Propulsion System for a Wing-in-ground effect model

Submitted by: Toh Boon Whye

Department of Mechanical Engineering

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering National University of Singapore

Session 2004 / 2005

Summary

The main aim of this project is to design and build a small scale Wing-in-surface effect hull model that gives minimal water resistance and further integrates a suitable propulsion system to demonstrate the phenomenon of ground effect. This project sparked off initially as an industrial collaboration with a local company, The Wigetworks Pte Ltd, who had plans to commercialize real Wing-inground craft in Singapore. As this special marine craft has lots of potential research, the interest conceived a project team of 4 members to design and build a WIG scaled-model from scratch, involving not just textbook theory but the application of engineering knowledge as well. All existing WIG crafts are huge and nobody in Singapore has successfully designed and flew a truly small-scale WIG craft. It is this project that has taken up the challenge in spearheading the first-ever successful flight of its kind.

This Project started in August 2004 and over a period of 9 months there has been numerous testing and troubleshooting. The hull design commenced from day one of the project as it involves painstaking work: from designing on paper; calculation of its many characteristics; building it for tow tank experiment validation. It took 2 months to complete the hull, which was essential before any integration work can be done to complete the prototype. Propulsion is a critical element in flight design. In the sizing of the propulsion has been successful but it was not without its challenges. The weight of the model, costing and most

importantly getting the right motors and the cheapest ones to validate the concept of small scale WIG represent some of elements of real-life engineering. Getting the right propeller sizes to match the motor has been done as part of this project and likewise the theory, design and selection of different parts can all be justified with the flight test of the final prototype. At project level, the challenges became multi-disciplinary, where the hull and propulsion must integrate with the wing design, structure and stability control for the entire craft to demonstrate the concept.

Valuable experience has been gained when the project team presented on the works of this multi-disciplinary project at the Air Technology Seminar in February. It was a national level seminar organized by the Republic of Singapore Air Force.

The hull and propulsion design were successful. This thesis highlights the achievements of the project and has been divided into 2 portions: hull and propulsion. A short introduction covering existing WIG and seaplane hull design is followed by the analysis of the model hull and the propulsion system. A discussion of the results from the many flight tests that were conducted together with the other team members: Ng Geok Hean of AM90 specializing in wing design; Benedict Ng of AM91for the fabrication of the wings and Jonathan Quah of AM93 in charge of controls.

II

Acknowledgements

The Author would like to extend his gratitude to the following persons for the very important parts that they have played in the course of the project development.

A/P Gerard Leng Siew Bing, Project Supervisor, for initiating the project and giving direction as well as guidance throughout the course of the project;

Encik Ahmad Bin Kasa, Mr Cheng Kok Seng, Ms Amy Chee and Ms Priscilla Lee, staff of Dynamics and Vibrations Laboratory, for their invaluable support throughout the project;

Staff of Engineering Workshop 2 for their guidance on woodwork for the model hull construction;

And last but not least, Mr Tim Ming Boey and Mohd Thahir Jainulabidin from the Marine Technology Department of Ngee Ann Polytechnic, for their generosity and support in allowing the tow tank test to be conducted on the hull model.

III

Table of Contents

Summary Acknowledgement Contents List of Figures List of Tables List of symbols

I III IV VII VIII IX

Chapter 1- Introduction

Chapter 2 Theoretical calculations for analysis 2.1 Hull form and resistance analysis 2.1.1 Design of hull form 2.1.2 Calculation of hull form 2.1.3 Theoretical calculation of Hull resistance 2.2.1. Sizing of propulsion system 2.2.2 1st Prototype 2.2.3 2nd and final prototypes 3 3 5 8 10 10 12

Chapter 3 - Experimental Results and analysis 3.1 Tow Tank Experiment

15 15

IV

3.1.1 Towing tank test for the hull model 3.1.2 Test Procedure for towing tank 3.1.3 Resistance values from the test 3.1.4 Discussion on the tow test results 3.2 Propeller and motor thrust experiment 3.2.1 Engine test stand 3.2.2 Calibration of test rig 3.2.3 Test procedure for measuring thrust 3.2.4 Thrust readings

15 17 18 20 21 21 22 22 23

Chapter 4 - Flight test and observation 4.1 Testing of the integrated model 4.1.1 1st flight test with the 1st prototype 4.1.2 2nd prototype flight test 4.1.3 Final flight test

26 26 26 27 29

Chapter 5 Conclusion

32

Chapter 6 Recommendation

33

References

35

Annex A Propulsion theory

37

Annex B Resistance Theory Annex C Tabulation of hull readings Annex D Sample of the tabulated raw data logged during the towing tank experiment Annex E Tabulated data for Towing tank experiment (Lightship condition) Annex F Tabulated data for Towing tank experiment (with hull weight of 2kg) Annex G Tabulated raw data for propeller and thrust measurements Annex H Constructing the hull model

40 41

42 44

45

46 48

VI

List of figures
Figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A Lippisch WIG Power Augmentation Ram Wing The KM Lines plan of the hull model showing front and stern Station 8 transverse mid-ship section Speed 400 and Speed 500 motor Towing tank arrangement Hull model attached to the transducer Hull model undergoing test Resistance Vs Speed (No load/loaded condition) Engine test rig setup Types of propellers used for the test Thrust Vs Power of different propellers Project maiden flight Thrust beneath the wings at initial condition prototype showing attempt to enter into ground effect Modified hull to level with the wing Entire hull off the water surface and free of hydro-drag Model craft in ground effect Full ground effect flight demonstrated at MPSH Description Page no. 1 2 2 4 7 12 15 17 17 19 21 24 25 26 28 28 29 30 30 31

VII

List of Tables

Table 1 2 3 4

Description Tabulation of sectional areas Designed waterline areas Weight breakdown of 1st prototype Weight breakdown of final prototype

Page no. 5 6 10 13

VIII

List of Symbols

Symbol A a CF CM CD Cp CR, CT CT, prop CT, total D Dprop I K L M Mbl M0 p P

Description Area in m2 Inflow factor Frictional Coefficient of hull model Mid-ship Coefficient Coefficient of drag for wing Prismatic Coefficient of power Residual Coefficient of thrust Thrust coefficient for propeller Total Coefficient for resistance Diameter, m Diameter of propeller, m Current / A Amplification factor of test stand Length Mass, kg Reading of digital balance due to mass, kg Reading of digital balance at 0 position, kg Total pressure, Pa Power, watts

