, and it took all that the maritime in- dustry, the shipyard, and many experts and agencies could do to convert it into hardware and aesthetic reality. The results, however, are # matter of record. On her maiden voyage, the vessel broke the transatlantic speed record both east and westbound bby four knots, and in succeeding years established an outstanding reputation for seakindliness, dryness, and ability to maintain speed in adverse weather. From the point of view of safety, reli- ability, fireproofing, and consistently meeting her schedule on the fastest service from Great Britain and France to the United States, no other liner ever quite matched the United States. ‘After the first leg of the record voyage of the United States was completed at an average speed of better than 35 knots, Commo- dore Harry Manning, the senior captain of the United States Lines, told the British press that, in fact, he had only been “cruising,” a remark which prompted British experts to catego- rize him as a Yankee braggart. Actually, he was telling the truth since that voyage was made with substantially less horsepower than maximum, and in fact, at less horsepower than the rating of either the Queen Mary or the Queen Elizabeth. Her maximum ‘power and speed have never been disclosed publicly for security reasons because of her convertibility to a naval auxiliary (troop ship) in case of national emergency. Such security restrictions have now been lifted, and itis possible to reveal some of the de- tails of her propeller design, model tank test performance, and trial trip standardization results, ‘These results, itis believed, may be of interest to marine de- signers because of a new era we now seem to be entering, one in which high-speed cellular cargo containerships comparable in size and approaching the speed of the United States are being projected and built to carry specialized cargo on some of the longer trade routes of the oceans. Already several such single- screw containerships of 26 knots and up to approximately 50 000 tons displacement (fully loaded) have been built and put into operation, and also a class of twin-screw containerships, the Sea Land SL-7’s discussed in a recent SNAME paper [3}, of 33 knots maximum trial speed and 120 000 total shaft horsepower, have been added to this type of service. In view of this trend toward larger size and highet speed, release of some of the details of the performance and the propulsion system of the United States seems timely. Formula for the speed of the United States ‘The formula for the speed of the United States was one that would scarcely have come as a surprise to Donald Mackay, Wil- liam Webb, or any of the other master builders and designers of the clipper ship era who were the first to apply itso spectacularly. Tis, in simple terms, to combine the maximum driving power you can achieve with the lightest displacement compatible with the ‘work the ship must do, and with the longest, finest and cleanest lines that will serve to make a good wholesome seakeeping ship.Plus, one might add, infinite patience and care in the refinement of detail. To obtain the maximum driving power, Gibbs called for the most advanced steam propulsion plant of any large vessel of that time (including those of the U.S. Navy), with 925 Ib per square inch steam pressure and 1000 F temperature at the boiler su- perheater outlet (which was later dropped to 975 F in service to reduce boiler and steam piping maintenance), By this means, together with the use of highspeed geared steam turbine m chinery of the type developed so successfully in World War IT [4] for the US. Navy by the American turbine builders, he was able to reduce the weight and space of the machinery required to power the ship, and at the same time to increase the maximum shaft horsepower to 60 000 shp per shaft, or a total of 240 000 shp for the four shafts of the vessel, as compared to 158 000 shp maximum on the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth, for example. ‘To obtain the lightest displacement, Gibbs gave great attention to the compact arrangement of the ship without sacrificing unduly the elegance and luxury of staterooms and public spaces necessary on a premium passenger liner. In the design of the structural hull, Gibbs called extensively upon his naval designing experience; in fact, we are told [2], his concept was to design the superliner primarily as a naval ship which would be adaptable to commercial construction, specifications, and service as a passenger liner. The result, he believed, would be an extensively compartmented ship possessing unusually good damaged sta- bility for a commercial passenger liner, while simultaneously providing the lightest hull with the necessary strength and ri- gidity to withstand North Atlantic storm seas with such large power and speed. One departure from naval practice, which helped greatly to keep the topside weight of the vessel down, was the extensive use of aluminum in all of the deckhouse structure and decks above the main deck. As a result of these measures, he was able to accommodate almost the same number of passengers (approximately 1988, plus a crew of 1030) as the Queen’s with a maximum loaded displacement of around 47 300 tons as com- pared to the Queens’ displacement of 77 400 tons, Apart from the sheer luxury of spaciousness that the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth possessed in unrivaled profusion, ‘about the only compromise in elegance or service as compared to the Queen's was the fact that the first-class dining spaces on the United States required two seatings, the same as tourist, whereas the Queen’s could accommodate all first-class passengers atone sitting. Also missing in the United States, however, was the warmth that only luxurious inlaid wood joiner work can provide, which gave such an air of gracious living to the Queen’s, but William Francis had decided at the outset to ban the use of wood entirely in the construction of the vessel in the interest of ‘making her a8 safe as humanly possible from disaster by fire. The ‘magnificent conflagration that marked the ultimate end of the Queen Elizabeth proved the wisdom of that decision, In short, therefore, the United States was provided with « much higher ratio of installed horsepower to displacement than any large commercial vessel projected or operating at that time, namely 240 000/47 300, or 5.074 shp per ton Jas compared to about 2.0 shaft horsepower per ton displacement on the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, for example). Even today this power-to-displacement ratio has not been challenged or exceeded in any large passenger or cargo liner, and indeed, is approached by few if any naval capital ships larger than destroyers and light cruisers. One can therefore appreciate the apprehension and care with which the design of the propulsion system, the underwater body, and the structure of the vessel was approached. Furthermore, it was well known at that time that the large quadruple-screw high-speed vessels had had their difficulties. ‘The Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, for example, had suf- fered numerous occasions of storm damage and passenger injury from North Atlantic winter passages, and had run through sue- APBIL 1978 cessive sets of propellers in quick order; the Normandy had ini- tially suffered not only excessive vibration but also accelerated erosion of her propellers such that on completion of her maiden voyage it was reported there were holes the size of one’s fist through sorae of her propeller blades. The North Carolina and the Washington, the Navy’s then new 35 000-ton battleships, which had skegs housing the inboard pair of shafta and struts on the outboard pair, had suffered such severe longitudinal vibration {5] of the propulsion shafting system and machinery that they ‘were unable to operate up to full power on their sea trials. Re- newed interest was being shown in research work on the hydzo- dynamics of propeller excitation forces causing vibration, otigi- nally begun by Frank M. Lewis while at Webb Institute, and it ‘was reinstituted under the sponsorship of a committee of SNAME, but would not be reported upon until some time later [6] after the design of the United States had to be finalized. Gibbs had the happy faculty of gathering all available infor- ‘mation