Aircraft Float Design by H.C.richardson 1928

Generated for aerospike591@gmail.com on 2012-06-04 15:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.
39015021078657
Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-google
AIRCRAFT
FLOAT DESIGN
, - By
HOLDEN C. RICHARDSON, M. S.
CAPTAIN (C.C.) UNITED STATES NAVY; CHIEF OF DESIGN SECTION,
BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS
THE RONALD PRESS COMPANY
NEW YORK
Generated for aerospike591@gmail.com on 2012-06-04 15:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015021078657

6 74-
.-R5Z
Copyright, 1928, by
The Ronald Press Company
AU Rights Reserved
V.
7-9-30
PREFACE
In the preparation of this work, the author has been in-
fluenced by the numerous requests that have been received for
information on aircraft float design from students, engineers,
and designers. In responding to these requests, it has been
necessary to refer to isolated and fragmentary treatises on
pertinent phases, where such existed in the engineering and
trade journals, but in many cases no references were available.
These demands for information indicated a real need for a pres-
entation and discussion of the fundamentals of aircraft float
shapes and arrangements. It is primarily this class of infor-
mation that the author has undertaken to provide herewith.
Another impulse to write this book came from the fre-
quent suggestions for incorporating design features that have
been tried heretofore and found unsatisfactory. Therefore,
it appeared desirable to review in considerable detail the ef-
fects of different shapes and combinations,even to include
the record of some failures, where these disclose little known
or novel phenomena of importance.
The subject of design is treated from the viewpoint of form
arrangement and proportion, and is carried into the determi-
nation of performance. The detailed methods for computing
the strengths of members comprising float structures have not
been included, for the reason that any of the texts on structure
design can be applied to aircraft floats when the fundamental

principles are known, consequently a repetition of well-known
procedure seemed unnecessary. However, the considerations
affecting loading conditions are pointed out; also the useful-
ness and importance of model tests are emphasized.
Aircraft float design differs importantly from speed-boat
design because of the presence and effects of wing lift and
iii
iv PREFACE
the presence of, and a need for, a different provision for
stability.
The author believes that a better understanding of the
problems of float design will lead to a more general employment
of seaplanes, which in many respects have advantages over
landplanes; they are the only logical types for flights over
large bodies of water.
H. C. Richardson
Washington, D. C,
November 10, 1928.

CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 3
Chapter I
General Requirements 6
Enumeration of desirable characteristics.
Chapter II
Float Action 10
Taking Off - Alighting - Drifting - Actions of different types.
Chapter III
Suction Effect and Step Action 16
Unsatisfactory shapes and reasons - Failures discussed - Unsus-
pected danger - Ground looping - Dangerous tip floats - Step
action.
Chapter IV
Float Features 26
Operating conditions - Early forms - Mutual influences - Body
plan or sections - Plan form - Profiles, center line - Hydrovane
blades.
Chapter V
Float Arrangement 43
Twin float system - Central float systems - Water rudders - Re-
serve buoyancy.
Chapter VI
Design Procedure 47
Determination of areas - Strip method - Simpson's Rule - Deter-

mination of moments and location of C.G. - Mensuration, volume,
area L.W.L. - Moment of inertia of L.W.L., C.B. - Volume to
L.W.L. - Computation and C.B. location.
vi CONTENTS
Chapter VII
Stability 62
Chapter VIII
Structural Considerations 64
Bottom of float - Wooden floats - Decks and sides - Metal floats.
Chapter IX
Float Proportions 73
Grouping and plotting - Verification - Application.
Chapter X
Model Testing 79
Froude's Law - Wing lift - Model basin assumptions - Compensat-
ing vane - Model vs. full scale - Model requirements - Non-dimen-
sional plot - Typical plots - Sample calculation.
Chapter XI
Typical Model Tests 89
Model 2796 - Model 2696 - Model 2081 A-B-C (NC-1)
Chapter XII
Seaplanes vs. Landplanes 100
Appendix

Glossary of Special Terms and Abbreviations 103
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figukb Page
1-21. Diagrams Illustrating Suction Effect 16-23
22. Diagrams Illustrating Step Action 25
(A-S) Body Plan or Sections 31-33
(a-k) Plan Forms 34-35
(1-19) Profiles. Center Line 36-38
23. Body Plan of Curved Deck Float 39
(l)-(8) Tip Floats 40-11
24. Determination of Areas 48
25-29. Float Lines and Derived Curves 56
30. Framework of Wooden Float 67
31. Wooden Float Structure 68
32. Metal Float Structure 68
33. Flying Boat Structure 69
34. Flying Boat Structure; Interior 70
35. Plot of Beam Data 75
36. Typical Curves for Boats, Twin Floats and Single Floats 85
37. Float Performance Curves 86
38. Non-Dimensional Curves for Model No. 2796 90
39. Twin Floats and Their Attachments to a Typical Fuselage 91
40. A Typical Central Float Type of Seaplane 92
43. Hull of an NC Type with Tip Floats 97

vn

-.

AIRCRAFT FLOAT DESIGN

INTRODUCTION
Aircraft float design requires the combination of the arts
of naval architecture and of aero-architecture; to ignore the
dictates of either is to court failure, yet the combination must
be judicious and harmonious, with due consideration of the
purpose and conditions of employment. Briefly, aircraft floats
must be seaworthy and airworthy. This is easy to state but
difficult to realize, for in many respects these demands are con-
flicting, and compromises are required.
Seaplane development from a technical standpoint dates
from 1911, when model basin tests were inaugurated at the
Naval Model Basin at the Navy Yard, Washington, D. C, in
this country, and at the Froude Tank of the National Physical
Laboratory at Teddington in England. It is interesting to note
that in the initial stages in both places the types of experiments
were similar. Each at once took account of wing lift as differ-
entiating the conditions from those found with surface craft,
yet each in the effort to provide clean running made similar
and fundamental errors in failure to provide adequate bearing
forward to prevent nosing down as the result of high thrust
line of the propeller.
Naturally, speed boat practice had an influence. This at
first led to errors which, however, quickly became obvious in
the earliest full-sized trials. While the defects were obvious,
the corrections were not always so, and only systematic efforts
and a careful process of elimination of variables enabled a

correct appreciation of important and unimportant factors.
This was not a simple task, for in many cases interactions
masked the true causes, which were not infrequently attributed
to the wrong element. Some factors are still obscure. For
instance, "porpoising" (i.e., the tendency of floats to rock fore
4 AIRCRAFT FLOAT DESIGN
and aft at certain stages of "planing") is in a measure due to
location of the step; yet it has been found that the identical
floats on one design of airplane are free from this feature,
while in another design of airplane their action is bad or even
vicious.
Sufficient progress has been made, however, to give assur-
ance that in undertaking a new design, at least, good results
can be obtained for ordinary conditions. A fair degree of suc-
cess has been obtained in finding seaworthiness in riding out
storms at sea. "Getaways" have been negotiated successfully
under severe conditions. "Landings" have also been effected
safely under even more severe conditions at sea than can yet
be negotiated for the getaway.
The seagoing phase has only been touched lightly and rarely.
It can safely be stated that progress is being made and that
improvement may be expected with increase in size. The prob-
lem is well in hand, but needs data that only actual construction
and experience with larger sizes can make available. These
conditions cannot be simulated in model basin work.
Seamanship and airmanship are at least on a par with sea-
worthiness of design. It seems probable that some intermedi-
ate state of the sea will appear troublesome for any practicable
size of seaplane. It is well known that small boats have weath-
ered storms which have sunk the vessels from which they have
been launched, whereas lesser seas readily weathered by the

large craft may sink the smaller. Breaking seas are the most
difficult to weather; it is here that seamanship is essential.
Experience is the only teacher. With the new type of craft
the accumulation of knowledge will be slow, yet much can
be learned to advantage from the lore of sailors.
Fortunately, it is well known that under the usual condi-
tions of storms at sea, the seas are not regular. From the air,
even better than from surface craft, the possibilities of selecting
the most favorable area for a forced landing are increased.
INTRODUCTION 5
The take-off can be favored by paying attention to the same
principle.
The getaway and landing speeds for seaplanes in sheltered
water can safely exceed 100 miles per hour, but except for this
special condition should not greatly exceed half that figure.
Under ordinary conditions, getaways and landings will be made
from sheltered water. Under these conditions, an experienced
pilot has an easier task with a seaplane than with a landplane.
In the following, it will be attempted to show the influence
and importance of different factors and features based on the
writer's analysis of sixteen years' experience in design, con-
struction, test, and operation of seaplanes, and on a study
of such other information as has been available.
Even in so young an art, bias and tradition have already
influenced design, as have also variations of local conditions
under which experience has been gained.
To anyone who has traveled abroad, this will not appear
strange if it is recalled how definitely distinguishable are the
national types of seagoing and harbor craft seen in foreign
ports. Yet it is indicative of the broadening influence of avia-
tion that the trend in large seaplanes is toward a common
type, the principal differences lying in detail rather than in
principle or proportions.
Due to the very youth of the new art it is only natural
that some conclusions have been drawn from the accounts of

inexperienced or untrained observers.
English, French, Italian, Dutch, Austrian, and German
information has been studied and a number of foreign types
have been flown but the principal sources of information have
been the Model Basin in Washington and the tests of U. S.
Naval Seaplanes and reports of service experiences. Little
data have been available from non-military sources.
The writer does not claim immunity from bias, but presents
the following as based on his own analysis of the information
at hand.,
CHAPTER I
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Aircraft floats are essentially provided as a means for oper-
ating aircraft from the water. As already stated, this requires
the combination of seaworthiness and airworthiness, and a com-
promise of the demands of these qualities, because in many
respects the demands are conflicting. These compromises de-
pend to a degree on the service intended and vary with the
types and particularly with the float arrangements.
The degree of seaworthiness required will depend on the
route of operations and on the terminal facilities. Inland routes
are less exacting than overseas routes, except that when the
area of the bases is limited or bounded by high obstructions,
the necessity for rapid getaway may dominate over other de-
sirable qualities. In general, the most difficult type of getaway
is from dead smooth water in still air.
Seaworthiness demands: (a) stability at rest; (b) stability
underway; (c) freeboard; (d) reserve of buoyancy; (e) water-
tight subdivision; (f) ease of running; (g) maneuverability;
(h) minimum of punishment underway at all stages on the sur-
face; (i) clean running; (j) adequate strength. Airworthiness
demands: (k) good aerodynamic form; (1) minimum size;
(m) minimum weight; and (n) close coupling.
(a) Stability at rest is not simply that of a boat. Account
must be taken of the air forces on the wings, tail surfaces,
superstructure, etc. The wings cannot be furled like sails.