IX

RN RT S T Ttotal U V v V1 V2 W Vs V0 A w A W WL SM

Reynolds number Total Resistance of water Wetted surface Thrust, N Total thrust due to whole propeller system, N Tangential velocity m/s Flight speed/Design speed/velocity Voltage Velocity at propeller disk, m/s Velocity at outlet, m/s Weight of prototype, kg Velocity of propeller slipstream, m/s Mean velocity magnitude of propeller slipstream, m/s ISA or Standard Air Density at 1.2256kg/m3 Density of fresh water at 1000kg/m3 Kinematic viscosity of air at 1.714x10-5kgm-1s-1 Kinematic viscosity of water at 1.139 x 10-6 kgm-2s-1 Waterline Simpsons Multiple

Chapter 1 Introduction

The phenomenon of wing-in-ground (WIG) effect has been in existence for the last hundred years ever since the first airplane was invented. Most pilots in the past regarded it as nothing more than a nuisance that changed the flying characteristics of their aircraft during takeoff and landing. Only in the last few decades1 that there have been efforts to conceptualize it as an application, chiefly by Russia, Germany and Japan in producing a new class of highly efficient, high-speed low altitude flying vehicle of what is termed now as the Wing-in-ground/surface craft or Ground effect machine (GEM).

The most successful WIG craft have been developed by the Russians and the largest WIG vehicle ever built is the Korabl Maket (KM), powered by 10 turbojet engines and weighed up to 540 tons2. An unconventional method which the Russian termed Power Augmentation Ram Wing3(PAR), thrust is intentionally deflected underneath the wing to create an initial cushion of air that rapidly raises the KM out of the water as compared to the moving through the water like the typical seaplane. The Germans on the other hand have 2 designs in contrast to the Russians: Lippisch and Tandem.

Fig. 1 A Lippisch WIG.

Propeller Wing

Fig. 2 - Concept of PAR.

Fig. 3 The KM.

Up to this date, all WIG crafts including those described above are huge. There have been no reports of WIG craft designed and built in small scale and this project has created the opportunity to validate and demonstrate the possibility of WIG craft in a rather small scale. In order to build a relatively small WIG craft, the hull and propulsion pose the following challenges:

a. b. c. d. e.

design of suitable WIG hull form that has low water resistance Selection of suitable propulsion size Fabrication of hull form for experimental testing Integration of propulsion system and hull as prototype craft Test flight of model

In the following chapters the justification works from designing to building the prototype and experimenting with the model the concept of small scale WIG model will be presented.

Chapter 2 Theoretical calculations for analysis

2.1 Hull form and resistance analysis

2.1.1 Design of hull form Based on the technical surveys4 for the design of hull model there have been at least 3 features that are essential to the seaplanes, which the WIG model can adopt. The hull form should be of a deep-V configuration5 to facilitate the craft in high speed. Next, dead-rise angles do not exceed 240; 150 for moderate waves and any lower would be suitable for flat water6. The third consideration would be the incorporation of a stepped hull7. Research has shown that such hull will result hull planning and assist in lifting off the water surface.

The length of the model has been decided by the project team to be a maximum of 1metre with further input from Control Part AM93 that a certain internal space is required for his control systems. A design is then conceptualized on drawing based on these inputs as well as the essential features. It has the following design elements: a. b. 1m length with maximum 50% of the hull in water A maximum beam of 0.1m. A wider beam will result in higher water resistance c. V-type hull of a dead-rise angle not more than 100

d.

Stepped hull at mid-body of the model

The design requirements have all been translated into the lines plan8 where fairing of the hull form has been done to form a simple, streamlined hull shape all for the purpose of constructing the physical model subsequently.

4a FIG. 4 Lines plan of the model showing front (4a) and stern (4b) of model hull.

4b

2.1.2 Calculation of Volume and hull coefficients Individual values of the hull lines were taken from the lines plan upon its completion to calculate essential hull characteristics such as volume, hull stability, CB, CP, etc., as well as translating them into coordinates that has been used by the Aerodynamics part (AM90) for CFD and Structural part (AM 91) for stress analysis respectively. A complete tabulation of the hull lines values can be found in Appendix C.

2 steps are required to calculate the volume. It includes summing the values of the lines plan values as a function of area f(a) in a particular axis, followed by summing of the area, which is a function of volume f(v) as shown below.
WL 0 1 1.5 2 Design WL Nose line 80 10 12 Area m2 0 0.0178 0.02529166 0.030416666 0.34749025 0.039975 0.0389375 0.035 0.01 SM 2 1 4 2 4 2 4 1 F(v) 0 0.0356 0.037937499 0.121666664 0.06949805 0.1599 0.077875 0.14 0.01 0.652477213 Levers 0 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 f(m) 0 0.0356 0.056090624 0.243333328 0.20849415 0.6396 0.389375 0.84 0.07 2.482493102

f (v )

f ( m)

Table 1 Tabulation of longitudinal sectional areas.

Both method make use of the mathematical tool known as the Simpsons multiple, based on the Basic Ship Theory9, to approximate the integration of the areas calculated and hence each value has above 5 decimal places to ensure accuracy in the final value. Spacing for each station is 0.12 and the total number of stations is 8. Thus, the interval h =

0.12 = 0.017142857 8 1

Using Simpsons formula, volume of the model =

1 xhx 3

f (v )

1 x 0.017142857 x 0.652477213 = 0.003728441m3 3

The density of the balsa wood, measured experimentally, = 130 kg/m3 Total weight of the hull = 0.00372844 x 130 = 0.48540kg or 485.40g The value subsequently validates with the actual weight of the model of 481g and is within acceptable error in similitude. A second calculation has been done with respect to the designed waterline mark, which the volume is required for calculating CB, CP and Cw.
WL 0 1 1.5 2 Design WL Area m2 0 0.0178 0.02529166 0.030416666 0.34749025 SM 2 1 4 2 F(v) 0 0.0356 0.037937499 0.121666664 0.06949805 0.278199021 Levers 0 1 1 2 3 f(m) 0 0.0356 0.056090624 0.243333328 0.20849415 0.6763627

f (v )

f ( m)

Table 2 Designed waterline areas. 6

h=

0.03 = 0.005 7 1 1 xhx 3

Volume of the model =

f (v )

1 x 0.005 x 0.278199021 = 0.000463665m3 3

Block Coefficient, CB =

Volume Length x beam x draft

= 0.31

0.000463665 0.5 x0.1x0.03

Coefficient of mid-ship section CM, can be derived by calculating the largest transverse mid-ship section in water. From the drawing below it falls on Station 8.