and informed expert opinion when he faced any difficult or controversial ship design decision, but he did not believe in taking votes or applying the democratic process too far in making the decision as to what would be done. Al! through the prelimni- nary and contract design period, from 1943 through 1948, he in- vited criticism and design review from specialists, particularly naval experts, but the final decisions were his and reflected his judgment not to make the vessel any more experimental than it had to be to achieve the performance criteria that he had laid down for himself in the basic design. Fifteen months after the maiden voyage of the United States, he made the following statement in a speech in Philadelphia, “My sole contribution in this performance is the fact that I took the responsibility for failure, and when you realize that a grest ship like this is the most ‘complicated structure or apparatus that a man puts together, you can see that that is not much of an encomium on my intelli- gence.” ‘The underwater body ‘The evolution of the underwater form of the United States stretches back quite far since it was in mid-1943 that designers at Gibbs and Cox started working on the lines and arrangement of the projected superliner under the close scrutiny of William Francis. This was pursued on a modest basis since the design office was busy with World War II conversions and designs, and further since it was coming out of pocket. However, by 1946 the design project received the endorsement of General Franklin, President of United States Lines, who authorized Gibbs and Cox ‘toundertake the design of the projected liner. The original model test of the hull was conducted by the David Taylor Model Basin in July 1946 and was for a ship 940 ft length on the water line, 101.5 ft (maximum) beam, and 31.63 ft draft with a displacement of 45 400 tons. These lines were subsequently modified slightly to 940ftLWL, 101.5 ft beam, and 31.25 ft molded draft ata dis- placement of 45 400 tons. In February, 1948, the bossings were modified slightly and the propellers relocated to give slightly greater tip clearance. This revised model was not tested until after the contract for the ship had been let in 1949, and the final revisions made by the shipbuilder, since the original model had given excellent results on the resistance and seif- propulsion tests, in 1946, and the refinements were relatively minor. During the entire design development, construction, and trial periods for the ship, the true maximur shaft horsepower rating and anticipated top speed of the vessel were handled like state secrets, with only the absolute minimum number of people in the know. Specifi- cations and official documents listed the norma! maximum shaft horsepower as 158 000, the same as the British Queen’s. ‘The model test results in 1946 satisfied Gibbs that he could count on a solid 34 knots at 158000 hp and that was enough for him. Anything else he got in the way of speed from the additional ower reserve of the main machinery up to 240 000 shp would be 124‘Table 1 Principal characteristics of United States versus other high-speed commercial ships cnamerenrstre [ ewine [omc ervmus | reser | quem wary | 2 on sin7 Length overall, LOA feat 990 1,035.75] 1,019.5 | 946.12 Length on design waterline, 01 Foot 940 set.2s | 2,008. 900 Length between perpendiculare, tap | feat 905.25 ost. | 965 200.5 bem, molded, 8 (eaximn) | see | aes [aos | us 10s. Depth at 18F/2, D — 6 sar | o25 | Keel draft, macimum scantling i 32.33 39.03 Keel dratt, design | toce 3.25 34.46 | 30.75 30 Displacasent © maximum draft tong tons) 47,268 se,000 | 27,400 si.e1s Displacasent © design arate tong tons) 45,400 s1,015 | 77.400 43,000 Doaaweight eng tons) 16,467 27,14 Grove tonnage, Us 53,330 65,300 | 60,773 ana et tonnage, 0S 29,475 a7soo | 24,210 25,395 Block coefficient 0.53 0.542 | 0.590 0.528 Prismatic coet#ictent 0.559 0.558 Munher of shafts ‘ ‘ ‘ 2 Total Shaft hersepover, SaP 240,000 | 160,000 | 158,000 | 120,000 SMP par hate 69,000 36,983 | 29,500 60,000 Maximin trial SEP 247,785 | 176,000 | 200,000 | 139,500 Maximin speed Length ratio ‘etalnee an trial 1.250 sare | 1.0368 aaa Maxim Trial speed | knots | 30.32 25.20 | 32.84 a4 — Nomenclature Costticlents used in the paper Advance coctficient = 2: ENP own e where ®= ose (0 = speed of advance, fps ave J=(-se where where EHP = effective horsepower A= displacement, ong tons V = speed, knots Propaller coetticlents r fe Ky = Epa? tat coeliient where T= propeller thrust, Ib Bosect mass density of water, 22 . ty of water, = 1n = revolutions per second 4d = propeller diameter, ft 550P. jaags DOME coefficient where P = power absorbed, hp (US) Remaining factors as above 122 a= true slip = pitch ratio, pitch/diameter Propeller atticiency Cavitation indox where submergence + atmospheric presue, lb/ft 1¢ vapor pressure of water, Ib/fe? © = speed of sdvance, or relative speed asthe case may be, fps Cavitation theust index Tae poe where 1 = propeller thr, Ib Ay = projected blade area of propeller, ft? pandas above MARINE TECHNOLOGYadded margin that no one could out-build him for the blue rib- bon, and would also enhance the value of the ship as # naval auxiliary. ‘Table 1 gives the principal characteristics of the United States and, by comparison, similar information? on the French liner France later built to run alternate service with the United States, the British Queen Elizabeth, and for a more recent comparison, the Sea Land SL-7 high-speed containerships recently reported upon in SNAME Transactions [3]. Figure 1 shows the hull lines of the United States as obtained from the builder's faired mold loft offsets, 1(a) being the sheer and half-breadth plans (foreshortened to meet printer's re- quirements) and Fig. 1(b) the body plan; Fig. 1(c) gives the pro- peller locations and clearance dimensions, and 1(d) the sectional area curve from the molded dimensions. These lines show a rather conventional passenger liner of that era except that they are ex- ceptionally lean and fine, with cruiser stern, four shafts supported by bossings, a slight nonprotruding bulbous bow and long fi entry and run. The delicate balance of form factors and dis- placement/weight distribution which produced such a seakindly ship when driven at such high speed in service was hardly just a fortuitous circumstance, however, but surely resulted from ex- ceptional naval architectural art and skill on the part of Mr. Gibbs and his colleagues. ‘Two features that were a bit controversial at the time the de- sign of the United States had to be finalized were the best size of bulbous bow to be used, and the question of struts versus bossings for the support af the waterborne shafting. Itwas already known at David Taylor Model Basin in 1949 that larger bulbous bows than were usual at that time had the potential for reducing the wavemaking resistance (and possibly the total resistance) of such models. Gibbs elected to stay with a modest bulbous bow similar to that used on the America because he feared that ¢ larger one might cause pounding in the sharp steep seas en- cauntered in winter storms on the North Atlantic run, ot possibly even worse, some type of wave-excited lateral hull vibration due to wave encounter and the relative slenderness of the hull. Since it may have bearing on this subject, it is interesting to com- pare the resistance of the United States model with that of the latest comparable-size vessel designed to operate above 36 knots, the SL-7 containerships mentioned earlier. Figure 2, plotted on the non-dimensional coefficients © and ®, gives a comparison of the effective horsepower values obtained on the model test of ‘the final model of the United States versus those obtained for the SL.