(b) Stability underway requires consideration of propeller
thrust and torque, when taxying in any direction in a wind;
also of conditions when adrift or sailing. There must be no
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 7
danger of nosing under. Lateral and longitudinal stability
must be inherent in the float system until after the air controls
become effective. There should be an absence of or a minimum
tendency to "porpoise," yet the design must permit of longi-
tudinal control by the air controls prior to attaining "getaway"
speed, and preferably the air controls should become effective
prior to "planing" speed being attained.
Porpoising, nosing, and controllability conflict as to re-
quired features of the float and together present one of the
most delicate problems of design.
(c) Freeboard must be adequate to prevent shipping seas,
particularly when driving into a head sea, before "planing" is
attained. Likewise, it must be sufficient to prevent shipping
seas when drifting astern in a seaway in a strong wind. Yet
freeboard must be kept as low as possible to avoid conflict
with airworthiness and weight.
(d) Reserve of buoyancy is associated with freeboard. In
the case of float types, it is a definite quantity. In the boat type,
it may be considered as the excess of buoyancy above the nor-
mal water-line to the water-line of the lowest non-watertight
opening in the hull.
(e) Watertight subdivision is required to limit the effects
of flooding of damaged compartments. In float types, the bulk-
heads are usually complete. In boat types, some are complete,
others partial, but in the latter type the partial bulkheads

are carried a sufficient distance above the normal water-line
to provide against overflowing, even in the case of flooding an
adjacent compartment, taking into account the resulting change
of trim. This requirement runs into weight although strength
requirements usually make some bulkheads necessary struc-
turally, so this weight is not strictly chargeable to this require-
ment in full.
(f) Ease of running depends on the form and disposition
of the floats. It is one of the most important factors of float
design.
(g) Maneuverability depends on the float system, the power
plant arrangement, and the air controls of the airplane.
(h) Minimum of punishment underway depends on the
float system and form, particularly the form of the float bot-
tom.
(i) Clean running means running without undue disturb-
ance and with a minimum of spray. It depends on the form of
bottom, the freeboard and form of the bow.
(j) Adequate strength is required to meet the variety of
loadings experienced afloat at all speeds on the surface; and
in the air under all conditions of flight, taking into account the
forces under "getaway" and "landing" conditions, and the ac-
celerations and air forces in air maneuvers. It naturally in-
volves weight.
(k) Good aerodynamic form means that streamlining must
be incorporated to the highest practicable degree consistent with
the other demands, particularly those of seaworthiness.
(1) Minimum size is required to enhance good aerodynamic
qualities, to keep air resistance to a minimum, to avoid inter-
ference with stability in pitching, rolling and yawing in flight
and to keep down weight.
(m) Minimum weight is essential to efficiency in design.
(n) Close coupling is desired to improve stability and

maneuverability in flight.
It is obvious that these factors of seaworthiness and air-
worthiness are conflicting. For instance, the best aerodynamic
form of floats would eliminate steps and chines, features essen-
tial to satisfactory float action. In fact, a pure streamline float
is practically hopeless, due to suction effects which will be
described later.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 9
Suitability for the purpose intended has to be kept in mind
in determining what compromises must be made. Military uses
introduce special requirements, principally because of demands
for particular or limited methods of stowage, handling, launch-

ing, beaching, hoisting, etc.
CHAPTER II
FLOAT ACTION
Float action depends on the float system, the stage of get-
away, the wind and sea, and the pilot's methods. It is, there-
fore, obvious that there is practically an infinite variety of cir-
cumstances imaginable. For this reason, it appears of interest
to describe first the action under normal conditions of the
simplest float systemthe central float type. In this manner
we can arrive at a quick understanding of the elemental actions
applying to all systems, and leave until later the discussion of
float features and float arrangements.
The direct incidents of a simple seaplane flight occur in
the following sequence: We will start and finish with the plane
afloat and engine idling, and disregard the various methods of
arriving at this condition. We will further assume a light
wind and sea. We will also assume a "V" bottom, single-step
float. The principal events are, then, "floating," "taxying,"
"accelerating to planing," "planing," "accelerating to getaway,"
"take-off," and "flight." Then follow in order, "gliding to
landing," "landing," "decelerating to planing," "planing," "de-
celerating to taxying" or to "floating."
Taking Off
Floating with the engine idling, the headway will be small
and the float will trim substantially as if at rest in still water.
The trim will be the designed trim, usually one degree to
three degrees by the stern. Taxying comprises maneuvering

on the surface at moderate speed, using the air rudder to control
the course if, as is usual, no water rudder is provided. Every-
10
FLOAT ACTION n
thing being in order for flight, the plane is maneuvered to a
favorable position for a take-off headed into the wind; power
is applied and the plane is kept head to the wind and rapidly
gains speed. At first, the high line of thrust of the propeller
causes the bow to depress slightly and the float pushes a wave
at the bow, and as the speed increases to about 10% of the get-
away speed, the float settles bodily with a moderate increase
in draft; next, the bow begins to rise, the bow wave now takes
a "V" form in plan and in section, retreats along the float
toward the step, and the trim by the stern steadily increases.
At this stage the wing lift is negligible, and the water forces
dominate the trim, which yet may be modified slightly by the
use of the elevator air control, which is usually in the propeller
slipstream and therefore more effective.
Up to this stage, in general, the ailerons are not yet effective
and the plane may roll to one side or the other until the action
of the tip floats comes into play; yet, through the action of
the "V" bottom of the central float a lateral righting couple
is increasing in magnitude as the speed is increased, and soon
becomes sufficient to steady the plane. In the meantime, the
ailerons are also becoming effective so that usually before
planing is attained the lateral attitude is controllable and may
even be used as an aid in steering by causing one tip float or
the other to drag. All this time the plane is accelerating under
the propeller thrust and planing speed is soon attained. By

this time, the wing lift is beginning to reduce the load on the
float; besides, the angle of the float is increasing its hydro-
planing capacity and the draft is decreasing. In the meantime,
the step action is coming into play and the water no longer
flows close around the step but flows as an inverted waterfall,
making contact on the after bottom, further and further aft as
planing is developed. The bow wave steadily moves aft toward
the step, and the float is riding in the groove it forms in the
water.
Just before full planing is attained, the float resistance
reaches a high point known as the "hump" resistance. With
the speed now in the region of 20% to 30% of getaway, the
float "planes" and rises bodily, decreasing its draft; the bow
wave comes further back, and the inverted waterfall clears the
stern of the float. This action may be hastened by the pilot
using the air controls to change the trim to more nearly level.
In this manner, all of the float now in contact with the water
is that forward of the step, and is much reduced in area.
With planing attained, both the wing lift and the hydroplane
action may now be augmented by the pilot using the air controls
to bring up the nose, yet without dipping the stern of the float
back into contact. Under this condition, the plane rapidly
accelerates to the getaway speed and the wave gets smaller and
smaller and cleaner.
Getaway speed is the lowest speed at which the plane can
be supported by the wing lift. Once this speed is attained the
pilot can effect take-off at will, for by depressing the tail he
can develop full wing lift, or by holding the plane at a lesser
angle he can keep the wing lift to less than that required,
although the speed exceeds the getaway. It is usual to do the
latter, in order to insure that the plane is not taken off in a
"stalling" attitude. Sometimes at this stage there is a second-
ary hump in the resistance which is of more or less importance
depending on the trim of the float. As a rule, however, if the
first hump can be passed with the power available, the second

hump is unimportant. The getaway speed having been reached
or exceeded, the plane now takes off as desired, and "flight" is
attained. In flight the floats have no aerodynamic value, and
are generally parasitic in effect, except that near stalling angles
they may add appreciable lift, and thereby slightly reduce the
stalling speed.
Variations in the method of take-off employed range from
the "stalled off" method, often used if there is a strong wind
and rough sea, to the "fly off" method just described for light
air and sea conditions. However, the latter may be used to
FLOAT ACTION 13
some advantage if the seas are not too steep, as the punishment
is less due to the smaller angle of the float bottom to the water.
In the stalled take-off there is danger of actually stalling and
of the plane returning to the surface in an uncontrolled atti-
tude, even tending to dive, though more frequently of dipping a
wing. It is for this reason that general practice delays the take-
off until flight speed and control are assured.
Alighting
In the same manner there are two extremes of the methods
of alighting, and any number of intermediate stages possible.
There is further the choice of a gliding approach without power
on (engine idling or engine dead), or the power landing. Usu-
ally the landing is made into the wind.
In the gliding approach the plane descends with something
more than minimum speed on a gliding path, flattening out the
path as the surface is approached in a manner exactly similar
to that employed with a landplane, so that contact is made as
gently as possible, i.e., with a minimum vertical component of
velocity. If conditions are smooth the favored landing is to
touch the point of the step and the tail of the float at the same
time. This means contact a little faster than stalling speed but
under excellent control and, if power is used, enables a very
definite choice of the instant of contact. On the other extreme,
the plane may be "stalled" in, in this case first making contact
at the tail of the float. This is often employed in a rough sea,

but must be carefully done, for the danger of stalling and
uncontrolled attitude exists, as just mentioned. A still more
extreme type is actually to stall and "pancake" in, but this is a
severe and dangerous method, and is more often done through
misjudgment than intent. The stalled landing is the slowest,
so far as forward speed at contact is concerned, but is not
necessarily the smoothest, for the float bottom is presented at
a large angle, and particularly in rough water may involve more
severe pounding than a faster landing. The pancake landing
under these conditions may be particularly severe, due to the
vertical velocity component.
Once the landing is effected the plane decelerates rapidly,
passing through the getaway stages in inverse order until the
plane is at rest and floating. At an intermediate stage, how-
ever, just after the speed falls below that of planing, there is
sometimes a tendency to nod or porpoise even though such
condition is not present at this stage when accelerating. The
conditions are different due to the absence of the slipstream
which makes the elevators less effective.
Porpoising is often induced by pancaking (the float tending
to rebound under the nearly air-borne load). Porpoising may
also occur in getting away just after planing has been attained,
but the condition is usually of short duration and can be damped
by use of the elevator. Sometimes it results from "rocking"
in an effort to take off an overload. It may become severe, in
which case the only remedy appears to be to slow down and
start over again. Porpoising is dangerous in two ways: it
may cause the plane to stall off and return to the surface in an
uncontrollable attitude, or in a bad case may even result in
"nosing in."
Planing, take-off, and landing should involve a minimum of
shock; the "V" bottom insures this to a considerable degree.
Drifting