Station 8

FIG. 5 Station 8 of the transverse mid-ship section highlighted in red.

The area of the mid-ship section calculated = 0.0025 m3

Mid-ship section coefficient, CP =

Transverse midship area beam x draft

= 0.833

0.0025 0.1 x 0.03

Using the relation CB = CP X CM,

CP =

CB CM

0.31 = 0.372 0.833

In general, none of CB, CP and CM, should exceed 1. For CB, a coefficient of 0.45 represents a streamline hull; 0.8 to 0.9 is for a box-shape like hull with the highest resistance. The same can be said for CP whereas CM is usually ranging from 0.7 to 0.9 where largest transverse area of the hull is usually at mid-ship.

2.1.3 Theoretical calculation of Hull resistance Having obtained the basic values of the hull, the value of resistance can now be approximated. Based on the basic formula for drag from Fluid Mechanics, RT =

1 w x S x V2 x CTotal 2

Where CTotal = CF + CR + CA Given L = 0.5m, Cp = 0.372, = 1.139 x 10-6 m2/s, design speed = 10m/s

Reynolds number, RN =

10 x 0.5 VL = = 4389815.62 v 1.139 x 10 6

Using the International Tow Tank Convention 1957 model-ship correlation line9, where CF =

0.075 = 0.00347 (log10 RN 2) 2

The wetted surface S is estimated at 0.0152m2 based on Taylors method7 of using the mid-ship coefficient and the formula S=c(L)0.5, where c is a contour value. Then CT = CF + CR, where CR is derived from towing tank test and negligible in this approximation, Calculated RT =

1 x 1000 x 0.0152 x 102 x 0.00347 = 2.637 N 2

The value of resistance calculated here indicates that the hull design may prove to be acceptable in relation to its beam and hull form. As it is a new hull design, there has been no other similar model to compare with which also explains the neglecting of usually small term CR. To further validate the accuracy of the value, a towing experiment on the model hull has been carried out and is described in chapter 3. At this stage it represents a rough estimate of the amount of resistance that the model will encounter and is necessary as part of the propulsion sizing shall be described in the next section.

2.2.1. Sizing of propulsion system The components of thrust for the model consist of the weight of the model, the aerodynamic drag and the water resistance value. While the latter two components are predictable during design stage, the weight of the model represents more of uncertainty due to the available servo components, the motor and construction methods that can cause the model to become too heavy for flight. 2.2.2 1st Prototype The first prototype was completed in October 2004 with the following weight break down: Components Structural (Hull, wing and tail) Propulsion (PAR, top engine mount, propellers) Control and system components (servo, battery, speed controller and wires) Total mass 1.830 100 0.23 12.56 Mass in kg 1.3 0.3 % of total mass 72.22 16.39

Table 3 Weight breakdown of 1st prototype. From the above, the required power for Prototype 1 has been calculated and the wing has been sized by Aerodynamic part AM90 to give the

10

coefficient of drag, CD, for the wing as 0.028352 at the design air speed of 10m/s. CD is required as part of the thrust value, hence, Drag force on wing =

1 1 V22 S CD = x 1.2256 x 102 x 0.4 x 0.028352 2 2

= 0.69N

Weight of model in Newton = 1.830 x 9.81 = 17.95N Thus total thrust calculated = model weight + Drag force of wing + water resistance from tow test = 17.95 + 0.69 + 1.99 = 20.63 N Since the configuration of the model must have 3 propellers (2 for PAR and one for acceleration), it may be assumed that the total thrust is divided by three with same type of motor. Thus,

20.63 = 6.87 N 3

Now given T = 7.08 N, Design flight speed = 10 m/s and S = 0.0248m2, thus a + a2 =

6.87 = 0.5069; a = 0.37 2 x 1.2256 x 102 x 0.0248

The ideal efficiency is =

1 1.37

Useful power = TV, = 6.88 x 10 = 68.8W The theoretical power required per airscrew based on Froudes momentum theory10, P = 68.8 x 1.37 = 94.25W The power required is in the lower range and it is found that electric motor is feasible rather than the usual Internal Combustion engine, chiefly due to cost, weight and operability considerations. Upon narrowing down from the wide range of electric motors available, the Promax Speed 400 motor

11

based on its specification can supply a maximum power of 96W. It belongs to a class of cheapest, mid-range but powerful ferrite motor where a single piece is suitable for a model of up to 600g (according to manufacturer specification). Other ranges include Speed 300, 380, 500 and 600 but they are either too weak or too heavy to be used in terms of the motor weight and the number of cells required. A picture of both the Speed 400 and Speed 500 motor is shown below for comparison. 38mm

28mm

38mm

52mm

Speed 400

Speed 500

Fig 6. Speed 400 and Speed 500 motor. Note the difference is size. The weight of the Speed 500 is a staggering 56% more than Speed 400.

2.2.3 2nd and final prototypes To improve on the initial prototype the model weight can be brought down further because the initial construction method and consideration have left much excess material on the hull, wings and tail that can be removed or re-designed without compromising the structural integrity of the model.

12

Both the motor and wing size are kept but the material weight for both the hull and wing frames are reduced as much as possible. The final weight breakdown can be as follows: Components Structural (Hull, wing and tail) Propulsion (PAR, top engine mount, propellers) Control and system components (servo, battery, speed controller and wires) Total mass 1.49 100 0.324 21.74 Mass in kg 0.745 0.421 % of total mass 50 28.25

Table 4 Weight breakdown of final prototype.