-7 model by Netherlands Ship Model Basin in 1969, and published in reference [3]. The comparison shows that in the high-speed range the United States had slightly less total re- sistance than the SL-7, but in the range of Z8 ta 31 knots there existed for the United States a wavemaking hump which did not show in the curve for the SL-7, and which might possibly have been reduced in the United States model if a larger bow bulb had been used. This conjecture leaves open the question as to whether ‘the performance at speeds above the hump, which was most satisfactory on the model and even better on the full-scale ship, ‘would have been lessened if such a larger bulb had been used. Also, the United States in service turned out to be a remarkably dry ship when driving at high speed into rough seas in severe weather, and one had the feeling that the sharp steeply angled how wave that she carried had the effect of knocking down the seas to some extent and preventing spray and green water from coming aboard. At any rate, the selection of the bow bulb re- flected Gibbs's sometime expressed philosophy, “T prefer the ‘horrors 1 know to those [ don't.” With reference to shaft struts versus hossings, the Navy model ‘basin people, having struggled throug’ the previously mentioned problems with longitudinal shafting vibration on the North ¥ Speed and dieplacement data were taken from publicat not Be tay tepreentaive asthe son tig of Propet and Queen Mary ray have occurred at extreme light displacements Carolina and Washington only a few years previously, were abandoning skegs in favor of struts on their newer ships, and were inclined to view bossings of any substantial size with the same degree of skepticism as they had come to regard skegs for the support of the waterborne shafting outside the ship. Gibbs elected to stay with the conventional bossings which were used on most high-speed liners af the era for several reasons. He was convinced that bassings would act to damp pitching motions and possibly would tend to reduce the tendency to squat at high speed, making the ship more seakindly. Secondly, he was con- vinced that bossings would protect the shafting and outboard bearings more adequately than struts, which is particularly im- portant in a vessel which would operate well above 30 knots for practically the entire time en route to sea. Also he felt that by careful attention to the clearances around the propellers, and by close attention to the fairing of the bossings with regard for the streamline flow in way of the afterbody, a relatively uniform in- flow to the propellers could be obtained, a conclusion that was ‘not wholly borne out by the facts, as we shall see. The decision ‘was thus for bossings, and if William Francis wore alive today, he would cite the numerous occasions on which the United States ‘was able to continue on schedule, dry and reasonably comfort able, through severe North Atlantic storm gales while other large vessels in the satne area were forced to slow down or heave-to for extensive periods, as vindication for his design selections. Current ‘opinion, quite probably, would favor struts, but the latter suffer from the disedvantage that altogether too often the strut arms (on the full-scale ship cannot be set on the precise angle of the ship's flow lines from model tests, and it takes a perfod of oper- ating experience plus some difficulty with vibration of propeller erosion oF both to discover that it needs correction (see reference {8] for discussion of this problem on the SL-7's). The prestige of the United States, as does that of any important new ship which is much in the public eye, depended greatly on her ability to perform in an outstanding manner from the day she first put to sea. Within several months of the signing of the contract for con. «truction of the vessel in April 1949, the Newport News shipyard ordered a series of model tests at David Taylor Model Basin to finalize the lines and appendages. Figure 3 presents the resulta of the resistance tests on the finalized model of the United States, complete with all appendages, and conducted with a 20-ft model. Shown in the figure are the effective horsepower (ehp) values measured at. 45400 tons displacement, corresponding to the design keel draft of 31.25 ft for the vessel, with the full-scale frictional ehp determined by the Schoenherr friction formmala with a roughness allowance consistent with standardization re- sults of large Newport News-built ships with vinyl bottom paint. (Iacidentaily, to realize this friction, itis essential thet all shell isting be acid-dipped or sand-blasted to remove all mill scale, and that bottom painting be done under favorable conditions.) Also shown in the figure is an ehp curve for the 40 000-tons av- erage trial condition, estimated from the measured curve above, for comparison with sea trial results. Although this design was done as far back as the late 1940's, the resistance results compare favorably with the best results published or available today. Propeller design and self-propulsion model tests ‘The 1946 model tank tests of the original 940-ft ship lines, which gave William Francis Gibbs assurance of a ship speed of 34 knots at 158 000 shp, were made with a four-bladed propeller design for all shafts. Also, the propeller design was tested in a propeller cavitation tunnél to determine whether its cavitation characteristics would be satisfactory, not only at that speed and power, but also at the projected 240 000 shp, or 60.000 shp per shaft, that Gibbs had in mind for the top speed. It should be borne in mind that, at the time, the only vessel which had had a (text continued on page 128)ued soa Cae Bis MARINE TECHNOLOGY 28Fig. 1(<1) Sectional area curve DWL = 31 #10 in 2000 g a uty section aneaney.? eunue section Anca er? 1.06 ~ oe . 102 % ow a Ow. ee . ve O> 0.5656 Te 88 ~ Fig.2 Comparison of total resistance from ‘model tests, United States versus SL-7 ‘ Ccontainership sexu ar ff 8 NX vxri sraes e 60 18 18 128 MARINE TECHNOLOGYEFFECTIVE HORSEPOWER CURVES Fok Suo-POOr PASSENGER LINER, ESTIMATED TROK aEsISTAICE TESTS coxoulereo ay a40iD zayLoK Hom sume wern fnarTEst 9 11130) 50.8 fist. Fox Tear’ 9 104,000" sive SovommAR rRICTIOH Fou mt 26 SPEED “IN KNOTS IEACE DISPLACERENT "45,400 TORS 40,000." 8.5 wwtren staves oF 1 10 47 sca woori, BASIN, A0C.9°26, 1949 mn Efe 10 Bor ams 160 150 vo 30 10 M0 100 °° 0 0 50 +0 “o » 3 3 Fig. 3 Results of resistance tests of model of the United States, with appendages ext continued from page 123) power approaching that figure was the battleship Zowa, which had operated on trials in April 1948 at 53 000 shp per shaft, but which did not have either the speed or the requirement for con- ‘tinuous operation at very high speed that a passenger liner on regular schedule has. The Normandy, which as mentioned before had her problems with propellers and vibration, had a maximum power of 40 000 shp per shaft, very clase to that of the Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth. Very shortly after the letting of the shipbuilding contract in 1949, the shipyard ordered a retest of the self-propulsion char- acteristics of the vessel with the modified bossings and the final 940-ft lines, using the same propellers developed for the earlier tests. At the same time, extensive analyses were begun of both the propeller design and the vibratory characteristics of the sropulsion shafting system, the thrust bearing and machinery mounting, and the hull. The model tank tests of the modified model were completed and reported upon in August 1949 and confirmed the general suitability of the underwater body and appendages, but the vibration studies, which were too extensive to be summarized here, indicated that the best ¢otupiromise as APRIL 1978 regards the various critical speeds of shafting, machinery, and ‘hull which must be minimized would be obtained with 5-bladed propellers on the inboard shafts of the vessel, and 4-bladed propellers on the outboard shafts. Also, anew high-lft, low-drag airfoil hed recently been developed for aircraft wing sections by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Langley Laboratory, which had also been adapted for use in water, and it was decided that a 5-bladed propeller design based on the new profile should be tasted since it would supposedly reduce the suction pressure peaks on such highly loaded propellers and re~ sult in more uniform induced velocities. ‘The largest propeller diameter which could be accommodated on the United States with ample tip clearance and satisfactory shaft lines was 18 ft. In order to keep the thrust per unit area of blade surface within proper limits, it was necessary to use a very large blade width, which made it difficult to apply circulation theory to the design because of the importance of the large blade-to-blade interference. Nevertheless it was applied, with large correction factors for interference, particularly toward the ‘hub, and the