Another phase of float action is drifting without power.
Under these conditions, it is desirable that the float action
should not interfere with weathercocking into the wind. A
variety of drifting is "sailing." By the use of the air rudder
and the ailerons the plane may be kept headed into the 'wind
or even "well off" the wind. This depends largely on the keel
effect of the float. There must be sufficient freeboard at the
stern of the float to prevent turning over backwards, even in
FLOAT ACTION 15
a moderate sea. If the seas are breaking and particularly if
their direction does not coincide with the wind, it is important
that each crest be met squarely, especially if the seas are heavy
enough to cause "surf boarding," as under these conditions
yawing may readily result in disaster. Under these condi-
tions a sea anchor is of great assistance in making the air
controls effective.
When drifting astern at good speed the curvature at the
bows results in suction which depresses the bow and assists in
steering and in increasing the freeboard at the stern.
Beaching a plane nose-on, down wind, is a dangerous
maneuver if the wind is strong. In such case, "sailing astern"
with the engine idling can frequently be used to advantage,
particularly as a burst of power will make the rudders more
effective and at the same time will retard sternway, enabling a
safe approach.
Actions of Different Types
The central float is the most maneuverable, the boat next.
Twin floats are difficult to maneuver and are subject to
severe wracking stresses. Adrift or sailing astern, they steer
badly.
Short twin floats require a tail float; this is a very unsatis-
factory system in a seaway, particularly adrift, and sailing is
almost hopeless.
The sponson type steers badly across wind, but should sail

satisfactorily.
Flat bottoms pound severely, but have the reputation of
rapid getaway.
"V" bottoms reduce punishment. They run cleaner than
flat bottoms and when properly proportioned require no more
power to drive them than flat bottoms.
CHAPTER III
SUCTION EFFECT AND STEP ACTION
"Suction effect" is so little known and is of such im-
portance that it deserves special treatment. This subject is
so named because it is descriptive of the effects involving re-
duced pressure where fluids follow
convexly curved objects. It is given
separate treatment because it pertains
to certain features, which, if intro-
duced into a design, may result in
unsatisfactory or even dangerous
conditions.
It is now a well-recognized fact that
it was the cambered wing which made
heavier-than-air craft practicable. It
is also known that when large lifts
are obtained, they are provided more
by reduced pressures on the top of the
wing than by increased pressures
below. It therefore is not strange that
when a curved surface is presented to
a rapid flow of water which is over
800 times as dense as air, a very im-
portant force is produced. As a sim-
Figure 1 pje illustration of this effect, the
following experiment may readily be made: Take a teaspoon

or tablespoon; then, holding it with the tip of the handle be-
tween the thumb and forefinger, suspend it vertically; present
the bottom of the bowl of the spoon to a stream running from
a faucet. If the approach is made gradually it will be found
16
SUCTION EFFECT AND STEP ACTION 17
that as soon as the water makes contact with the bowl of the
spoon, it will be drawn into the stream with appreciable force,
and that the stream will at the same time be deflected in a
direction opposite to that in which the bowl is drawn. The
effort required to withdraw the bowl from the stream will
clearly indicate the nature of the suction effect referred to. It
is a similar though more complex effect which retains a ball
in the jet of a fountain. This effect contributes to the well-
known settling of streamlined surface craft at high speed,
unless hydroplaning factors are present to prevent or to over-
come it. In these cases the effect is complex, as it is com-
bined with the effects of surface waves which vary with the
speed of the vessel. These effects are less prominent at low
speeds or with full immersion, but the suction effect may be-
come decidedly prominent in heavier-than-air craft as the
wing lift brings the hull higher out of the water, for in this
case the portion of the bottom remaining in contact more
nearly approaches the case of the bowl of the spoon.
Some Unsatisfactory Models
An early model basin experiment clearly showed this, as
will now be related. It appeared possible that perhaps skin
friction of a float was of high importance in the early stages
of a seaplane take-off where most of the load is water-borne,
whereas at higher speeds the wing lift would reduce the effect
and also sufficiently reduce the water-borne portion so that

its form would be of little importance. Based on this con-
sideration, it appeared that the least wetted surface for a float
would be obtained if the cross-section were made semicircular
with the diameter as a water-line (Figure 2) ; in other words,
that the float should be in the form of a semicircular cylinder,
to which would be added a shell-pointed (ogival) bow and
stern (Figure 3). Such a model was constructed and tested
under airplane conditions, i.e., with wing lift applied accord-
i8
ing to the square of the speed so that at the getaway speed
the entire load was air-borne, while at zero speed the entire
load was water-borne, and at % getaway J^th the load was
air-borne, etc.
Figure 2
At low speed, the results were as anticipated; at interme-
diate speeds the results were fair, but as the getaway speed
was approached the results were distinctly bad. The faster
the float ran the dirtier it got, i.e., as the speeds became higher,
Figure 3
the model proceeded to lift large sheets of spray at the sides,
spreading like a glassy bird wing with its tips touching the
water (Figure 4).
11,111 /,
1111111 i
'' '''' i
Figure 4
At the start of one run the model was set to weigh noth-
ing, but placed just in contact with the surface. As soon as
way was "on," the model proceeded to develop the sheet of
spray noted before but to a greater extent, and when getaway

speed was attained the model had sucked down till the deck
19
of the float was about level with the surface of the water in
the model basin (Figure 5). The glassy sheet of spray on
each side rose several feet from the surface and the model
resistance was unusually high. A little study showed that this
behavior was due to suction effect.
Figure 5
Shortly thereafter a "V" bottom, double ender, stream-
line section float was tested (Figure 6). The lines were fine,
derived from a fast gunboat set of lines. This model ran
cleanly until getaway condition was approached, when there
Figure 6
was unmistakable evidence of suction effect, even when
trimmed by the stern. This was the model of an actual set
of floats, which, lightly loaded, succeeded in attaining flight
on a Wright B airplane, but which failed to take off two

persons except in a Strong head wind.
20
A Practical Failure
About this time it was discovered that a certain type of
float had insufficient stability to prevent overturning back-
wards when adrift. It had
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
a turned-down tail (Figure
7). To improve conditions,
it was decided to invert the
stern (Figure 8). The re-
sult was hopeless, for as
soon as the plane got under
way the suction at the stern
caused the float to "squat"
strongly by the stern and
nothing like flying speed could be attained. About the same
time, a stepped-type
model with a turned-up
stern, tested in the model
basin, showed exactly
similar results (Figure
9). In this case, the
turned-up stern was used

to obtain a streamline
tail for air flow. As
this was unsuccessful, the model was modified to provide
streamlining by chang-
ing the plan form (Fig-
ure 10). This model
ran well, except it was
noted that the water
Ci wanted to cling to the
I ^""^ sides and follow the \ curve to the tail where
Figure 12 tne two streams met and
Figure 10
Figure 11
SUCTION EFFECT AND STEP ACTION 21
formed a "roach." To clear this, a step at the side was intro-
duced (Figure 11) and this feature was improved and the
model looked so good that a full-sized float was constructed
and tested (Figure 12).
Unsuspected Danger
On a straightaway take-off and "landing, this float was
eminently successful. But, on a second attempt to take off
just after planing speed was attained, the pilot attempted a
left turn on the water and lowered his left wing to assist the
Figure 13
CO.
Figure 14
turn. Instantly the plane made a vicious turn to the right,
dropping the right wing into the water and tearing loose the
right tip float. It was so violent as to nearly throw the pilot
out of his seat. What happened was this: As the plane was
heeled, flow was established on the curved portion of the stern
on the left side and suction was created. In this case the suc-
tion was no longer symmetrical as it had been in the model
basin and in the previous flight test. The result was a pow-
erful force acting obliquely to the rear on the left side and be-
hind the C. G., which caused the sharp rotation to the right.
In another instance with triple floats, the side floats had

deeper sides inboard than outboard and tended to cause "ground
22
QO&
Figure IS
looping" on down wind landing. This was clearly due to "suc-
tion effect," for it was cured by putting side steps at A (Fig-
ure 15). Fortunately, the slope of
the bottom of the float on the outside
of the turn produced sufficient plan-
ing to prevent capsizing.
Figure 17
DWe will give another in-
stance of ground looping: this
is where a twin float was made
by splitting a central floatin
this case it was almost impos-
sible to land without ground looping (Figure 16). It was
cured in this case by the use of side steps A near the sterns
another clear case of "suction effect" (Figure 17).
Figure 16

23
Figure 18
In another case a beautiful flying boat was a failure due
to down curvature of the bottom to the rear of the step. This
boat, with only the pilot
aboard, was able actually
to get the step in the
air, but the plane would
not take off. Later with
the after bottom made
straight, flight was read-
ily attained with two on
board (Figure 18). Figure 19
Later, in the case of a foreign plane obtained as part of rep-
arations, this action was found:
The float had a long-tail, straight
bottom except that about 2 feet
from the stern it curved up
sharply. One flight was made
with no difficulty. On the next
flight after planing was attained,
in an effort to speed up the take-
off the tail was inadvertently
dipped into the water. The main
step was lifted about 1 foot clear,

but the tail could not be disen-
Hgaged and the plane failed to fly.
In the next attempt, the tail was
kept clear and a rapid
take-off was secured
(Figure 19).
Dangerous Tip Floats
Fisure 21 A different type of the
same effect was found with wing tip floats. To cheapen con-
struction, to avoid side loads, and to reduce head resistance,
Figure 20
these floats were made in a four-sided diamond section with
one edge down, and streamline profile of all faces (Figure 20).
The sharp "V" did not plane well, so hydrovanes were added
(H.H.). (See Figure 21.) Ordinarily, these were satisfac-
tory. However, in an effort to speed up take-off, the nose of
the plane was lowered after planing was attained in order to
reduce wing resistance, but this practically destroyed the hydro-
vane lift and increased the amount of the belly of the float, so
that when, while turning, the tip float touched, it was sucked
down until the wing above it was awash and the plane slewed
rapidly. By sharp maneuvering and cutting power, no damage
was done.
Perhaps the most serious phase of this effect is that brought
into play when the floats make water contact at high speed,
with the keel nearly level or slightly down by the nose. In
this case, the flow set up around the bow lines appears to have
caused at least two cases of somersaults. The evidence is not
conclusive, but portions of two-ply bottoms used showed
clearly that the outer layer of planking was torn off, probably
by suction. Of course, once the bottom is opened, and this
is instantaneous, the rush of water against the interior bulk-
heads of the floats retards them so rapidly that the plane som-
ersaults. It is probable, too, that the suction which tears open
the bottom also initiates the somersaulting. In these cases,
the bottom framing was not driven in. With a still greater

angle of contact, however, it appears the plane is sometimes
tossed off with stalling rotation. The model basin tests indi-
cate both these conditions.1
Enough has been said, it is believed, to make the nature of
this effect understood, as well as the desirability of avoiding
this feature in design.
'N.A.C.A., Technical Note #287, by Thomas Carroll, and N.A.C.A.,
Technical Note #288, by H. C. Richardson.
25
Step Action
Step action is designed to break the suction effects just
described by breaking the line of flow on curved surfaces.
The method employed is to provide a sharp break in the sur-
face, usually by employing a right angle or more acute bend.
The angle should be sharp.
As employed in the bot- "*
toms of aircraft floats, the
action is about as follows:
At low speeds the streams
follow the surface, but al-
most immediately this re-
sults in turbulence behind
the step, the water trying to
flow past as an inverted
waterfall. Now if air can-
not gain access the reduced
pressure existing behind the
step causes a serious drag,
but if air can gain admission from the chines or from vent
tubes, the inverted waterfall effect takes place, and as the speed
is increased the point of contact moves aft because the speed
of flow over the ledge increases in proportion, and ultimately
the flow clears the bottom entirely when planing is attained.