Thus new total thrust = model weight + Drag force of wing + water resistance = 14.61 + 0.69 + 1.99 = 17.29 N Thrust required per airscrew =

17.29 = 5.76 N 3

With the following parameters, T = 5.76 N, V = 10 m/s and S = 0.0248m2, a + a2 =

5.76 = 0.4725; a = 0.35 2 x 1.2256 x 102 x 0.0248

The ideal efficiency is =

1 1.35

New useful power = TV, = 5.77 x 10 = 57.7W The new calculated power required per airscrew now is

13

P = 57.7 x 1.35 = 77.895W From the calculation it can be seen that the power required falls as the weight reduces and that removes the need for a larger motor and propeller. Should the weight remain the same a bigger motor may be required which means more cells and much bigger propellers are required, resulting in even heavier weight as well as affecting the other 3 fields of the projects undertaken by the rest of the project members. Hence it remains essential that the propulsion has not been re-sized and it remains as one of the last parameters that the project team would want to change.

The subsequent chapters on the experiment and flight test results will verify these theoretical calculations.

14

Chapter 3 Experimental Results and Analysis

3.1 Experiments

3.1.1 Towing tank test for the hull model The tow tank test conducted at the Marine Technological Department, Ngee Ann Polytechnic works on the principle of towing the model on a carriage through a 45m long tank at certain speeds. The transducer picks up the opposing force felt when it tows the model as a value of the water resistance encountered by the model hull. A picture of the towing tank is shown below.

Fig. 7 Towing tank arrangement.

The following support equipment is required for the test: a. Water speed probe

15

b. c. d. e.

Transducer Load Cell (Holder) for the model Desktop PC PC 208W data logger

Running the test is rather simple and needs no calibration other than warming up of the system. It involves a minimum of 2 persons for safety reasons to allow emergency stopping of the carriage should there be any mishap. The procedure is as follows:

a.

Attached the model hull to the holder and fit it to the transducer below the traveling carriage. (See Fig. 8 )

b.

Switch on both the power to the carriage and data logger linked to the desktop computer.

c. d.

Adjust to the desired speed and start the tow. Upon traveling to the cut of mark standby to press stop should the carriage fail to stop. Travel back to the start point in reverse direction.

e.

Extract all readings that have been logged in the computer. No conversion is required as they are direct readings of the resistance.

16

Fig. 8 Hull model attached to the transducer.

Fig. 9 Hull model undergoing tow test.

3.1.2 Test Procedure for towing tank The following steps are to be taken: a. Fit the model onto the load cell in which the X-axis must be in the direction of tow. Loosen the stopper on the load cell-fitting jig and

17

adjust the angle to 00. Tighten the stopper screw firmly after adjustment. b. Test run the carriage at about 0.5 m/s and check whether the reading of the force Y=0. If Y 0, model fitting may not be in correct alignment. Reset the angle of the model. c. d. Set the desire towing speed at 0.9m/s Run the carriage and check the reading on the water-speed probe to confirm that the carriage is towing the model at the desired speed. e. Repeat the test with different speed (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2) and different loading conditions (light ship and with weights up to 2kg). It is essential to wait for the wave to settle down for a more accurate result) f. g. Extract and save the raw data in a disk. The values of the measure resistance are then used to plot the Resistance Vs Speed graph and further extrapolate for resistance values of speed ranges above 1.2m/s.

3.1.3 Resistance values from the test The raw data has been tabulated and due to the large amount of data (8 sets) only a sample is made available in Appendix D. The graph below represents a plot of the direct resistance value measured during the tow Vs the speed for (i) Light ship condition (no load) and (ii) loaded condition.

18

Resistance Vs Speed (Lightship condition)

2.5

2 Water Resistance (N)

1.5

0.5

0 0.9 1 2 3 4 5 Speed (m/s) 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 10 (i) Resistance Vs Speed (No load condition).

Speed Vs resistance (2kg hull weight)

4.5 4 3.5 Resistance (N) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.9 1 2 3 4 5 Speed (m/s) 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 10(ii) Resistance Vs Speed (Loaded condition).

19

3.1.4 Discussion on the tow test results The graph shows a very short linear relationship between the resistance value of the model and the speed from start but curves up as speed increases. It represents a typical characteristic of resistance of marine craft. The graph of for the loaded condition shows that resistance value increases 2 times, indicating that the overall model must not exceed 2kg, or else the total thrust value will increase tremendously.

The tow results further validates the theoretical calculations done earlier on the model hull during the design stage. Calculations has shown that the hull resistance is comparable to the actual result of the tank test although the calculated value only serves as an approximation for the purpose of preliminary sizing of the propulsion. The difference where the actual test result is at a much higher end is likely due to the following errors: e. f. g. During construction the hull is not in perfect symmetry Finishing of the hull surface can affect the reading The next experiment could have been carried out before the waves fully settled resulting in additional residual resistance to the next test h. Vibration of the carriage during travel may cause slight variation in the readings. Nevertheless these resistance values rare more accurate compared to the calculated values as it is directly acquired from testing the model hull.

20

3.2 Propeller and motor thrust experiment

3.2.1 Engine test stand The engine test stand is designed based on the lever principle which is easy to setup with the following essential equipment:

a. b. c. d. e.

1 x Counter weight of 1lb 1 x Modified camera tripod with bracket 1 x Digital Balance 1 x 1m aluminum beam with mountings 1 x set of different small scale weights

Fig. 11 - Engine test rig setup.

21

3.2.2 Calibration of test rig One requirement of the test rig is that it needs to be calibrated whenever a new configuration is to be tested. Nevertheless the calibration process is simple with little preparation before use and most of the time the calibration results do not deviate significantly.

The procedure is as follows: i. Place the 1lb counterweight on the digital balance and record the value of M0 is j. Attach the aluminum beam with motor to the digital balance and read off the value known as Mbl from the balance. k. Place another known mass (a 20g weight, etc.) on the motor and read off the value l. Repeat step c. with another known mass and obtain the mean average. m. Use the average to calculate the amplification factor K, where in all subsequent values from the balance is use in the below formula to calculate the thrust value: T = K (Mbl M0)

3.2.3 Test procedure for measuring thrust The following steps are required: a. Set the motor to full throttle.

22

b.