results were surprisingly successful. Both the theory and the actual cavitation breakdown tests in the propeller cavi- 128‘ation tunnel indicated that a reduction in pitch from the 0.7 radius to the tip of about 17 percent would result in more uniform, suction pressures on the blade surface at the inception of cavi- tation and also lesser tip vortices shed from the blade tip than with constant-pitch propellers. The propellers finally selected were of Newport News design with blade sectional profiles adapted with some modification from the Troost standard series. of propellers developed by him when he was at the Netherlands Shiptesting Model Basin, Figures 4 and 5 are, respectively, drawings of the inboard (S-bladed) and outboard (4-bladed) propellers used in the final self-propulsion tests, and on the ship, with pertinent data included. Figure 6 shows the open-water propeller test characteristics of the two propeller designs which are used in the analysis of the self-propulsion tests discussed in the following. Figure 7 shows the propeller cavitation charac- teristics for the S-bladed propeller of Fig. 4, as obtained in the cavitation tunnel with successive values of the cavitation index, «2. Figure 8 shoves three successive photographs of the 5-bladed propeller in the cavitation tank at, progressively decreasing values of the cavitation index o, and Fig. 9 is a plot of the point of in- ception of breakdown of thrust, and the point of inception of visible tip vortices versus the cavitation index. and a thrust loading index, with the point for the maximum-power condition for the ship shown in relation to them. ‘The 5-bladed propeller design based upon the NACA low-drag family of profiles tumed out to be somewhat ofa disappointment, although it was felt that time did not permit sufficient explora tion of the hest combination of camber and angle of attack to develop its full potential. In general, the section seems to begin the point of breakdown due to cavitation somewhat earlier than the Troost-derived profile, but to break down much less abroptly than the latter after lose of thrust commences. Figure 10 shows fan overplot of the thrust breakdown curves for the low-drag- profile design over that: or the 5-bladed propeller selected. There ‘was much conjecture at the time as to which of the two types of characteristics would have the lesser tendency to cavitate when the propeller blade passes through the narrow belt of higher wake directly downstream of the bossing (or strut). Figure 11 shows the variation in longitudinal component in wake around the pe- riphery of the propeller orbit at 0.64 radius and at the tip, 28 determined by a wake survey made in the plane of the propeller on the model, and also the transverse wake vectors. Figure 12 is e photograph of the afterbody of the ship in dry dock, showing the propellers in place, and Fig. 13 is a photograph of one of the 5-biaded propellers in the shop after being removed from the ship after a year’s service. ‘The last self-propulsion test that was run for the United States was in April 1950, and the shp and rpm curves estimated from ‘that test, and based upon the ehp curves presented in Fig. 3, are presented in Fig. 14. Again, the curves for the design displace. ment, 45 400 tons, are based upon the measured values, using smean of thrust and torque identity, and the curve for the average trial displacement, 40 000 tons, is estimated from the former. ‘These curves indicate that at maximum po' Pes wer the ship might be. expected to makea speed of about $7.3 knots atthe design dis- placement, and 37.9 knots at the trial displacement. ‘Table 2 gives the wake, thrust deduction, relative rotative ef- ficiency, advance coefficients, thrust coefficients and other data corresponding to the cusves shown in Fig. 14. In spite of the wealth of model test data which have been briefly summarized herein, and the exhaustive analysis that had been carried out to assure satisfactory performance at these powers and speeds, those closely involved with the design ap- proached the cea trials with some apprehension since the ship represented a substantial step beyond anything that had been undertaken before on such a large scale. 130 Sea trial standardization When the United States put out to sea on May 14, 1952, for ‘the builder’s sea trial off the Virginia Capes, extensive prepara- tions had been made for a precise measurement of ship speed for standardization purposes using a new electronic tracking system of extraordinary accuracy called Raydist, This continuous wave high-frequency system was short range and required the setting of a slave unit in a specially designed buoy having e depth in the ‘water equal to the keel draft of the ship, and with as little exposed surface as possible above the water to minimize the effect of wind on the drift of the buoy. By making speed runs directly on a range oriented toward and away from the buoy in water of a depth of 1000 fathoms or more, it was hoped to get the most accurate speed ‘measurements ever made off soundings on a ship for the stan- dardization. This Raydist aystem was extensively described in 1952 in a paper before the Society (7). As the ship steamed out from Hampton Roads on the after- noon of the 14th, the weather was perfect and the sea calra;ren- dezvous was made with the Coast Guard buoy tender that was to set the buoys (two were used in case an electronic failure was ‘experienced on one), and experimental runs at low speed were made with the buoys still on deck of the buoy tender with great success and everything looked perfect for the following day. Dawn of the 15th broke on a fresh gale that had sprung up during the night and was blowing 25 to 35 knots, causing sharp choppy seas, that made the launching of the Raydist buoys a major feat of seamanship by the officers and erew of the buoy tender, Conifer. ‘They were indeed launched successfully without damage, and the decision was made to proceed with the speed trials in spite of the rough seas and the fact that the wind freshened and ‘reached full gale proportions of 45 knots at times during the speed rans. The average wind speed during the Raydist trials was es timated to be about 39 knots, and the seas were quite choppy, but no serious ground swell had had time to build up. The relative ‘wind speed on the ship at times reached as high as 76 to 78 knots, blowing away several of the Raydist whip antennae. Asa matter of side interest, it occurred to the author during the time that arrangements were being made for Ray'dist that the Conifer would provide a unique opportunity for photographing the United States at high speeds in the open sea, hence ar- rangements were made for the veteran photographer from the ‘Mariners Museum at Newport News, W. T. Radcliffe, to be a board with his cameras during the builder's trial. The buoy tender was less than an ideal platform with the gale conditions that prevailed, however, since at the height of the storm the tender rolled very heavily, ga much e0 that the job of tending the bacys put the superb seainanship of the USCG officers and crew to a severe test. Radcliffe deserves a special medal for sticking to his job in spite of mal de mer and obtaining a splendid series of photographs of the United States moving at 34 knots or better through the rough seas, high and dry, and little affected by the sea and wind conditions. These photographs (see frontiepiece, for example), during the next year or 20, were widely published in practically every marine journal in the world, and did much to enhance the reputation of the vessel. ‘The original intention on the builder's trial was to establish seven speed points from approximately 15 knots up to maximum, power. As the main machinery plant was gradually brought. up to power, however, it developed that several high-speed reduction gear bearings exhibited higher than expected temperature rise, indicating that the bearing clearances were perhaps too tight on those bearings, and dictating that it would be wiser not to push the machinery higher than the 34 knot run on the builder's trial, and not until the machinery was opened for inspection back at the shipyard. This was a wise decision since subseauent inspec- tion of the bearings in question indicated that some wiping had occurred, and that the clearances had to be corrected and in- (text continued on poge 137) MARINE TECHNOLOGYSumesp (pepeIc-») psEOAINO $a MARINE TECHNOLOGY5190) sojadord wow sonsi.eaereyo soyadoud JoreM-uedo 9 B14 5159} Jouuny uojeABO wos} 1oj}edoud popeig-s jo sojsto.oeFEYO UONeUAED JO\IEdos 2 “Bld 103 APRIL, 1978Fig. 8 Photographs of tne §-biaded propeller in cavitation tunnel at three progressive decreasing values of the cavtation index (a), (b) and (c). Cavitation ‘on Mods Propeller 3126 (Troset sections). True slip = 25 percent, David Taylor Model Basin, 6 Janvary 1950. T+ propeller ehrust, tos p= state subm, ¢ aun, pressure, Tbs/fe® fy projected ares, prop. e = vapor presture of ater, 8 a. 1.0 0.9 Tamust tne 0.8 Thy on FO 8 0.8 0.5 04 2.3 loz on 0.22 0.24 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.28 0,26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.38 TRUE SUF, S (5 BLADED InpoARD pROPELLERS) Fig. 8 Cavitation tunnel test results compared with cavitation thrust index for the United States 734 MARINE TECHNOLOGYFig. 