If the step is reduced, the height of the waterfall is reduced.
If the step is suppressed the water readily follows the slight
bend, if any is involved.
Figure 22
CHAPTER IV
FLOAT FEATURES
The present-day characteristics have been evolved differ-
ently in different countries, but appear to be focusing on fairly
well defined lines, differing principally in details and propor-
tions, but generally embodying certain elements in common.
These may be stated as general approximation to streamline
form, sled profile from step forward, a main step nearly under
the C.G., a bottom inclining upward from main step to the
stern or the second step, if used, and continuing its upward
trend at an equal or greater inclination to the stern post. More
than two steps are practically obsolete. The "V" bottom is
now very general, flat bottoms are becoming rarer, and hollow
bottoms persist in only a few designs. Most bows today re-
semble those of fast motor boats, but as a rule are fairly full,
with hollow "V" lines.
To attempt to trace the evolution definitely, chronologically,
or contemporaneously would be tedious. To be fair would
require a history. It therefore appears sufficient and adequate
to consider in an orderly way the possible forms, their prin-
cipal features, and the effects of same. Briefly, these forms
(naturally evolved) comprised displacement types, hydroplane
or glider types, and hydrovane types.
Operating Conditions
Aircraft floats operate under conditions differing impor-
tantly from surface craft since the loads carried vary with the

wing lift, so that at low speeds they carry substantially the full
load, while at getaway speed the load has been transferred to
26
FLOAT FEATURES 27
the wings, and at intermediate speeds the loads are inter-
mediate to these extremes.1 Under these conditions, there-
fore, the portion of the float in action differs from what it
would be in the case of surface craft (excepting, of course,
the hydrovane types in which the submerged vanes behave in
a manner clearly resembling the wings so far as lifting effect
is concerned).
Early Forms
Displacement types were found unsatisfactory for several
reasons. First, because at low speeds they tend to trim by
the bow, at higher speeds they tend to settle bodily, and at
still higher speeds, except with a great excess of power, they
refuse to leave the surface due to suction effects. These con-
ditions are further aggravated by the high line of propeller
thrust which at low speeds increases the nosing tendency.
Canoe lines and whaleboat lines are particularly bad, the
rounded up stern lines causing abnormal trim by the stern.
Pure streamline forms similar to dirigible form are hope-
less as floats. The suction effects are extreme, the water flow
hugs the surface and, following the sides, the streams meet
over the decks and form a "roach" which refuses to change its
condition as the speed is increased. Sometimes this results in
"diving" at moderate speeds. Two regimes of flow exist at
the higher speeds, for if the float is held clear until speed is
attained and is then returned to the surface, the "roach" does

not form. Unfortunately, floats have to start in the water
(unless catapulted).
The sled type float, square section and sled profile, was the
first really successful type. It avoided "suction" by having
1 Approximately, the wing lift varies with the square of the speed in
such a manner that at getaway speed 100% of the load is carried by the
wings; at 50% getaway 25% (.50 X -SO = .25) is carried by the wings;
at 10% getaway, 1% (.10 X -10 = .01) is carried by the wings, etc.
straight lines from the bow aft. It has two regimes of flow,
too. For instance, to get it planing at about 20 miles per hour
required about all the power available, but once this speed was
passed it planed satisfactorily, and could even slow down well
below 20 miles per hour and still plane with only a fraction
of the power required to drive it at these speeds before planing
was attained.
This type may be classed as a displacement type or a hy-
droplane type (perhaps it is more truly the latter) and of the
one step type. In the same manner, certain displacement types
with transom sterns and fairly straight lines under the counter
may also be classed as one step hydroplanes. Yet efforts to
use just such a type as a seaplane hull proved very unsatisfac-
tory, whereas when employed as a displacement type the results
were remarkably good. The high thrust line of the air pro-
peller undoubtedly was an important factor, as at a certain
speed this model tended to dive when operating under seaplane
conditions.
Hydroplane types have been used with some success, but
have limitations because of inherent qualities necessary to their
operation as hydroplane boats which conflict with qualities de-
sired of seaplane floats. Hydroplanes, particularly of the
multi-step type, require the steps to be in such relation that
fore-and-aft stability is obtained to the required degree at
high speed, and this stability tends to interfere with the longi-

tudinal control required of a seaplane; to facilitate early plan-
ing and control of attitude; and, more important, to choose the
conditions for take-off. As previously stated, it is now a
general characteristic of seaplane floats to have the bottom
inclining upward to the rear of the first step, whereas it is
quite general in hydroplane boats to have all steps sloping down-
ward to the rear. Ability to change trim by the air controls
becomes of special importance in rough water.
The "V" bottom in hydroplanes reduces pounding to some
FLOAT FEATURES 29
degree but is also important from the lateral stability point
of view. In seaplanes the "V" bottom is most important as
a shock absorber, for the minimum alighting speeds of sea-
planes are equal to or in some cases exceed the fastest speed
yet attained by hydroplanes. Lateral stability as derived from
the action of the "V's" is relatively unimportant for at the
speeds at which it becomes a factor, the air controls are more
effective and are frequently used to lower deliberately the tip
of the wing of the central float types to produce banking for
turning, or to aid the turn by dragging the tip float.
The hydroplane depends on dynamic water forces for its
stability at speed; the seaplane requires to rid itself of the
dominance of these forces at speeds above planing. However,
in this respect American practice differs from some foreign
practice, particularly the British. It is for this reason that
most American planes use single steps and British planes two
steps. The British prefer the water forces to dominate to a
later stage in the range of speed up to getaway, to avoid per-
mitting the pilot's taking off in a stalling attitude. To this
end, they deliberately provide lines curved downward from the
main step to near the second step in order to hold the plane
down, but provide a steeper rear step to prevent too much trim
by the stern due to "suction" on the curved surface. The main
step is farther forward and the second step farther aft to
assist longitudinal stiffness until the inverted waterfall clears

the down-curved second step. At this stage, the air speed is
high enough to give partial but not complete control.
In our practice, we prefer freedom of control to accom-
modate varying conditions of wind and seas, relying on the
training, skill, and judgment of the pilot to avoid a dangerous
stalling attitude at take-off. In some few cases of relatively
high-powered planes, it is even found the best practice for a
quick take-off actually to stall off, relying on a good reserve of
thrust to give flight control before the plane can return to the
surface.
3o AIRCRAFT FLOAT DESIGN
The first successful flight in this country was made with
a seaplane with a broad central float having a wing section
profile set at a large angle of attack. It was not very efficient
and was immediately abandoned for the well-known, sled type,
profile square-section float of relatively narrow beam and suf-
ficient length to provide longitudinal stability, with barely a
margin against turning over, stern first. The tail of the float
was well to the rear of the wing, which made it difficult to
increase the wing angle when planing.
Mutual Influences
"Suction effects," "step action," and "ventilation" phe-
nomena have been described, as well as the principles governing
certain general features. At the risk of some repetition, it
now appears desirable to consider some of the details of features
found in various designs of float and to describe their effects.
Sections, profiles, and plan forms vary widely, yet in any par-
ticular type they are mutually related physically as well as in
the effects produced. Physically, because these three features
must blend harmoniously, i.e., they must be mutually faired.
If one is varied the others must be varied, resulting in mutual
as well as independent variation in effect. It appears feasible
and useful to examine them separately.
So far as the power required to drive floats through the
water is concerned, it is the underwater form which dominates,
although cleanness of running and seaworthiness in general

depend to some degree on the abovewater portion, and this is
still more true of airworthiness of floats. In both boat and
float types the abovewater portion can be varied to suit re-
quirements, with only a minor influence on the power required
to overcome water resistance. Bearing forward requires good
flare, yet must not be too bluff else it will toss spray into the
wind and make a wet boat. Besides, if too bluff or if the
deck is too broad, it will produce poor air flow.
FLOAT FEATURES
31
Body Plan or Sections
A. The rectangular section is
the simplest; it planes well, but
pounds in rough water; at low
speed the water follows the
sides; at higher speeds deck
spray boards may be necessary.
B. The straight "V" runs more
cleanly than the flat bottom, and
relieves shock on landing and
take-off and while planing.
C. The inverted "V" runs
clean but pounds nearly as hard
as the flat bottom. Its resistance
is on a par with an equal str, .ight
"V."
D. The rounded bottom planes
well and reduces pounding, but
the resistance is higher than the
flat or "V" bottoms and it is
"dirty," i.e., it tends to throw
considerable spray.
E. The hollow bottom runs
clean, planes well, but is harsh

in action. It is reputed to have
low resistance.
F. The hollow "V" runs well
and holds down spray though it
tends to shjot out a sheet of
spray. The drag is high just
before take-off, as the steep "V"
at the keel drags with very little
planing power, and a large wetted
area is exposed to water flow.
32
G. Sponson types with com-
pound curvature plane well and
pounding is reduced, but the re-
sistance when planing is rela-
tively high. Shock absorbing is
less satisfactory than with the
"Vs." /
H. Sponson types with straight
or hollow "V's" are very satis-
factory. In this and the preced-
ing types a large planing area is
associated with a small area of
fuselage.
<'.C The curved deck from
chine to chine may be associated
with any of the types of bottom
just described.
L & M. When "V" bottoms
straight or of shallow and steep
curvature are used, it is some-
times advantageous to use a
spray strip to turn down the
sheet of spray which is charac-
teristic, with sharp "V" bow

lines. This strip may be of wood
or of metal, and if of the latter is
sometimes carried beyond the
side of the float. As a rule, it
is locally applied to that portion
of the chine which would other-
wise throw spray onto the wings
or into the propeller.
FLOAT FEATURES
33
N & O. Sometimes, what are
known as side steps are used, but
they have no particular advan-
tage over the "V" types and in-
volve additional joints in the
structure. The theory seems to
be to reduce bottom area for
take-off and alighting.
P. Broad sponson type. An-
other form of sponson type is
used to provide lateral stability [
for central float types, avoiding
the use of tip floats.
Q. Semicircular or semiellipti-
cal. Very bad as described under
"Suction Effects." The water
flow clings to the curved lines.
R. Circular or elliptical. Same
as preceding but much worse,
for sheets of water follow sur-
face until they meet on top
forming a roach.
S. Circular, but with a false
bottom forming a step, quite sat-

isfactory, the chines and steps
breaking the objectionable flow
described in the preceding cases.
Much favored by the British.
34
Plan Form (Bows to Left)
a. Scow type. This simple
form is used generally with
the rectangular section float
of sled profile, or a varia-
tion of this type with a step.
b. Scow typetapered or
flat-iron stern. This type is
good in the air but is dan-
gerous on the water, as de-
scribed under the subject of
"Suction Effect."
c. Double ender. Insuffi-
cient bearing at bow.
d. Streamline plan form.
Very generally used and
quite satisfactory.
e. Too little bearing for-
ward and too much aft
tends to dive.