Tabulate the following readings: i. ii. Angular Velocity of propeller Axial and Tangential airflow velocity

c. d. e.

Reading at the digital balance Voltage and current readings The values obtain from the above are use to calculate the actual thrust value based on the engine test rig and then tabulated together with the rest of the readings.

f.

Stop the running after 2 minutes to prevent motor from over-heating.

3.2.4 Thrust readings A graph of the Thrust Vs Power consumed is shown in Fig. 13. The tabulated raw data readings are available in Appendix G. From the graph it can be observed that power consumption on the same type of motor increases as the propeller size increases and generally for the thrust as well. Actual testing proves that small diameter propellers like the 2-blade 5.5 offer higher revolutions but give mediocre thrust and are mostly fixed in pitch which do not allow optimum matching of the propeller and motor to the model. A significant improvement over the 5.5, the 4-blade 5.6

propellers at 3 setting increases the thrust by 50g more but as the test flight will show it is yet to be the optimum propeller for the model. In addition at 4 setting and above the thrust value decreases, possibly due to stalling effect.

23

Most importantly the graph shows that the 7 x 3 diameter propeller delivers the most thrust and with no sudden jump in the power consumption. A 2-blade and 4-blade 7 propeller make further difference by churning more air, hence increasing the propeller efficiency (nearer the condition of an ideal disc in the momentum theory) by 20%, which is the same amount of increase over the motor specification through actual testing. Again, any setting in the propeller angle above 4 will result a decrease in thrust and the propeller at 6 setting will actually overload the motor. Therefore for optimum flight results the 4-blade 7 x 3 propellers should be used to deliver the maximum thrust.

Fig.12 Types of propellers used for the thrust test. Note the size in comparison of the various propellers. From left: 2-blade 5.5, 6, 7, 4blade 5.6 and the optimum 4-blade 7 propeller selected.

24

3.00

Thrust Vs Power
2-blade 5.5" X 4.5" 4-blade 5.6" X 3" 4-blade 5.6" X 4" 4-blade 5.6" X 5" 4-blade 5.6" X 6" 2-blade 6" x 5.5" 4-blade 7" x 3" 4-blade 7" x 4" 2-blade 7" x 5" 4-blade 7" x 5" 4-blade 7" x 6"

2.50

2.00

Thrust (N)

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 55 75 95

Power (W)
Fig. 13- Thrust Vs Power of different propellers.

25

Chapter 4 Flight test and observation

4.1 Testing of the integrated model

The project team conducted numerous test flights of the completed WIG model over a period of 5 months at West Coast Park where it is most suitable to demonstrate the amphibious capability of the model. The results can be grouped under 3 significant milestones of the flight tests described in this chapter.

4.1.1 1st flight test with the 1st prototype

When the first flight test was carried out in December 2004 with the 1st prototype the results proved disappointing.

Fig. 14 Project maiden flight.

26

It was done using the 4-blade 5.6 X 3 propellers and Fig. 14 showed that though there was sufficient power for slight planning of the hull to take place, a large portion of the hull could not lift off the water. The fact that the prototype was at the initial design load of 1.8kg also contributed to the failure of the test as the wetted surface area of the model had unexpectedly increased. Water also entered the craft from top due to the propeller splashes and the gaps in the wing. This resulted in additional weight. Wind and water condition was calm and these did not contribute to the failure.

4.1.2 2nd prototype flight test

Trouble-shooting on the 1st prototype has led to a major weight reduction on the model. The weight of the hull has halved, from a weight of 0.745kg to 0.352kg without affecting the structure integrity. Final weight of the craft is kept at 1.49kg with no change to the propulsion and the wing dimensions. Optimum propellers, the 4-blade 7 x 3, has been used for the 2nd prototype and the result then has been promising. Large amount of thrust has been generated beneath the wings and this has enabled the craft to rapidly lift off the water surface initially before stabilizing in forward motion (Fig. 15). The craft is attempting to enter into ground effect (See Fig. 16).

27

Fig. 15 - Thrust beneath the wings at initial condition.

Fig. 16 - 2nd prototype showing attempt to enter into ground effect.

The most significant observation regarding propulsion during most of the flight tests for 2nd prototype has been occasional stalls and flips. The stern portion has been observed to be heavy. Nevertheless it has shown that there is sufficient thrust for the craft to take off and only requires minor

28

modifications for the model to get into ground effect despite water entering the craft. Hence no further changes to the propulsion system would be required.

4.1.3 Final flight test In analyzing all the flight tests conducted for the 2nd prototype it has been determined that a minor flaw in design exists at the bottom of the craft. The hull should be further leveled (See Fig.17) to the wing to achieve 2 objectives: further reducing excess weight and improving the lift underneath. Since the initial thrust of the model would have lifted the hull out of water, by leveling it with the wing would mean that hydrodynamic drag on the hull is removed from start and the entire craft would have maximum lift due to the flat plate configuration.

Hull flushed with the wing

Fig.17 The modified hull. Bottom was cut to level with the wing.

29

Fig. 18 Entire hull off the water surface and free of hydro-drag.

Further testing has led to the success of the project as the craft flew in ground effect with a visible gap in between the hull and water surface as shown below.

Visible Gap

Fig. 19 Model craft in ground effect with a minor gap observed between the water surface and hull.

30

To prove the effect further another test at the NUS Multi-purpose Sports Hall has conducted where the medium is hard ground and that has successfully demonstrated the full ground effect of the craft.

Gap of 5cm

Fig. 20 Full ground effect flight demonstrated at MPSH. Note the highly visible 5cm gap between the craft and the floor.

31

Chapter 5 - Conclusion

The project overall has been successful, as shown in the validation of ground effect with the flight test of the final prototype both on water and hard surface. The objectives to design a small scale WIG hull and to size the propulsion in relation to the design have been fulfilled.