12 Photograph of the atterbody of the ship in dry dock with ‘propellers in place i ‘su bara. . — E ere oe rast a oe B | Bhar: noe Beeline a se . { ww 16; = SWMET HORSE PONER : Tora Wis EB ‘speeD ow KnOTS Fig. 14 Selt-propulsion test results for the SS United States | srIuTED FROM PROPULSION TESTS OF 1/47 scALR LIES HooEL ‘280 PROPELLER MODELS 317506,7.8; CONDUCTED BY DAVID TAYLOR | Moet asin, Apait 6, 1980, USING ScHOEINERR FaIcTION "FORMLA OMSHNESS ALLOWANCE AC BwoRseroer in Tuousmnns 3Table 2 Analysis of seltpropulcion test results for displacement = 45 400 tons; AG, = 0.9001 Sate | HESCTIVE Tresismuce | raucr | sunust | waxe reaction beers o apv cres)| erorssuen sezeo Seem | roascem, | "Sizas) | oepvcrrow | “als! Trwmo- | curso amsp. | ooreo. | car | ters) joe 173,090, 1,482,503 O12 1,684,663, 0.068 | 56.8 s9.e~ | 196.2 [3.27 ge | azeraes | Alaasiass | ola | alzsp)202 clove | Seaue | Se.zee | 1799 |2C39a 3 921230, a3 | 2laasia? oleae | $2.40. | Saces2 | 165.7 Jaina 2 3Hieoo 260,008 olor | de.avs | aise | asers [a's9s % sosa7 Salaas | oles | oles | asize" | 491022 | aeals [2.40667 2 Seles o1ita | 01026 | 39.00 | dolee. | 23.0 2.050, | isis? ote | 01070 | 29.93 | fi Fene [ aovance cour “TRUST PER SaAPT FROM sare, | aovance coer. 3 oPey UAEER PROPULSION CLIVE - isers) | “nao. | oom, Teo cum. [iome, @ | (5 815.) | (4 aS.) xe | e.s6s | tons aae.ace | aas,s76 | a.cee,é76 | 0.278 | 0.2775 xe | Yoga | oem | alia | olive | 3asrsoa | Lselsee | olasto | ol2e2s | as | tom” | reer | otis | clieas | asoless | Loteleaa | 0.2979 | 0.2510 3 | lor J lense [oss | Slaseo | assoc 69/200 | 0.325 | 012420 x | Lem | reeste | oitss | oiisie | leaizas | lesitae | teesses | clases | o-2575 ze | aloses | altos” | eases | oliees | ase.ase | 124.980 | sosveis | 0-2250 | 0.2265 ge | Aleesa | ilitee | oteoa | oi1ace | “Seldon | “Gales | aez.s20 | ol2aio | o.2iss six | meucive | cORECTEO pm, arr Por. SFFICIBNCY, porns sPeED | ROTATIVE COEF. Ky, HORSEPOWER 2p suk CORP ens) | EPFL Teo. |_ ovrwe. | weo. | ound. ‘woo. [oorso aver. |" F%- | pac, 7 0.07 | 0.2030 | 0.2000 68,266 0.625 | o.6e1 [o.07 | o.a309 | 0.037 36 olar7 | oae0” | 02087 aras9 oiee2 | oveee [orcas | ocazei | o.e00 a eiseo | slane | 0.2561 38.837 | oleer | oleee [oreo \olaas0 | olets a 1980 | o.aira | ovaee9 38.80 lees | L695 foleso |e.aaa” | 01650 3o eae, | 912352 | 0.24235 23/008 01695 | 0.895 [o.6as |o.sea | 0.657 2 olaes | oca2e3 | ola30e 13iss3 oleae | olsss Jolese | 0.960 | oleee Ey 0960 | 0.2285 | 0-220 3/08 oleae | oveso forces |olo7s | olere (ext continued from page 120) creased. Thus only five of the standardization points were gotten on the builder's trial, and the two highest speed points were left to be completed on the official trial ‘The official trial of the United States was completed on June 9 and 10, 1952, and weather conditions were much more favorable for speed measurement thar on the builder's trial, with wind velocities of about 20 knots and moderate sees. During the builders trial the possible use of Loran to measure ship speed was investigated and compared with Raydist, and it was determined ‘that by running rmuch longer legs for the standardization, namely about 40 miles for Loran in lieu of the 4 miles run for Raydist, satisfactory accuracy could be obtained from Loran for the two remaining high-speed points. The trial board concurred with this procedure, and the rather elaborate process of making rendezvous with a buoy tender and of setting and mothering the Raydist buoys was not repeated for the official trial. ‘The technique utilized in running the high-speed runs with Loran involved making alternate 40 mile runs back and forth along the base line of the two Loran stations transmitting one pair of hyperbolic lines, in this case the Nantucket-Hatteras base line which lies about 150 miles off the Virginia Capes and in 1000 fathoms or better of water. The ship’s speed was to be obtained by observing the time intervals for the vessel to cut the one set cof Loran lines at right angles, hence an automatic Loran recorder ‘was borrowed from the Coast Guard and connected to a contin- uuously indicating Loran receiver together with an accurate time standard. From the record thus obtained, the Loran line inter- sections were plotted against time and the average speed deter- mined from the slope of that plot using root-mean-square aver- ‘aging. In one or two runs the flat portion of the curve was less than the 40 miles run for one reason or another, and the flat portion \was assumed correct as in the case of Raydist, but in no-case was it ess than 30 miles. With this method of using Loren, the accu- racy attained was believed to better than x percent, or ap- proximately +0.1 knot, which, while not consonant with the ac- curacy to one-hundredth of a knot objective of measured-mile standardizations in protected waters, is realistic in relation to the variations in ship's speed to be expected in an off-soundings, offshore trial of the sort described here. In this manner, therefore, the final two high-speed standard ization points were determined, and a top speed of 38.32 knots, established for the vessel while developing 241 785 total shaft horsepower, and at the trial displacement. Figure 15 is a plot of the standardization results, together with the shp curve as esti- ‘mated from the model tests as shown in Fig. 14 for comparison. Prom this it can be seen that there is good correlation between ‘the measured results and model tests, with a good indication that, the vessel drove slightly easier than the model test predicted, ‘making about ¥, knot more speed than anticipated at the higher speeds, and apparently suffering a speed loss of approximately %h knot due to the gale force winds and steep seas encountered at the lower (Raydist) speeds measured on the builder's trial. Willian Francis Gibbs was happy. The vessel had exceeded his expectations in most every respect, and he was ready to take on anyone who wished to challenge for the speed supremacy of the North Atlantic passenger trade. Coramodore Harry Manning was almost happy. Being a per- fectionist by nature where ships are concerned, he was not en- tirely satisfied by the offical trial maneuvers, turning circles, stopping and backing tests, ete. Fortunately, the trials were completed several hours ahead of schedule, which left a slack of about two hours before the ship could enter the restricted channels inside the Chesapeake Light Vessel. Manning spent those two hours trying every likely combination in his repertoire of engine order and rudder angle, reminiscent of a professional fishing captain trying out a new 50-ft sport fisherman to learn its responses. Finally, he too was satisfied, not only that he un- derstood the ship, but also that she was a thoroughbred in all respects.