FLOAT FEATURES
35
f. Double ender. Too little
bearing forward.
g. Tadpole type. Narrow
lines represent fuselage plan
of good streamline, and
broad lines the broad bottom.
h. Skate type. The prede-
cessor of the preceding in
which the broad bottom ter-
minates in a straight athwart-
ship line at the step.
k. Winged type.

Profiles. Center Line
(Bows to Left)
(Usual chines indicated)
1. Sled type. The first
successful type.
2. Sled type. Stern of 1
invertedsuction at stern.
3. Double ender. Same at
bow and sternsuction effect
strong.
tq
4. Double ender canoe.
Same at bow and stern
suction effect strong.
5. Double ender whale-
boat. Same at bow and stern
suction effect strong.
6. Double ender gunboat
type. Same at bow and stern
suction effect mild.
(3, 4, and 5 with rounded sections are hopeless as seaplane floats.
6, with moderate "V" bottom sharp at bow and stern and full amid-

ships, is fair for light loads, but suction effect is present.)
FLOAT FEATURES
37
7. Two step hydro. Quite
good, but difficult to trim by
air controls.
8. Three step hydro. Quite
good, but difficult to trim by
air controls, and not so good
as 7.
9. Step type, bottom rising
aft. Very satisfactory. Per-
mits planing on main step
and trimming by air controls.
10. Similar to 9 but longer
tail, less freedom to trim.
10
11. Two step type, bottom
rising aft of main step, and C"~
still steeper aft of second ..^^^
step.
12. Similar to 11 but with
strong curvature aft of sec-
ond step, squats strongly, un-
satisfactory, resistance high.
13. Similar to 12, but rear
bottom parallel to bottom aft

of main step. Considerable
improvement over 12.
14. Similar to 12, but with
second step omitted and bot-
tom carried straight to stern
post from main step. A very
efficient form.
12
(12, 13 and 14 require outriggers to carry tail surfaces.)
38
15. A modification of 14,
with a short stern added clear
of the normal water-line; as
good as 14, but with more
stability against overturning
tail first, and better when
sailing astern. Tail surfaces
carried on extension.
16. A modification of 14
and 15 with a longer stern to
carry tail surfaces, a little
harder running at low speeds,
but trimming less by stern,
and as good as 14 above
planing speeds.
17. Typical of latest Brit-
ish practice, with main step
forward relative to that of
16, with second step further
aft than in 16, and having
sharp local down trend, with
convex bottom between main
and second steps. The after
portion both at the deck and

keel are raised to keep tail
surfaces well clear of the
water.
(15 is suited to a biplane, but is too short for a monoplane. 16 is
suited to a monoplane, but is longer than necessary for a biplane. 17
is suited to either monoplane or biplane.)
18. Twin floats with tail
'float. A favorite British
type.
19. Optimum streamline
limited longitudinal stability.
19

40
Bows to Right
(1)
(1) Tank type. Heavy,
and bad air resistance, but
simple and rugged.
(3)
(4)
(2) Wing sectionflat
bottom. Efficient, low air
resistance, but tending to
-bury, drifting astern, and
cause dangerous yawing.
(3) Wing section"V"
bottom. Efficient, easy,
otherwise similar to (2). A
variation incorporates hollow
"V's" to hold down spray.
(4) "V" bottomstream-
line plan. Very good, safe
dri fting disadvantage, flat
deck. Delays recovery when

swamped, till deck load of
water runs off.
'gfV" bottomfull
streamline plan. Excellent
safe drifting, low resistance.
Flat deck, same effects as
(4).
-.
FLOAT FEATURES
4i
(6) Same as (5) but
cambered deck.
(7) Similar to (6), but
full streamline with "V" bot-
tom, low resistance, latest
development.
(8) Streamline, fair plan-
ing, but bad drifting, similar
to (2).

neath to aid in planing and to ease shock, the paddles over-
hanging to the rear for this purpose, and also tapering in
thickness. As size increased, however, and their importance
became greater they began to take better aerodynamic and
hydrodynamic form. Progressively, the features incorporated
followed the development of main floats in principle.
Hydrovane Blades
Because of the successes of Meacham, Forlanini, Crocco,
Ricaldini, Guidoni, Graham Bell, Baldwin and others with
hydrovane blade systems on speed boats this system was natu-
rally investigated and was one of the first tried at the Model
Basin at Washington in connection with seaplane floats in
1911. It is fascinating and possible, the most notable success
being that of Alexander Graham Bell in Nova Scotia on an
air-propellered boat. Its disadvantages are the weight of the
system and difficulty of longitudinal control. Tandem systems
are particularly difficult because of downwash and surface wave
effects on the system. Besides, the most efficient angles are
small, and nice landings are required to avoid jumping or div-
ing, but there is still greater danger of fouling, debris, buoys,
seaweed, or even large fish or aquatic animals. There is also
the difficulty of beaching. As a means of planing, they are
very efficient, so much so, in fact, that they will usually plane
before the air controls are effective. They are well known,
have been tried, have even succeeded, but have not been adopted

and appear unlikely to survive.
CHAPTER V
FLOAT ARRANGEMENT
Two principal systems exist, with a number of variations
in each. These are the twin float system with variations as to
the means of obtaining longitudinal stability, and the central
float with variations as to means of obtaining lateral stability.
Twin Float System
The twin float system as indicated consists primarily of a
pair of symmetrical floats. By their lateral spacing adequate
lateral stability is readily attained.
Short floats which are often employed require an addi-
tional tail float to provide longitudinal stability at rest and at
low speed, and usually the floats are simple in form, not using
a step, and seldom employing the "V" bottom. Often the
twin floats are fitted with a shock-absorbing system of struts.
Long floats usually have sufficient length to provide the
necessary longitudinal stability. In this case, "V" bottom
and steps are usually incorporated and shock-absorbing struts
are rarely employed.
This system is readily applied to landplanes in place of
wheels but, because of weaving and wracking stresses due to
the floats not present with wheel landing gear, requires con-
siderable reinforcement of the plane structure. In single-
engine planes, the aijLpropeller is on the centerline and must be.
located with the tips well clear of the water surface and-Ql-tne
bow waves of the floats. For military planes this system has

advantages as it permits bombs or torpedoes to be carried in
or under the fuselage, and does not interfere with bomb sights.
43
Commercially, it is useful for photographic planes. It is also
readily applied to small planes of narrow span, or to mono-
planes, and forms a simple base for amphibian gear. It is an
awkward system to catapult.
Central Float Systems
The central float system divides into two distinct classes,
viz., the float types and the boat types. In the central float
types, the central float is depended upon for the main buoyancy,
and usually is of adequate length for suitable longitudinal sta-
bility. Lateral stability is provided in several ways, the most
general being tip floats which are placed just clear of the
water with the plane levelled laterally. A variation of this is
to bring the tip floats closer in and to take advantage of a
portion of their buoyancy to provide initial lateral stability.
This is known as the triple float system.
The central float of streamline form is located immediately
under the fuselage, as close as propeller clearance will permit.
The float and the fuselage are readily tied together and afford
mutual support. The float is long enough to give good pro-
peller protection and is usually of the stepped "V" type. In
certain cases, the fuselage is merged into the float by a con-
tinuous structure, in which case it closely approaches the boat
type.
The boat types combine the fuselage and float into one unit,
and lateral stability is obtained in the same manner as with

the central float, viz., the tip float or triple float system. In
this case, another method of lateral stability is often used, that
is, by building wing-shaped sponsons on the side of the
hull, which at rest are partially submerged and also aid in
planing in the early stages. In the general form, the tail
surfaces are supported directly on the tail of the hull, but in a
few cases the hull is short and the tail surfaces are carried on
outriggers.
FLOAT ARRANGEMENT 45
The choice of float arrangement will depend on the service
intended and on size. For inland waters, rivers, lakes, and
harbors not subject to large waves or ground swells, any of
the arrangements described may be adopted, and for planes
of small span, light weight, or for monoplanes of moderate size
the long-tail, twin float arrangement is, in general, satisfactory.
For work over the open seas, sounds, or large bays and
lakes, the boat or central float is indicated, particularly in the
larger sizes. So far as lateral stability is concerned the tip
float system has been most used; it requires special attention
that the tip floats are firmly secured. If the span is large, with
the biplane there is some danger of the lower wings suffering
damage from the crests of a choppy sea rising between the main
hull and the tip floats. In such cases and with monoplanes,
the triple float or wing-shaped sponsons are winning favor.
Both the latter systems provide initial stability laterally, but
require good steering control to overcome the drag on the lee
side when turning across wind.
Water Rudders Not Essential
Water rudders do not appear essential with aircraft floats
but have been used, particularly with single engine or tandem
engine arrangements. Unless controlled independently of the
air rudders, they are tricky in landing or taking off across
wind, or skidding. The proper setting for the water rudder
may differ seriously from that of the air rudder, so that, as

the water rudder comes into or goes out of action a sharp
change in steering effect takes place which must be instantly
corrected to avoid undue or even dangerous yawing. Par-
ticularly on landing (for on take-off the combined action con-
trols up to the point where the water rudder comes clear)
the water rudder may be set at a large angle to the direction
of water flow, and subject the rudder to violent forces. To
compensate for this, the tiller or rudder yoke is often con-
nected to the rudder bars by means of springs strong enough
to provide adequate steering, but sufficiently elastic to yield
before the forces become dangerous.
Reserve Buoyancy
With the twin float system, it is desirable to have 100%
reserve buoyancy, but as this requires larger floats, the reserve
is frequently as low as 90%. For special cases operating
under selected conditions this may be reduced slightly but it
is not recommended.
With the central float system, the reserve buoyancy may be
as low as 60%, though 70% is recommended.
For a given displacement, a central float is lighter than a
pair of twin floats, and this difference is still more in favor of
the central float when the advantage of less reserve required
is taken into account. Still another advantage lies in the
relatively lower L/B ratio permissible which also leads to a
better coefficient of air resistance. Yet another advantage is
possible if the plane is designed solely as a seaplane, for by
taking account of the mutual support of the fuselage and float
still more weight is saved. These advantages more than out-
weigh the disadvantages of the necessary wing-balancing floats.
The full advantages of the central float system accrue to
the boat type in which the hull and fuselage are merged, elim-
inating the strut system between them, increasing the useful
space available, and greatly augmenting the reserve buoyancy.