The theoretical calculations used to predict the characteristics of the hull form have been rather accurate and verified by the tow-tank experiments. The results form part of the essential parameter or consideration in the sizing of the propulsion ultimately. For propulsion, the power and thrust calculations have assisted in the selection of the right motor and the optimum propellers. This has contributed to the success at project level as propulsion is a critical element in flight design. In addition, the selection of the electric motor has been the correct to fly the model. It is proven to be more advantageous over traditional Internal Combustion engines in the area of small scale WIG model.

Lastly, it has been very enriching and challenging to work as a team that involves multi-disciplinary aspects to put together a flying machine that is able to successfully demonstrate the phenomenon of ground effect. It would have never been possible without the tremendous effort of every team member.

32

Chapter 6 - Recommendations

Though the project has been a success it is not without its room for improvements. They are as follows:

Hull Design a. The hull form can be further refined or faired such that it is more

streamlined than the existing model. If the internal space required by the control part at the design stage is smaller the beam of the model can be reduced as well. Both characteristics will ensure a lower water resistance for the model.

b.

Special computer software, such as AUTOSHIP, SWAN or SHIPFLOW

can be used to compute the initial hull characteristics of the hull form as well as to validate the tow-tank test results. This would enable changes to the hull form if necessary or allow the drafting of a few more designs without going through too much manual work.

Construction a. The method of construction used for the model has been based on the

butter and bread method which is more time-consuming. Another method known as the frame method maybe used to reduce construction time.

33

b.

Water-proofing the top such that minimal water enters the internal space

would allow the craft to fly without excess weight and free-surface effect.

Motor a. Better electric motors (at higher cost) such as 3-phase AC motor maybe

used for a 10 to 15 percent increase in motor efficiency. Alternatively larger motors can also be used but its consequences can be huge with increase in weight and bigger propellers required.

34

List of references

1.

Historical Review of WIG Vehicles, Volume 14 page 65-76, Journal of Hydronautics, July 1980.

2.

A.V. Nebylov and P.A. Wilson, Ekranoplanes Controlled Flight Close to the Sea, WIT Press Southampton, UK 2002.

3.

http://www.se-technology.com/wig

4.

Hugli, William C., Hydrodynamic Investigation of a Series of Hull Models Suitable for Small flying Boats and Amphibians, NACA TN 2503, 1951.

5.

Darrol Stiniton, The Design of the Aeroplane, Blackwell Science, Osney Mead, Oxford 2001.

6.

Roger Marshall, Powerboats Understanding Design and Performance, International Marine/Mcgraw-Hill, Camden, ME 2002.

7.

Henry B Suydam, Hydrodynamic characteristics of a Low-Drag PlanningTail Flying-Boat Hull, NACA TN2481, 1952.

35

8.

Edward V. Lewis, Principles of Naval Architecture Volume 1 and 2, Society of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineers (SNAME), 1967.

9.

K.J. Rawson and E.C. Tupper, Basic Ship Theory Volume 1 and Volume 2, Longman Inc., New York 1984.

10.

E L Houghton and P W Carpenter, Aerodynamics for Engineering Students, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York 1993.

11.

Dietrich Kuchemann and Johanna Weber, Aerodynamics of Propulsion, Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. 1953

36

Appendix A Propulsion Theory

A.1 Froudes momentum theory of propulsion

Froudes momentum theory of propulsion is a rather simple tool that can be used in estimating the requirement for the propulsion. It involves the concept of assuming the propeller or as an ideal disc that supplies energy to the incoming air. The ideal disc is treated as an infinitely thin disc of area S and offers no resistance, drag or loss to air that passes through it. Thus when the air pass through the disc energy from the disc is imparts pressure energy to the air. It is assumed that the air velocity passing through the disc is constant over the whole area and hence all energy supplied to the disc is transferred to the air.

P1 V Po

Vo P2

Vs Po

Ideal actuator disc and flow in slipstream

As a fluid moving uniformly at a speed of V and pressure P0 and passing the 2 streamlines at the side and approaches the ideal disc it accelerates to a speed of

37

V0 and pressure decreasing to P0. At the disc the pressure is increased to P2 but law of continuity prevent the sudden change in speed. Therefore the air behind the disc expands and further accelerates well behind the disc and returning to pressure P0. The flow behind the disc is also known as slipstream. Given: Mass of fluid passing through the disc = ASV0 (1)

But with the increase of the momentum of the mass of fluid behind, Equation (1) now becomes ASV0(Vs- V), which is also the thrust on the disc. If the pressure before and after the disc is known, then T = S(p2-p1) (3) Since the flow can be separated into two region then Bernoulli Equation can be applied where (2)

P0 +

1 1 AV2 = P1 + AV02 2 2

(4),

P2 +

1 1 AV02 = P0 + AVs2 2 2

(5)

and equating (3) and (4), p2 p1 =

1 A(Vs2 V2) 2

(6)

Substituting (6) into (3) and equating the result to (2), yields

1 AS(Vs2 V2) = ASV0(Vs- V) and dividing by ASV0(Vs- V), 2

V0 =

1 (Vs + V) 2

38

This showed that the velocity through the ideal disc is an average of the inlet velocity and the out flow velocity. Letting a be the inflow factor, V0 =

1 (Vs + V) can be written as V0 = V(1+a) and 2

that Vs + V = 2 V0 = 2V(1+a). Therefore, Vs = V(1+2a). The rate of increase of fluid energy in the system is describe as

dE 1 = ASV0(Vs2 V2) dt 2
To assume that the disc is moving from one point to another at speed of V into the initial stationary fluid, this is term as the useful work done TV. The efficiency of the disc as a propulsion system =

i =

TV 1 SV0 (Vs 2 V 2 ) 2
V 1 (Vs + V ) 2
=

i can be represented as

1 2 = V (1 + a) 1+ ( s ) V

Alternatively, the equation can be expressed in the following form: V0 = V(1+a) and Vs = V(1+2a)

T = ASV0(Vs V) = ASV(1+a)[V(1+2a)-V] = 2ASV2a(V1+a) where it was utilized in the sizing of the propulsion in the thesis.