‘STANDARDIZATION CURVES FOR 5, UNITED STATES —O— wmness vara. - sar as, 9 kaos wise A= ortetaL rasa = sows 910.1952, 39,900 7. o1sPEe, 20 SE IND 15.48 236 aes 72.60 10618, 13.07 3053 ea Sea} ets 98s 36.01 192.88 16s, Selde enca? 2a é 5 PROPELLER REM 8 at "ib 2 2 th 26 SPEED th BuribeRs TIAL 1952, 40,450 1. DESrt., yo. prors. “2 wo sues § BteteR 18,00" Pion .7R 25.75" 24.45! sv anak” 250\fe2 228 te2 003 i 298 an resco? HORSEPOWER IN THOUSANDS 819 788 260, 240 220 200 10 360 40 120 ‘WORSEPOKER 100 eo 0 20 2 vor oe Me Fig. 15 Comparison of sas tral standardization results with selt-propuistion test Initial service experience Although the sea trials, conducted as they were under rigorous offshore conditions, gave season for optimism for the success of the ship, the final proof had to lie in the service performance of the vessel. After the final finishing touches had been completed at the shipyard, and a delivery trip to New York marked by the tumultuous reception accorded the vessel by the port of New ‘York upon her arrival there, the United States began service with a gala maiden voyage begun appropriately on July 3, 1952, and made colorful by the celebrities aboard. Eastbound, the crossing from Ambrose Light to Bishop Rock was completed in 3 days, 10 hhours and 40 minutes for a mean speed of 25.59 knots, and on the return voyage westbound, opposing the Gulf Stream current, in 3 days, 12 hours, and 12 minutes for a mean speed of 34.51 knots, ‘The average for the 5850+ mile round trip was thus 35.05 knots, a record that has yet to be challenged. During this voyage the machinery plant was operated at approximately its so-called ‘merchant rating, or about two thirds power, and the performance of the vessel was most satisfactory both as regards hull and ma- chinery, the absence of disturbing vibration, and the general 198 comfort at sea for the passengers. The ship then settled down t hher scheduled sailings in such routine fashion that Gibbs was abl tosay in a speech in October 1953 that her propeller shafts “have never been stopped in the fifteen months (of her service) by reason of e mechanical detangement, nor has the ship been minute late sailing because of any mechanical defect.” The United States became a familiar sight at the Newpor ‘News shipyard, where she came during the Christmas season fo her annual drydocking and overhaul at the low point in the ‘transatlantic passenger trade, Her back-lighted red funnels and brightly lighted deckhouses provided a colorful seasonal deco tation for the shipyard. During these annual overhauls, thé propellers were removed and replaced by an alternate set, whic had served during the preceding year’s operation, and the re moved propellers would be put through the shop to repair the moderate cavitation erosion which hed taken place, and to repai nicks and other minor damage. One perplexing factor requiring periodic correction during such propeller overhaul was a tendency of the long slender trailing edge of the propellers at the outer radi ‘towards the tip to curl slightly in a manner which increased a bit the camber of the trailing edge, and which was opposite to th MARINE TECHNOLOGYpressural loading on the blade during ahead operation. It was initially concluded that such curling was likely caused by me- chanical impact from debris, broken pilings, etc., when the vessel ‘was being backed down vigorously in the several harbors in which, she had to maneuver, and at a later date, December 1958 to be ‘exact, a design was prepared for a new set of propellers by Gibbs and Cox which altered and beefed-up the trailing edge thickness ‘of the outer sections of the propellers. These were placed on the ship in the 1959 overhaul, and subsequently proved to be more resistful to such trailing-edge damage. Subsequent investigations would suggest that the curling of the trailing edges was instead due to the effects of the cavitation experienced on these propel- lers. More specifically the bent edges are considered to be the result of plastic deformation of the blade edges caused by the ‘cumulative impact loads due to the collapse of cavitation bubbles on the blade edges. This phenomenon, that is, the erosion and bending of the trailing edges, as discussed in references [8, 9], is not uncommon and the resultant damage described in these two references is identical to that observed on the United States propellers. Reference [9] notes that the phenomenon can be simulated on model propellers in cavitation tunnels. Gne hydrodynamic factor which required correction on the United States was noted on the sea trials when it was found by going down into the chain locker in close proximity to the stem eutwater that a very high decibel noise due to cavitation was being generated, apparently by the stem slicing into the sea at high speeds, The noise was no problem since it was remote from any habitable areas, but on the annual drydockings it was found that rather severe erosion caused by this cavitation occurred on several ship plates immediately contiguous to the stem in the cutwater area, which could be repaired satisfactorily by the application of a special epoxy, but which was certainly not desirable. Dis- cussion with U.S. Nevy hydrodynamics experts revealed that they +had encountered the same thing, and had cured it by more careful nose profiling of the forward edge of the stem (which on the United States had been finished to a semicircular shape). This rather minor alteration was subsequently made on the ship during routine overhaul, and the cavitation greatly ameliorat- ed. ‘A longer-term service factor which should be mentioned relates to 2 complaint by the operators that the vessel was not coming back to her original performance after about five or six years of drydockings, but that the fuel consumption was gradually creeping up each year to maintain the established propeller rpm schedule to which they operated. The shipyard design engineers, with some difficulty, persuaded the operators that the cause was 1 gradual increase in roughness due to the gradual accumulation ‘of bottom paint thickness, and recommended that the ship's bottom be sandblasted down to the bare metal to put the ship ‘back where she belonged resistance-wise. This was done on the next overhaul, and the economy of the ship was restored very close to its original values. The specific fuel consumption rate for the ship at its merchant rating of 158 000 shp incidentally, was 0.507 Ib per shaft horsepower-hour at the time of trials, which corresponds to a fuel consumption of about 859 tons per day at that horsepower, which should produce a speed of almost 35 knots with the bottom clean, and with design displacement of 45 400 tons. With the ship’s bunker capacity of 10 806 tons, this gives an endurance of about 12 days at that speed, which corresponds toa range of approximately 10 000 nautical miles. References 1. Robinson, Bil, Legendary Yacht, Macmillan, New Yark, 1971, 2. Braynard, Frank ., By Their Works Ye Shall Know Them, the Life and Ships of William Francis Gibbs, privately printed, 1968. ‘3. Boylston, J. W., DeKoff, D. J., and Muntjewerf, J. 4 "SL-? Con, tsinerships: Design, Construction, and Operational Experience,” SNAMB, Vol. 82, 1974. “#4 Warren, Glenn B,, “Development af Steam Turbines for Main Propulsion of High-Powered Combatant Ships,” Trans. SNAME, Vol. 54, 1048. 5 Kane, J. R., and McGoldrick, R, T., “Longitudinal Vibrations of Marine Propulsion Salting System.” Trans. GNAME, Vol: 5.1048, 6 Lewis, Frank M,, and Yachmind)i, Alexander J. “Propeiler Forces Exciting Mull Vibration,” Trans. SNAME, Vol. 62, 1954. 7 Comstock, J.P., and Hastings, C. E, "Raydist Speed-Measuriny Equipment on the S.S. United States Sea'trials,” Trans. SNAME, Vol 60,1953. '8 Van Manen, J. D, “Bent Trailing Edges of Propeller Blades of High Powered Single Sexe Ships," International Shipbalding Progress, Jan. 1983 9 Sasajima, Takao, “Simulation of Bent Trailing Rage of Propellers by Shot Blasting." Japan Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering, Vol 1, No. 1, 1975, = This reference was presented by a General Electric author (and SNAME Taylor Medallist) while the turbine machinery of the United States was built by Westinghouse. The article referred, however, is be- lieved to present the best deseription available of the development of this high-performance (ype of machinery in World War IL Discussion Robert T, Young, Member ‘This excellent paper will be a fine historical record of a grand ship. The paper is very interesting and contains valuable infor- mation which is still applicable today. ‘The author mentions that the trailing edge of the propeller blades suffered cavitation damage. The modern practice for such blades is to truncate the trailing edge as shown in Fig. 16. This EF _$KDKWS Fig. 16 Results from model basin ‘truncation gives the cavitation vorticies @ positive means of cleanly separating from the blade. In view of the rising costs of fuel, a comparison