Seaworthiness is also improved, for the C. G. of the boat types
is usually relatively low and the freeboard relatively high.
To sum up: It appears quite definite that, other conditions
permitting, the merits of the different possible float arrange-
ments range themselves in the order of boats, central floats,
and twin floats, boats being best from the general view for
seaplanes.
CHAPTER VI
DESIGN PROCEDURE
Certain properties of floats, viz., volume or displacement,
water-line areas, center of buoyancy, metacentric height, etc.
require computations based on the geometric form of the float
or of its sections. As will be seen later, a float is geometrically
determined from conventional plans which include the body
plan, profile, and half plan. These conventional plans con-
tain the elements required to determine the geometric properties
of floats.
Such computations are familiar to the naval architect, but
it may be of advantage to review fundamental principles of
mensuration and, at the same time, indicate some short cuts
which enable a quick and sufficiently accurate estimate of prop-
erties for the purpose of this treatise.
Determination of Areas
The first stage is the determination of areas of sections,
part of whose boundaries are curved lines. If a planimeter is
available the method is extremely simple, for it is only nec-
essary to set up the instrument with the tracer point at some
point of the boundary, take the initial reading or set it at zero,
then trace the boundary in a clockwise direction until the trac-
ing point reaches the starting point. The difference between
the initial and final reading is a measure of the area, dependent
only on the scale of the drawing and the constant of the in-
strument. There are numerous forms of planimeters and their

use is readily learned.
A simple method is to lay out the section on scale plotting
paper, as indicated in Figure 24, showing a section, CABD.
47
48
Figure 24
Each of the smallest squares of the plotting paper is 1/10
in. X 1/10 in. = 1/100 sq. in. By dividing up the area by a
straight line, KL, it is easy to estimate the number of square
inches as follows: CKLD = 4 sq. in.
Above the line KL,
_ 5 X 2.6 13.0
10
- 5 w 2.6
the area a is ^ X
i - 5 v 3-5
the area b is ^ X
the area c is jx X
. 5
the area a is r^ X
a - 5 v 7-8
the area e is ^ X -^ =
10
5X)
io:
67
10:
the area / is t X
-5

the area g is t^ X
the area h is t^ X
10
77
10:
6^5
10;
46
io:
loo""loo" ,u sq-
5 x 3.5 _ 17.5
100 100
5 X 5.0 _ 25.0
100 100
5 x 6.7 33.5
100 100
5 X 7.8 39.0
100 100
5 X 7.7 _ 38.&
100 100
5x6.5 = 32.5
100 loo
5 X 4.6 _ 23.0
100 100
in.
= .175
= .25
= .335
= .39
= .385
= .325
= .230
2.220 sq. in.
4.
6.22 sq. in.
By planimeter the area of this figure is 6.21 sq. in.
DESIGN PROCEDURE 49
Strip Method
The next method is the Strip Method. Let us again take
Figure 24. Erect ordinates 1, 2, 3, .... 9, at equal inter-
vals perpendicular to the base line. Now, midway between
these ordinates erect the ordinates a, b, c, d, ... . h.
The area of the strip between
1 and 2 is very closely equal to the base 1, 2 X a
5 w 12.6 63.0 ,_ .
= ioxlo~=Too = 63s<i-m-
2 and 3 is very closely equal to the base 2, 3 X 6
5 13,5 _ 615 _ ,
~ 10 x 10 ~ 100" 's
3 and 4 is very closely equal to the base 3, 4 X c
5 15.0 75.0 7.
10 X 10 100
4 and 5 is very closely equal to the base 4, 5 X d
5 v167_83I5_
"10X 10 " 100" *"
5 and 6 ir very closely equal to the base 5, 6 X e
10A 10 100
6 and 7 is very closely equal to the base 6, 7 X /
10 x ,io " 100 ~ -883
7 and 8 is very closely equal to the base 7, 8 X g
Sv 16.5 82.5 .
~10X 10 ~ 100" -8^

8 and 9 is very closely equal to the base 8, 9 X h
5 14.6 73.0 n
"10X 10 100
Area = 6.22 sq. in.
This method naturally is substantially the equivalent of the
. block method. It can be done in two other ways: First, by
SO AIRCRAFT FLOAT DESIGN
adding the ordinates a, b, c, . . . . h, arithmetically; then,
12.6 + 13.5 + 15 + 16.7 + 17.8 + 17.7 + 16.5 + 14.6 =
124.4/10 = 12.44 in.; then multiplying this sum by the com-
mon base of each strip, viz., 5/10 in., we have: Area = .5
X 12.44 = 6.22 sq. in.
Second. This method is simple and useful as it avoids
estimating small fractions in individual cases with accumula-
tive errors. It involves a graphic addition of the ordinates
in the following manner:
E,Tat"bT~'
OP Q
bH
GH
Take a straight-edged strip of paper, EFHG. At some
point along the edges and near one end, such as O, mark an
arrow with a sharp-pointed pencil. Now place the point O at
the foot of a, and lay off OP = a; next place P at foot of b
and lay off PQ = b, etc., etc., to W. Then graphically, OW
= a-\-b-\-c-\-d-\-e-\-f -\-g + h, and by actual use of
this method the sum = 124.5/10 = 12.45. Therefore, the
area = OW X .5 = 12.45 X .5 = 6.225 sq. in. This method
is easily applied and is quite useful.
Trapezoidal Rule
Still another method which is very generally used is the

Trapezoidal Rule, and it is, in effect, the base of the methods
just illustrated, for they are all based on the assumption that
the upper boundary of each strip is substantially a straight line,
which, however, is not exactly the truth.
Let us consider the area CAMN, and assume it to be a
trapezoid. Its area then is equal to X CN. Like-
NM + PO
wise, the area NMOP is equal to X NP, but
DESIGN PROCEDURE 51
NP = CN = .5, etc. Now the area of the figure is equal to
the sum of the areas: CAMN + NMOP +, etc. Arranging
these in order:
Area CAMN = CA + NM X CN
NMOP = m+poXNP
POQR =+MxPR
RQST =RQ+TSXRT
TS+ VU
TSUV = ^ XTV
vuwx=vu+xwxvx
XW-\- 7V
XWYZ = 3 X XZ
ZBD =zz+mXZD
CN= NP= PR, etc., etc. = .5
Adding:
Area CABD
= (^y+NM+PO+RQ+TS+VU+XWI-ZY+^CN
/^ +13+ 14.2 + 15.8 + 17.3 + 18 + 17.1 + 15.6 + ^\ s
= \ 10 /TO
= (6.25 + 13 +14.2 + 15.8 + 17.3 + 18 f 17.1 f 15.6 + 6.7) ^
= 123.95 X .05 - 6.1975
The Trapezoidal Rule may be stated thus:
Divide the base into any suitable number of equal parts,
erect ordinates at each station; then to half the sum of the
end ordinates add the sum of the intermediate ordinates,

and multiply this sum by the common interval; the product
is the area of the figure.
Simpson's Rule
A more accurate method is the use of Simpson's Rule.
This rule takes account of the curvature of the boundaries on
the basis that the curves are parabolic in form, which is usu-
ally sufficiently close to the truth to be quite accurate and
more exact than the trapezoidal assumption of approximate
straight lines.
Let us consider the area CAPO; midway between C and
P set up the ordinate NM. According to Simpson's Rule, the
area is then equal to -~ (CA + 4-NM +, PO), when j =
CN = NP = } CP; i.e., j is the common interval between
ordinates.
Similarly, the area POST = | (PO + IRQ + TS)
the area STWX _ | (TS + \VV + XW)
the area XWBD = | (XW + 4ZY + DB)
Adding:
Area CABD
** | (CA + 4tNM + 2PO + 4<2 + 2TS + \VV + 2XW + iZY +DB)
= |(12.S + 4X13+2X14.2 + 4X15.8+2X17.3 + 4X 18+2
X 17.1 + 4x15.6+13.4)
= ^ (12.5 + 52 + 28.4 + 63.2 + 34.6 + 72 + 34.2 + 62.4 + 13.4)
- 3 X 372.7 = ^|^ = 6.212 sq. in.

It is simpler to arrange the work in tabular form as follows:
DESIGN PROCEDURE 53
Station Ordinate ,, ,P ,. Multiple
Multipliers
12.5
12.5
13.0
52.0
14.2
28.4
15.8
63.2
17.3
34.6
18.0
72.0
17.1
34.2
15.6
62.4
13.4
13.4

2372.7 (lOths)
s= .5
= 37.27
s .5
30) 186.35
33
30
6.212 sq. in. area
Simpson's Rule may thus be stated:
Divide the base into an even number of equal spaces. At
each station erect an ordinate. To the sum of the end ordi-
nates add the sum of 4 times the even numbered ordinates;
to this sum add the sum of 2 times the intermediate odd num-
bered ordinates (if any) ; multiply this sum by 1/3 the com-
mon interval. The product will be the area of the figure.
Summarizing: The following results have been obtained
by the different methods as the area of Figure 24.
Error Based on (2) % Error
(1) By layout on plotting paper 6.22 sq. in.+ .01 +.161
(2) By Planimeter 6.21 sq. in. .00 .0
(3) By Strip Method (mean ordinate) 6.22 sq. in. + .01 + .161
(4) By Strip Method, using tape for adding 6.225 sq. in. + .015 + .24
(5) By Trapezoidal Method 6.1975sq.in. - .0125 -.20
(6) By Simpson's Rule 6.212 sq. in. + .002 + .03
The per cent error for the particular example chosen is
therefore very small. The maximum discrepancy in all meth-
ods is 2.75 in 622 = .443%, or less than y2 of 1%.
Determination of Moments and Location of C.G.
The next step is the determination of moments and the
location of the C.G. of such a figure. It is most simply
done by means of the Graphic Method, which is to cut out
the contour of the figure to scale in reasonably stiff cardboard,
then suspend it freely by a pin through such a point as F.
From this pin suspend a weight on a thread and note where
this thread crosses the margin, mark this point, connect F and
this point by a straight line. The C.G. is somewhere on this
line FH. Similarly, a second line is drawn when the figure
is suspended freely from another point, G. The C.G. is also
on this line GK; it is therefore at the intersection of these
lines, C.G. since it is on both lines, and is therefore readily
spotted. However, it may happen that the lines from F and
G form a very small angle. In such case, another point of
suspension should be chosen giving a bigger angle.
Vertically, the C.G. is readily located for it is at half the
height of the "mean" ordinate, which is readily determined
since the area = base X mean ordinate.
Area = 6.21, Base = 4.
Therefore, the mean ordinate is -^ = 1.5525, and half of this is .77
To obtain its distance to the right of the left-hand margin

let us use Simpson's Rule (table on page 55). C.G. is .77
in. above base and 2.075 in. to right of left margin; by check
from right margin is 1.93 in. from right.
2.075
1.93
4.005 = base
DESIGN PROCEDURE
55
The graphic method is quite simple and is reasonably
accurate.
Station Ordinate
Simpson's Multiple Multiple Product for
Multiplier for Area for Moment Moment
12.5
12.5
0.0
13.0
52.0
52.0
14.2
28.4
56.8
15.8
63.2
189.6
17.3
34.6
138.4
18.0
72.0
350.0
17.1
34.2
205.2
15.6
62.4
436.8
13.4
13.4
107.2
372.7
s= .5