39

Appendix B Resistance Theory

B.1 Components of resistance and propulsion

If the hull of the ship is driven through the water by some device which in no way interacted with the hull or water, it would experience a total resistance RT which would be the summation of several types of resistance of the following: a. b. c. d. e. Frictional Wave-making Eddies-making Appendages Air

All except the frictional resistance are group as residual resistance and usually only the frictional is of the greater concern as the hull is directly in contact with the water. Method of comparison has been develop by Froude but not used universally to derive the skin friction resistance and a universal standard friction line has since been reached in 1957 during the International Towing Tank Conference at Madrid, known as the ITTC 1957, with the below formula to calculate for frictional resistance. CF =

RF 0.075 ; CT = 2 1 (log10 RN 2) SV 2 2

Since CT = CF + CR, hence the residual resistance CR can also be obtained.

40

Appendix C Tabulation of hull readings

The following hull values were taken from the lines plan upon its completion for the purpose of calculating areas. Waterline 0 WL Station 0 (FP) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 (AP) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 WL WL 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.022 0.034 1.5 2 WL WL 0 0 0 0.016 0.034 0.045 0.049 Line 0 0 Design Nose 8 WL WL 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 WL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 10 12

0.015 0.006 0.025 0.01

0.036 0.034 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.034 0.042

0.028 0.043 0.048 0.05 0.044 0.048 0.05 0.049 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

41

Appendix D Sample of the tabulated raw data logged during the towing tank experiment for speed 1m/s
Test number 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 Year 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Days 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 288 Time 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450 Carriagespeed(Tachometer) m/s -0.014 -0.015 -0.014 -0.014 -0.015 0.368 0.58 0.817 0.985 0.984 0.98 0.983 0.985 0.981 0.98 0.985 0.964 0.984 0.985 0.981 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.989 0.973 1.005 0.985 Water speed (Water-Probe) m/s -0.003 -0.005 -0.006 -0.003 0.098 0.329 0.501 0.734 0.906 0.973 0.948 0.939 0.977 0.973 0.978 0.942 0.943 0.928 0.935 0.949 0.957 0.921 0.937 0.955 0.957 0.922 0.933 0.988 0.966 Fx (g) -4.199 -4.199 -3.359 -1.68 -15.12 -38.63 -48.71 -57.11 -57.11 -58.63 -58.55 -56.87 -55.19 -54.35 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -52.31 Fy (g) 18.48 18.48 18.48 18.48 23.51 25.19 25.19 26.87 26.87 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 23.51 25.19 25.19 MZ 0 0 0.84 0.84 1.68 2.519 4.199 4.619 4.199 4.199 3.359 2.519 3.359 4.199 2.519 2.519 1.26 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 2.519 2.519 2.519 2.519 1.26 0.84 0.84 0

42

106 106 106 106 106

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

288 288 288 288 288

1450 1450 1450 1450 1450

0.985 0.989 0.978 0.984 0.725

0.944 0.957 0.914 0.93 0.765

-52.31 -52.31 -52.31 -51.83 15.12

25.19 23.51 23.51 23.51 21.83

0 0.84 1.68 1.26 0.84

43

Appendix E Tabulated data for Towing tank experiment (Lightship condition)

Speed V m/s 0.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Length (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Gravity (m/s) 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 Fn 0.40 0.45 0.90 1.35 1.80 2.25 2.70 3.16 3.612189 4.063713 4.515236 RT (gram) 53.1 61.9 70.1 81.6 91.5 111.7 129.7 147.9 166.2 179.5 203.2 RT (N) 0.520911 0.607624 0.687303 0.800953 0.89799 1.095375 1.272465 1.451017 1.629961 1.761224 1.992931 CT 0.115806 0.109418 0.030942 0.016026 0.010107 0.00789 0.006365 0.005332 0.004586 0.003915 0.003589 RN 395083.41 438981.56 877963.13 1316944.69 1755926.25 2194907.81 2633889.38 3072870.94 3511852.50 3950834.06 4389815.63 W 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 CF 0.005798 0.005653 0.004823 0.004419 0.004163 0.003979 0.003838 0.003724 0.003630 0.003550 0.003480 CR 0.110008 0.103765 0.026119 0.011606 0.005944 0.003911 0.002527 0.001608 0.000956 0.000366 0.000109 w 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Sw 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 V2 0.8 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100

44

Appendix F Tabulated data for Towing tank experiment (with hull weight of 2kg)
Speed V m/s 0.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Length (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Gravity (m/s) 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 9.81 Fn 0.406371 0.451524 0.903047 1.354571 1.806095 2.257618 2.709142 3.160665 3.612189 4.063713 4.515236 RT (gram) 63.8 84.0 110.8 134.4 177.2 211.7 259.7 295.9 343.2 379.5 417.2 RT (N) 0.626074 0.82404 1.086948 1.318464 1.737879 2.076375 2.547765 2.902897 3.366331 3.723224 4.092271 CT 0.139185 0.148389 0.048933 0.02638 0.019559 0.014956 0.012744 0.010668 0.009472 0.008277 0.007369 RN 395083.41 438981.56 877963.13 1316944.69 1755926.25 2194907.81 2633889.38 3072870.94 3511852.50 3950834.06 4389815.63 W 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 1.14E-06 CF 0.005798 0.005653 0.004823 0.004419 0.004163 0.003979 0.003838 0.003724 0.003630 0.003550 0.003480 CR 0.133388 0.142736 0.044110 0.021961 0.015396 0.010977 0.008906 0.006944 0.005842 0.004728 0.003889 w 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Sw 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 0.0111065 V2 0.8 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100

45

Appendix G Tabulated raw data for propeller and thrust measurements

Propeller type and pitch 2-blade 5.5" X 4.5" 2-blade 5.5" X 4.5" 2-blade 5.5" X 4.5" 4-blade 5.6" X 3" 4-blade 5.6" X 3" 4-blade 5.6" X 3" 4-blade 5.6" X 4" 4-blade 5.6" X 4" 4-blade 5.6" X 4" 4-blade 5.6" X 5" 4-blade 5.6" X 5" 4-blade 5.6" X 5" 4-blade 5.6" X 6" 4-blade 5.6" X 6" 4-blade 5.6" X 6" 2-blade 6" x 5.5" 2-blade 6" x 5.5" 2-blade 6" x 5.5"