of the vessels, mentioned in the paper on the basis of ton-mile/Ib fuel would be helpful. This is one of the present methods of measuring the ef- ficiency of hull form. If we assume that the specific fuel con- APRIL 1978 sumption of 0.5 lb/shp-br can be applied to these ships, and the design draft displacement is used, the following comparisons can be drawn at speeds comparable to merchant ship rated shp. United tween Stotes France Mary = SL-7 Displacement, tone* 45400 51815 77400 43.000 shp 158000 160000 158000 120.000 Ibo fuelhhr 79.000 80.000 79000 80000, Speed, knots B47 3523284 BB fon-mile/Ib of fuel 1974 = a9 BIT 28.93, Ita more equitable base of comparison is used, say at 120 000 shp, the ton-mile/lb of fuel is: United Queen States France Mary = SL-7 Displacement, tons 45400 51815 77400 43.000 hp. 120.000 120.000 120.000 130.000 Ab of fuel/hr 60000 60.000 60.000 80.000, Speed kote 3144 31.98 2908 3.4 ‘on-maile/ib of fuel 2379 «2762-3865 22.93 ¥ Speed and displacement data were taken from publications and may not be truly representative, as the sea triale of France and Queen Mary ‘may have occurred at extreme light displacements, 139Although these comparisons are interesting from a 1970's point of view, the United States was designed at a time when national pride was based on speed rather than fuel efficiency. As ptoof of the old adage that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” itis interesting to note that when Compagnie Gen- erale Transatlantique (French Line) were working on the early designs of the France, they made a very careful study of the United States, using what information was available at the time and also some ingenious methods of their own, They had several of their naval architects and engineers ride the United States, also they checked her fuel consumption by carefully monitoring her bunkering operations in New York Harbor on each trip for several trips. Thave made a total of five transatlantic voyages on the United ‘States and can personally attest to her seakeeping qualities. As stated in the paper, the use of aluminum for the superstructure ‘was certainly of great benefit in this respect. My first trip on the ship was about a year efter she was in service and there was on board a team of shipfitters from the shipyard who were gunning the connections between the aluminum and steel which had been ‘causing some trouble, This work was apparently successful be- ‘cause, a8 far as T know, no further difficulty in that respect was experienced. ‘The design, building, and operation of the United States was great achievement, and this paper will stand as a memorial to a fine ship. Nicholas Bachko, Member Mr. Kane's discussion of the design and engineering aspects of producing the world’s fastest commercial seagoing vessel is fascinating in the information contained and classically perfect as an engineering paper. Itis also long overdue, Had William Francis Gibbs not invoked unparalleled secrecy, much mote would be known today about the absorption of high levels of power by ship's propellers. As it is, we are not much further along than we were 25 years ago as to loading propellers to more than 45000 shp. The first set of manganese-bronze propellers on the SS United States was deeply cavitated in concentrated areas. We were all of the opinion that this damage had occurred mainly on the 242 000-shp trial runs, although 17 ‘years of service proved that cavitation damage up to one inch and a fraction did occur in normal service over years of operation. Normal service rarely required more than 35006 shp per shaft, Tdo not wish to get into discussions about the relative quietness of various areas on the United States. Those who traveled and worked in the general passenger areas thought the vessel almost too quiet. The utter absence of background noise accentuated even small sounds. The complaints from oversensitive people were that they heard neighbors running water in their bathrooms or the coat hangers were banging in the lockers. But back in the B Deck rooms directly in line with the forward propellers, both crew and passengers were driven out of their quarters. In fact, we installed sound insulation averaging 18 in. thick between linings and hull and converted the passenger spaces to purser’s quar- ters, To this day, Bob Blackwell, who worked his way through law school as part-time purser on the United States, remembers the noise in those quarters. In the area of automation, the United States was, by present-day standards, sadly deficient. Manpower was used lavishly and this fact largely contributed to her economic demise, In the area of fuel conservation, no effort had been raade in design and none followed in operation. Fuel was less than two dollars ‘per berrel. The concern was with getting selected low-ash fuel and not with the consumption. ‘There were siz generators with enough capacity to supply power to the city of Portland, Maine, and no one bothered to be austere as to power consumption. The air-conditioning units ran 140 full blast with most doors wide open to the outside. Lights blazed day and night in all public spaces. Accordingly, the hotel load was far more than marine designers and marine engineers contemplated. Overall fuel consumption in the last 2% years of operation, Voyages 341 to 400, is a good example of the variance between design and operation. ‘Taking only the long runs between pilot stations and elimi- nating all short legs and pilot-to-dock operation, the following records obtain: ‘Tons of ‘Tons/ Year Voyages Miles «Fuel = Mile 1967, partial year 16 96556 S748 0.81 1868) 23 139247 127886099 1968, to layup a 124615 114960092 During this period, we average 30.5 knots in 1967 and 1968, and 30.05 kenots in 1969. ‘The vessel generally departed at a mean draft of about 30 ft, corresponding to approximately 43 500 tons displacement. She arsived on return about 7500 tons lighter at about 26 ft in draft. ‘The round trip mean was about 28 ft, or very close to the 40.000 tons used in the speed-power curves. From the readings taken aboard the vessel, we know that we required approximately 200,000 shp to carry out our schedule shen we were fresh out of the dry dock, and about 130 000 shp when we were due to go into dock a year later. Because our hotel load was higher than estimated, the 100 000-shp heat balance specific rate of 0.5291 Ib per shp-hr is considered too low. Ac- cordingly, if we use 115 000 shp on average in actual use to obtain 30.5 knots, and a 2 percent increase in the specific rate to cover the increased load, the computed fuel burned per mile is 0.909 tons per mile, which correlates quite well with the data for the last three years of operation. Tn closing, itis pointed out that speed, in itself, is not a uni- versal panacea for those in ocean transportation. The fast ship is not a giant vacuum cleaner which sweeps up all cargo. Caution is necessary in cargo ship design to avoid the pitfalls of sweeping generalizations. The SL-7's are operating today at substantially reduced speeds to save the heavy consumption of $12.00 per barrel fuel. But the operators of these vessels have discovered that the geographical arrangement of this planet is such that the trade routes fall into fixed relationships. In the North Atlantic, two vessels at 32 knots, three vessels at 23 knots, ot four vessels at 16 knots provide weekly sailings. Similar relationships are true in the Pacific. The shipper does nat hold cargo for a faster ship, but for ships, more likely than not, on a given day every week. A regular shipper is on a full pipeline principle, and not. on & warehousing concept. In any event, » 23-knot ship on a long- voyage service can always beat the 26-knot or 32-knot vessel on elapsed time from at least one major port if the voyage includes a series of calls Foreign, which is inherently the pattern for a very large vessel incapable of filling up at one or two ports of call Warren G. Leback, Member ‘This paper provides the design criteria and trial data of the United States which might otherwise be lost as the years pass. twill certainly assist young naval architects in their research and in guiding their own theories. Also, the paper correlates data which heretofore have been presented in bits and pieces, as well as setting straight the many rumors that still persist today about the speed of the