372.7) 1,536.0
4.15
.s
2.075
Mensuration, Volume, Area L.W.L., Moment of Inertia
of L.W.L., C.B.
Figure 25 represents the "lines" of a float in "profile,"

DESIGN PROCEDURE 57
The L.W.L. area is 47.38 sq. ft.
The C.F. (center of flotation) is 1.6 ft. forward of the
step = 19.2 in.
The step is at 110/190 = .58 = 58% of length, from the
bow. The step is 3 in. deep.
The C.B. (center of buoyancy) is .9 ft. = 10.8 in. for-
ward of the step.
The left half of the "body plan" shows frame lines and
water lines for stations 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11, and the L.W.L.
forward.
The right half of the "body plan" shows frame lines and
water lines for stations 11, 11', 13, 15, 17, 19, and the
L.W.L. aft.
The "profile" shows deck line L.W.L.chine lines, step
and keel lines.
The "half breadth" plan, Figure 27, shows the half beam
of the float at the chine and at the L.W.L., and also the L.W.L.
forward from chine to keel.
Figure 28 is a plot of areas of y2 "sections" to the L.W.L.,
from which the volume and the C.B. location are determined.
Figure 29 is a plot of areas of l/2 "sections" from which
the volume of the submerged float is" determined.
The area of the L.W.L. and the center of flotation are
determined directly from the L.W.L. plot in Figure 27. The
moment of inertia, /, of the L.W.L. is also determined from

the plot; and from / and V, expressed in the same units, the
metacentric height. BM is determined by the equation, BM
= I/V.
It will therefore be seen that "float lines" as represented
by the profile, body plan, and half breadth serve to determine
the float characteristics. It has already been stated that these
three plans are mutually related and must be "faired" to repre-
sent the float.
We will now proceed to develop the data given from the
lines to show the derivation of the values listed above.
The areas of sections at stations may be determined by
counting the squares or by the use of a planimeter. It is as-
sumed this has been done, and that Figure 28 is a plot, 1 in.
of ordinate representing 1 sq. in. area of section, the ordinates
being set up at corresponding stations.
Volume to L.W.L. Computation and C.B. Location
Trapezoidal
Multiplier
Vol.
Multiple
Moment Arm
from Step
Station
Area
AreaX Arm
.05
y* .
.025
.125
.65
2.60
1.22
1.22
3.66
1.55
1.55
3.10
1.75
1.75
1.75
11
1.90
1.45
.95
.00

.65
2 6.145
2+11.235
11'
.725
.00
13
1.30
1.30
1.30
15
1.13
1.13
2.26
in
t0
'-d
Area of L.W.L. and / Determination and C.F. Location
Trapezoidal
Multiplier
Vt
Vl
J^ beam
Ord.
.0
0.40
4.00
0.00
0.-
0.S9
0.00
.90
.00
11
00
IS
47
49

0.0
Moment Arm
from Step
Moment
Ord.'
Trapezoidal
Multiplier
Area
Multiple
.4
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.0
0.00
.90
.00
200.00
Interval 0
Yi Area = 0.090
Area = 47.00
BM lateral = 00.900/40.0 = .000
6o
to
K3
2 8
II
.a-a
o P.
^1
00 00
CS ro Tj< vO .-
W) ON M *
i-iiOOO
5'
p.
00 In
ill
?> ^ ?>
sss
"JH

CS <M <M
OS
II II II
II
S!sr
t^
lO^POCS'-H O ^H CS fOTt<
OCXS cs
4.0
0.1
0.70
.00
ON
OC
lOTjffOINH O HCN^Tji
^~
^Ht<5iOt^.O\ -< f^Vjt^-Ov
^ 00 00
II II II
00
II
UK5
DESIGN PROCEDURE 6l
For more exact methods and for special cases, reference
should be made to any good work on naval architecture, such
as "Textbook of Theoretical Naval Architecture," by
Atwood.1

1 Longmans, Green & Co.
CHAPTER VII
STABILITY
According to Diehl, satisfactory static stability is attained
if transverse G.M. = longitudinal G.M. = 1.4 (A)i/
when A = gross load. If this condition is met, there is equal
stability about the fore-and-aft axis, and the athwartship axis
and any intermediate axis.
The transverse metacentric height of twin floats, accord-
ing to the same authority, is closely approximated from:
G.M. = ^
when L = length, and B the beam of each float in ft., s the
spacing on c.l. in ft., A gross weight, and K a constant varying
from 17.7 to 20.8, with a mean value of 19.5:
Substituting the value of G.M. above,
-(
1.4 A1/3\1/2 _ .28 A2/3
19.5 LB) ~ ^LB
The longitudinal metacentric height for single or twin
floats is approximately determined by the method described
under Design Procedure, or with sufficient exactness by the
equation:
G.M. = ^
where n = number of floats, and K.2 (a constant with a value
between 1.9 and 2.4 and a mean value of 2.1) is good for a
62

first approximation.
STABILITY 63
From this equation, the minimum length of a seaplane float
will be:
3 = 1.4 A4/3 = .67 Aila
2.1 nB nB
For single floats and flying boats, lateral stability depends
on the use of tip floats. Normally, these floats are clear of
the surface by from 3 to 8 in. depending on span when on
even keel, and only come into play when the plane is heeled.
It is usual to make the tip volume such that when the plane
is inclined laterally until the tip float is just submerged or until
the tip of the wing just touches the surface, the righting effort
is at least twice the upsetting couple, due to the displacement
of the C.G. of the plane due to its inclination. If this is true,
the upsetting and righting moments bear the relation:
Ai I cos 0 = CWh sin 0 .\ Ax = CW^ tan 0
where h = BG; I = distance center to tip float; W = gross
weight; C >2 preferably = 2.5 to 3.5.
For triple floats, the lateral floats are normally partially
submerged, and therefore provide an initial righting moment
which can be determined from the inertia of the initial water-
line. As a rule, the / of the main float is only a small frac-
tion of the / of the float system.
G.M. for the side floats may be determined as in the case
for twin floats:
A.

in which G.M., and A, refer to the side floats as well as L
and B, if we ignore the main float.
Sponsoned main floats give a G.M. determined upon BM
= I/V, where / takes into account the lateral extension of the
water plane, due to partial submergence of the sponsons.
CHAPTER VIII
STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS
Bottom of the Float
The bottom of the float is most important, for it must
stand the dynamic forces applied at high speeds. The loads
so imposed must be distributed to the structure of the float
so that the concentrated loads, in the hull or at the strut con-
nections in the case of separate floats, are delivered to the
bottom.
From the best information available, it appears the max-
imum loads on the bottom are in the neighborhood of 8 lbs.
per sq. in., but these loads are maximum near the point of the
step, and reduce from this point to the chine at step by about
33%, and from the step forward for about half the length
of the forward bottom, they again reduce about 33%. It is
usual to require that 8 A be carried by the area from the step
to half-way to the L.W.L. at the bow, and that it be assumed
distributed as above described (A is normal load.)
The bottom framing and plating must then stand this
loading without exceeding the elastic limit of the material
used. This subject now gets beyond the scope of the work,
and in any case requires different treatment according to the
type of structure supporting the bottom.
In flight, all loads in the floats are transmitted to the wing
structure and the float must be designed to bring its loads to
the wings at concentration points from which the loads are

transmitted to the wings through the wing spars directly, or
indirectly through float struts and wires to the fuselage and
thence to the wings. Appropriate factors of safety are involved
depending on the type and maneuvering qualities of the plane.
64
STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 65
At rest on the surface the float must stand the stresses
of storm waves. In the two extreme cases of hogging and
sagging, the usual requirement is to assume the float on a
trochoidal wave. In the first case, the displacement of full
load is developed with the crest of the wave amidships, and
in the second with the displacement of full load developed
with the hollow of the wave amidships. Instead of, as in
shipbuilding, assuming the trochoidal wave of a height 1/20
the length on the L.W.L., it is assumed the height is 1/20 the
overall length, as this case is more severe but probable, even
though the stern may overhang the L.W.L. aft by a high
percentage of the L.W.L. length.
In the case of flying boats, there are various concentrated
loads in different portions of the hull; there are the dead load
of wings and tail surfaces and the power plant loads, the crew
and equipment, gas and oil loads, etc.
Float structural development has been rapid and has passed
through many phases. It is not yet standardized, and each
case therefore requires special treatment. It cannot yet be
generalized; but it is possible to specify the conditions required
to be met and this is done in design specifications on which
the hull or float analysis must be made.
Among the conditions not yet mentioned is landing, in
which specified factors are applied for vertical loads combined
with a retarding load, the result being an oblique loading in

the plane of symmetry. There is the case of a skidding land-
ing placing lateral loadings on the float system. The speci-
fications are arbitrary, but largely based on the results of
practice.
Wooden Floats
Originally, floats were made of wood. They were compart-
mented by bulkheads, which were also utilized to distribute
the concentrated loads to the structure and through the bulk-
heads, skin, and framing to the supporting system for the
bottom.
In the earliest form the bottom planking consisted of fore-
and-aft or athwartship strakes of planking, with or without
seam battens to afford watertightness. This planking was
supported by keel and chine stringers and the athwartship bulk-
heads, but between the latter, was rather inadequately and
inefficiently supported by frame battens. A typical framework
for such a structure is shown in Figure 30.
The next step was the two-ply bottom with inner plies
athwartships from keel to chine, and an outer ply running
diagonally from keel to chine and trailing aft. Watertightness
was secured by cloth in marine glue or varnish between the
plies, which were quilt-nailed together by clinch nails. The
bottom was supported principally by the keel and chine, and in
the wider floats by one or more intermediate keelsons, which
in turn were supported by the main bulkheads, and in the
larger floats by partial bulkheads, floors, and intermediate
frames. The margins were secured by screws, which were
also used at frames, bulkheads, floors, and keelsons. This form
of bottom was particularly good with "V" bottoms, and in
fact owed its inception to the "Hand" type "V" bottom boats
in which ribs or frames were practically dispensed with. But
with this difference: in the Hand boats the planking was usu-

ally single and athwartships and heavy enough to take satisfac-
tory calking, whereas in seaplanes the two-ply planking was
practically always used with cloth and glue instead of calking.
Decks and Sides
The next step was to plank the decks and sides in the same
way, or to plank the deck with fore-and-aft strakes with seam
battens and numerous light frames. Watertightness was se-