RPM 11041 11197 11231 10478 10501 10595 10283 10310 10375 10037 10099 10112 10099 10118 10129 10081 10107 10119

Rad/s 1156.36 1172.70 1176.26 1097.40 1099.80 1109.65 1076.97 1079.80 1086.61 1051.21 1057.70 1059.06 1057.70 1059.69 1060.84 1055.82 1058.54 1059.80

Voltage (v) 6 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8

Current (A) 9 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.55 9.6 9.4 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.1 10.3 10 10.2 10.5

Power W 54 64.4 74.4 55.8 66.5 76 56.4 66.9 76.8 56.4 68.6 79.2 69.3 70.7 82.4 60 71.4 84

M0 (kg) 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.078 1.079 1.079 1.079

Mbl (kg) 1.12 1.129 1.143 1.147 1.151 1.165 1.138 1.142 1.15 1.136 1.14 1.145 1.126 1.132 1.14 1.139 1.144 1.152

Amp Fac K 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

T (g) 98.3 119.3 152.1 161.5 170.8 203.6 140.4 149.8 168.5 135.7 145.1 156.8 120.0 135.0 155.0 150.0 162.5 182.5

T (N) 0.96 1.17 1.49 1.58 1.68 2.00 1.38 1.47 1.65 1.33 1.42 1.54 1.10 1.32 1.52 1.47 1.59 1.79

Air speed m/s 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.9 9.1 9.5 7.4 7.7 8.0 6.9 7.1 7.4 6.5 7.0 7.2 9.9 10.5 11.2

U m/s 1.83 1.99 2.09 2.19 2.2 2.33 2.1 2.17 2.26 1.99 2.01 2.06 1.85 1.99 2.02 2.14 2.19 2.24

Ct 0.0152032651 0.0193123726 0.0256687384 0.0279764623 0.0264247227 0.0329446356 0.0217189502 0.0242351343 0.0284330641 0.0219630904 0.0244840274 0.0278527486 0.0189233921 0.0239834230 0.0274441685 0.0266482478 0.0287721121 0.0245551171

46

Propeller type and pitch 4-blade 7" x 3" 4-blade 7" x 3" 4-blade 7" x 3" 4-blade 7" x 4" 4-blade 7" x 4" 4-blade 7" x 4" 2-blade 7" x 5" 2-blade 7" x 5" 2-blade 7" x 5" 4-blade 7" x 5" 4-blade 7" x 5" 4-blade 7" x 5" 4-blade 7" x 6" 4-blade 7" x 6" 4-blade 7" x 6"

RPM 9799 9843 9981 9705 9789 9865 9711 9841 9994 9599 9674 9743 8753 8812 8994

Rad/s 1026.28 1030.89 1045.34 1016.44 1025.23 1033.19 1017.07 1030.68 1046.70 1005.34 1013.19 1020.42 916.73 922.91 941.97

Voltage (v) 6 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8 6 7 8

Current (A) 10.5 10.7 10.8 10.6 10.8 11 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.3 11.6 11.7 11.6 11.8 11.9

Power W 63 75 86.4 63.4 75.6 88 64.8 77.7 91.2 67.8 81.2 93.6 69.6 82.6 95.2

M0 (kg) 1.076 1.076 1.076 1.076 1.076 1.076 1.079 1.079 1.079 1.079 1.079 1.079 1.079 1.079 1.079

Mbl (kg) 1.175 1.179 1.184 1.164 1.176 1.179 1.147 1.151 1.167 1.148 1.162 1.174 1.146 1.161 1.17

Amp Fac K 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

T (g) 247.5 257.5 270.0 220.0 250.0 257.5 170.0 180.0 220.0 172.5 207.5 237.5 167.5 205.0 230.0

T (N) 2.43 2.53 2.65 2.16 2.45 2.53 1.67 1.77 2.16 1.69 2.04 2.33 1.64 2.01 2.26

Air speed m/s 10.1 11.6 11.9 9.2 9.9 10.1 8.9 9.2 9.6 8.8 9.1 9.4 7.7 8.1 8.9

U m/s 1.98 2 2.1 1.59 1.68 1.71 1.38 1.46 1.54 1.57 1.61 1.66 1.21 1.24 1.3

Ct 0.0438221400 0.0346462611 0.0201550011 0.0296006891 0.0186620381 0.0196766078 0.0126901859 0.0137545219 0.0163798969 0.0131814169 0.0154492210 0.0186056730 0.0124710579 0.0160596335 0.0211441019

47

Appendix H Constructing the hull model

As mentioned in Chapter 2 during the conceptualizing of the hull design and the basic requirement which have the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. V-hull Dead-rise angle of not more than 150 Stepped hull A beam of 0.1m Shallow draft (low design waterline) Lightweight Easy to repair Easy to shape

With all this criteria in mind and after a careful analysis the choice of balsa wood has been decided over normal wood or other material such as resin or foam, chiefly due to weight or material strength limitations. The choice of balsa is necessary as it is light and easy to shape and only those of a stronger, short grain balsa planks are used. Due to the fact that blocks of balsa cut to the required model length is not available locally, an improvised method has been devised by joining thick planks of balsa. The planks are glued together using normal white glue and then fully clamped overnight to ensure that the planks are fused as an entire block as shown below.

48

A block of balsa formed from planks. On the part of lofting the hull curves on the block, upon the completion of the lines plan cardboards are used to trace the longitudinal and transverse section at each station. These cardboard forms the templates that will be utilize for checking the correct angle and area while cutting the block. Methods of removing the balsa wood on the external surface to the required shape mainly involve cutting of the main portions of the unwanted material before filing or chiseling to the marked out curves.

Cutting of large amount of unwanted material.

49

To remove the chunks of material in the internal space a good and effective way is to make use of milling machine to cut them. The boundaries are first marker out and then drilled before proceeding to mill.

Milling of the internal space. The final process to complete and protect and water proof the hull model is the use of wood lacquer and apply 3 coatings, with each coating to dry before the next. As the skin of the hull is critical particularly for the towing tank experiment, sanding between coatings is necessary so that substantial unevenness or roughness on the surface is properly removed.

The completed hull model.

50