United States. After reading the paper several times, I regard it not only 28 an excellent technical report, but just 2s importantly, as an in- sight into the principles of the designer who was the driving force dehind the project, William Francis Gibbs. I was privileged to have been involved in both the design of two Gibbs & Cox vessels and the operation of four. These vessels had the characteristics MARINE TECHNOLOGYstruts, we believe that the bossings have marginal value in re- ducing squatting and pitching at high speeds. Although bossings provide adiditional protection for the shafts, they will, in general, hhave higher resistance because of the added wetted surface. Aslong as any of us that helped to design, build, or operate the United States are around, we will always be ready to reminisce about the last and the greatest of transatlantic paceenger ships. Ludwig ©. Hoffman, Member ‘The paper vividly reconstructs the story of the ship's design development, trials, and performance. It has great historical significance especially since the future of the S$ United States isin doubt. As former head of the Maritime Administration's field in- spection office, the paper is of special interest to me as well as to the many shipyard and manufacturers’ engineers who contrib- uted to the adventure. It was a highlight in my career. I remember the efforts made by the French shipyard engineers to obtain design information on the United States for use in designing the France. William Francis prevailed. All io little eredit is given to the skill and enthusiasm provided by the shipyard staff and workmen in meeting the many design and quality control standards. It is also interesting to note that despite the many firsts in the severe design and construction process, the yard made a modest profit, More remarkable was the absence of shipbuilding claims involving Newport News, the United States Lines, and the Maritime Administration, We are all prone to forget our past successes and high work ethics. Author's Closure ‘The author greatly appreciates the informative discussions of his paper by the well-known authorities who were so kind as to take the trouble. The only regret he has is that this publication is posthumous insofar as William Francis Gibbs is concerned, ‘since his comments, in his unique and succinet eloeutionary style, would have been a cclorful addition indeed. Messrs, Robert Young and Nicholas Bachko both refer to cavitation aftereffects which occurred on the original manga- nese-bronze propellers of the ship. At the time, it was thought that the results were quite good as compared to other high-speed passenger liners, since the propellers could be operated for an entite year and then repaired by the shipyard for a subsequent alternate year’s service. Sines then, we have learned to make propellers much better, and, in fact, the new propellere made in 1959 and referred to in the paper were better. They were made of nickel-aluminum-bronze, which is more resistful to cavitation, and they were finished more precisely as regards shape and fairness. The original propellers were finished by chipping and grinding to propeller pitchometer and caliper measurements, and checked by the use of stiff splines to obtain the designated thicknesses, whereas the propellers of 1959 were finished by the ‘use of sheet“metal cylindrical, tip, and edge gages, in what is now usually referred to as Navy finish. The scarfed-edge detail re- ferred to by Mr. Young was just being investigated at that time asd was considered more a preventative of propeller blade singing, which was not a prablem on the United States, and it was not used on either set of propellers. The trailing-edge thicknesses of the 1959 propellers were made greater than on the original design, and the slight curling of the trailing edges, which can be seen in Fig. 13 of the paper, was never a problem after that. ‘Wir. Young’s tables showing toa-miles per pound of fuel are interesting and illustrate in another manner the point made in ‘the paper, namely, that it took all the steam-yacht and naval-ahip design experience of Mr. Gibbs to provide in the United States at 45 400-tons displacement, the approximate equivalence in 182 passenger capacity and comfort of the Queen Mary, which hac a displacement of 77 400 tone. ‘Mr. Bachko's remarks on the service experience with the ship are most illuminating, particularly since they relate to the per formance after 15 years of service, which indicates that the vesse ‘was holding up pretty well. It was hoped that Mr. Bachko woule include the yearly speed averages from pilot station to pilot sta- tion for the Siest several years, during which the vessel averaged if the author's recollection is correct, somewhat better than 31 knots despite North Alantic winter weather, storms, and the like. ‘Mr. Bachko's remarks about the propeller noise in certain F Deck staterooms in line with the forward propellers brings tc mind a statement made by Captain Harold E. Saunders soor after he made a passage in the ship in its first year and drew < cabin in that area of B Deck. The noise, he said, which he likenec to the clickety-clack of the wheels on the rails of a Pullman car annoyed some people but lulled hitn to sleep when he hit the bunk in great style, ‘The author can take no issue with Mr. Bachko on his conclu- sions with respect to economics of high-speed cargo ships since the former has never been able to make an economic analysis come out right unless he knew the answer he was supposed to get in advance. Perhaps, however, high-speed commercial ships o the future had better be looking to uranium2** rather than to $1C per barrel fuel oil to raise steam, Captain Leback’s comments make reference to the fact that the paper gives some insight into the principles of the designer. Mr. Gibbs, which involved meticulous attention to the problems of hydrodynamics, ship’s structure, propulsion system design, vibration, seaworthiness, and seakindliness throughout the entire design phase, in addition of course to the other normal naval architectural responsibilities. The author could not agree with hhim snore, particularly so in the case of vessels of large power, and designed to operate at 25 to 30 knots or more. Captain Leback’s comments are especially appropriate since he was closely involved in a similar pioneering project himself in the recent 33-knot Si containerships. Tt s nice to have the approval of Gibbs & Cox, as expressed ir the discussion by Mr. Hadley, to the effect that the paper pre- sents a well-balanced treatment of the subject matter covered Mr, Bachman, in particular, worked closely with the author i the vibratory analyses made for the propulsion system and the ship, a8 well asin the propeller selection and design. For example an elaborate plexiglass model was made of the main engine foundations and the inner bottora structure of the ship in way of the machinery spaces in the Gibbs & Cox model shop to verify the constants used in the analysis of vibratory criticals, and t assure the best location and support for the main thrust bearing for the ship. Space did not permit treatment of such impertan design studies in the paper. ‘The author concurs with the general comments of Mr. Henry with regards to bulbous bows and struts versus bossings, but takes ‘exception to his comparison of the relative total resistance of the United States versus the SL-7 containerships as interpreted from Fig. 2 of the paper. Since, as pointed out by Mr. Bachko in his discussion of the service results for several years’ operation of the vessel, the United States seldom operated at full design dis placement, but ran much closer to the 40.000 ton trial displace: ment shown on the curves, the author believes the appropriate question to ask is, how does the total resistance of the United ‘States compare with that of the SL-7 ships at a comparable op- erating condition for the latter, say 33 knots speed and 43 000- tons displacement? This speed and displacement gives a value for V/AV® of 5.575 or a ® of 3.25. The comparative ehp values can then be determined from the © coefficient read from Fig. 2 for the two designs, or, for those not disposed to strugele with the exponential numbers in the © versus ®) plot, the ehp values can be read directly from the chp curves. From Table 3 of reference MARINE TECHNOLOGY