of0



STRUCTURAL CONSIDERATIONS 71
cured above the bottom by means of cloth ironed on with hot
irons into marine glue, and then finished with paint.
With the advent of the curved deck or streamline float,
the decks were curved from chine to chine and double diag-
onally planked with cloth and glue and quilt nails. These
plies crossed the center line of the deck diagonally at approxi-
mately right angles to each other, and the strakes were con-
tinuous from chine to chine. Bulkhead margins, light frames,
and longitudinal deck stringers supported this planking. By
this means, the principles of the arch and triangle were com-
bined to give the deck an unusual degree of strength. (See
Figure 31.)
Later on, plywood was introduced, comprised usually of
three plies with a soft core and hard face. This material is
capable of simple bending, and influenced the float design to
avoid compound curvature. In some cases, however, by the
use of steam coils and forms it was found possible to use this
material in limited cases of compound curvature. In Europe
a plywood known as Consuta wood is made in which the plies
are sewn together with thread or wire. This material is very
popular abroad and takes an excellent enamel finish which
hides the stitching. It has remarkable strength.
Metal Floats
Early attempts were made to use an aluminum alloy and
in some cases even pure aluminum, making the framework of

wood and the covering of metal. At least one good design
of seaplane at present uses this composite construction.
Wood floats have the disadvantage that in service their
weight increases due to soakage. It, therefore, became of
interest to construct metal floats. At first, due to permissible
weights and scantlings it appeared impracticable to use any
material except an aluminum alloy, but this has the disadvan-
tage that it is particularly subject to corrosion in salt water.
However, means were devised to protect this material from
corrosion reasonably well, and today this material is very
generally used for floats and boats.
Where concentrated loads are applied, it is found desirable
to use steel fittings or reinforcements. In such cases, particular
care must be exercised to insulate the steel from the alloy by
proper coatings or cloth in marine glue or bitumastic, etc.
Bottom framing based on longitudinal support has been
found efficient. A float embodying this principle is illus-
trated in Figure 32, which shows such a float of the latest
approved form of construction.
Figures 33 and 34 show a partially completed flying boat of
aluminum alloy construction.
At present, investigations are under way using monel
metal, alclad, nickel, and stainless steel. It is found possible
to construct satisfactory floats on a weight at par with wooden
construction. Except the alclad type, these weights exceed
those attainable with aluminum alloys, but they overcome
soakage, are more readily made watertight, and offer the ad-
vantage of limited corrosion, if they do not entirely eliminate
it. Besides, they can be more readily patched in case of local
damage.
It seems quite probable that with more experience and skill
the corrosion resistant alloys will come more into favor, par-
ticularly as the size increases, where the excess strength of

alloys in the highest practicable gages may be fully utilized in
a more efficient structure.
CHAPTER IX
FLOAT PROPORTIONS
Until recently the writer has found no satisfactory method
for determination of the beam of new designs, and about the
best that could be done was to use known successful types as
a guide, but this method appeared rather loose, for the data
available did not appear harmonious, particularly in comparing
boats, single floats and twin floats.
Since it had been found that models gave satisfactory in-
dications as to full-size performance, it appeared reasonable to
assume that if a good set of lines had been determined for one
case, it would follow that the same lines expanded or con-
tracted, maintaining geometrical similarity, should be satis-
factory. This being the case, the new dimensions should vary
with the ratios of the cube root of the displacements. This rule
appeared to give reasonably satisfactory results in a class, but
was found unsatisfactory if the attempt was made to change
from one class to the other; for example, to use a boat design
as the basis for a single float design. As both cases are in
effect a central float type, this appeared to be a reasonable
thing to do. The results, however, were not good, as the pro-
portions were generally found to be unsatisfactory. As will
be shown later, right here was the key to the difficulty. An-
other rule that promptly proved a failure was that the beam
could be determined by the pounds per inch of beam. It
would not bear analysis and if applied would lead to ridiculous

and hopeless dimensions in large sizes. Another rule which
is nearly satisfactory is to maintain the unit loading of bottom
area the same in passing from one case to the other, but it is
difficult to apply to the general case, save only for a geomet-
rically similar case, though it is fundamentally sound.
73
Grouping and Plotting
Finally, an effort was made to harmonize the data on the
basis that the beam was a function of the cube root of the
weight. This analysis, however, even when broken down into
three distinct classes, viz., boats, single floats, and twin floats,
presented such a wide variation in the values of B/W l>* that
it still appeared more or less hopeless until an examination of
the L/B values indicated an interesting relation. Preliminary
plots of B/W J/3 as ordinates on L/B as abscissae indicated a
fairly orderly grouping of spots which at once became more
orderly when the length L was taken on the water-line and
B was taken as the maximum beam at the step; i.e., as soon
as the dimensions of the submerged portion should govern,
since the freeboard and overall length are governed by other
factors, such as reserve of stability, reserve buoyancy, cruiser
bow, longitudinal stability, longitudinal control, etc.
Figure 35 represents the plot of B/W 1/3 on L/B ratio for
28 boats varying from 880 lbs. to 28,000 lbs. represented by
black dots, 12 single float designs covering a range from 2,500
lbs. to 4,500 lbs. plotted circles, and 34 twin float designs cov-
ering a range from 1,000 lbs. to 11,500 lbs. plotted as double
circles.
In the case of the twin floats, the W used is one-half the
weight of the plane, so that the float loads really vary in this
case from 500 lbs. to 5,750 lbs.

Now by using the formula,
we have a simple means of arriving at a good value for B if
we assume a practical value for the float proportions. From
the data in the figure, it will be seen that the boats average
4.6, single floats 5.65, and twin floats 7.00. A further ex-

FLOAT PROPORTIONS
75
amination will show that while these are average values, the
different classes overlap and are harmonious when plotted on
this relation.
It will be noted that the boats are stubbier than single floats
and that they in turn are stubbier than the twin floats.
Plotting lines of different values of K, indicates a definite
lane in which all these classes fall, with the value of 17 form-
ing the core axis of the lane. Considering the range of de-
signed loads from 500 lbs. to 28,000 lbs.; the varied source
of designs, American, English, German, and Italian; that
actual boats, single floats, and twin floats are represented;
and that getaway speeds from 40 miles to 80 miles are cov-
ered; it appears remarkable that the plot is even as good as
it is for there has been no definite rule heretofore established
which has been in general use. On the other hand, it does
appear that "practice" has in a way been herded into line by
the application of natural laws.
Verification
Still further data on actual construction or on satisfactory
model tests have been examined; based on which, it appears
that good values of L/B for the three classes of floats are 4.0
to 4.5 for boats, 5.0 to 6.0 for single floats, and 6.5 to 7 for
the twin floats. Also, it appears that good results may be
expected if a value of K from 16 to 18 is used. These values
are recommended as a first approximation. After lining up

the approximate dimensions, considerations of the purpose of
the design may lead to variations of the L/B ratio and the
K value, and this may be done with assurance of reasonable
satisfaction in the limits recommended. To be sure of an
important design, it is strongly recommended that a model test
be resorted to, particularly if it is desired for some reason to
use proportions different from those here recommended.
FLOAT PROPORTIONS yy
In the formula,
B=T/B
B is the beam at the step in inches; K is a constant; W is the
weight in pounds; L/B is a ratio, and it is only necessary that
L and B be expressed in the same units.
The differentiation of L/B for the three classes is un-
doubtedly due to practical reasons, somewhat as follows:
If boat hulls are too long, they run into weight, and the
trimming moments for control at and beyond hump speed
may become too large for the pilot to handle. The relatively
low C.G. of boats does not demand excessive length.
Single floats are long because of the higher C.G. and
higher line of propeller thrust.
Similarly, twin floats with the load divided between them
would, on the proportions of a single float, be too short and
tend to stub their toes.
Application
From the above, it is possible to determine the beam B for
a given displacement W, by selecting the appropriate L/B
and this in turn determines the length on the water-line.
The draft, i.e., the depth of the main step from the water-
line, may be approximated by the equation:
LBD=KSX F,orD=^
in which D, V, L, and B are expressed in similar units.
K, for boats averages .40, and for floats, single or twin, Ka

averages about .5.
W = weight in lbs. V = volume in cu. ft. or in. 1 cu.
ft. = 62.5 lbs. fresh water and 64 lbs. per cu. ft. sea water.
L, B, and D may be in feet or inches.
These factors appear to apply over wide variations of the
angle of the "V" bottom and include the effects of the steps.
Good results are obtained if the steps are 6% to 8% of
the beam in depth, and, in general, it is found advantageous to
use a step of constant depth from keel to chine.
For rounded decks of streamline form, whether for single
or twin floats and aside from the reserve buoyancy chosen, it
appears that the displacement of the completely submerged
float may be very approximately determined in the same man-
ner as the depth at the step, by the equation V1 = K^LBH,
in which V1 is the cubic displacement in cu. ft. or cu. in., and
L, B, and H are in feet or inches. An analysis of a large num-
ber of floats indicates a value for K1 = .52.
For boats, the abovewater structure is subject to so many
variations that it does not appear practic^e to determine a
suitable factor, nor does it appear necessary since there is so
much liberty possible in the arrangement of the superstruc-
ture, and in any case the excess buoyancy may be more than
200%.

CHAPTER X
MODEL TESTING
While it is practicable, with good data available, to lay out
the lines of floats with reasonable assurance of success, the
safest method is to have a model tested, unless the design is
already based on model tests. This method is used by the
U. S. Navy on all new designs. It is particularly useful if
some novel feature is being introduced into the design, or if
some detail of form is being relocated or modified. The pur-
pose of such a test is to determine the horsepower required at
different stages of the getaway; the trimming moments, por-
poising tendency, spray formation, cleanness of running, stabil-
ity at rest, etc.
Froude's Law
The laws governing such testing are based on Froude's
Law as applied to surface craft, which divides the resistance
into frictional and residual. However, in the case of aircraft
floats, it is customary to ignore the frictional component and
to treat the total model resistance as residual. The law as-
sumed is, that for the model there is a corresponding speed
which depends upon the square root of the scale of the model
relative to the full size. If, for example, the model is 1/16
full size, the corresponding speeds are Vl/16 1/4 the speeds
for the full size; then the resistance of the model is
; i.e., 1/163 times that of the full size, or the
16 X 16 X 16
79

full-sized resistance is 16s times that of the model.
Wing Lift
There is a factor entering into aircraft model testing not
present in testing surface craft, and that is wing lift. Wing
lift varies with the square of the speed, and also with the
angle of attack of the wings, so that the water-borne load
varies from full load at rest to no load at getaway. At the
same time, this factor also affects the draft of the model, and
therefore the lines presented to water flow, which importantly
differentiates the conditions between surface craft and air-
craft floats and their action at different speeds. It is there-
fore essential that aircraft model testing shall simulate this
condition, and that the model loading shall correspond. For
example, at 1/10 getaway speed, 1/100 of the load is air-
borne or 99% is water-borne; and similarly, at J4 getaway
speed, J4 lad is air-borne and 75% water-borne; and at 9/10
getaway, 81% is air-borne and only 19% water-borne, etc.
Model Basin Assumptions
In model testing, certain assumptions are made and certain
limitations, which should be understood, are imposed.
First, the speed of the towing carriage is limited, which
makes it necessary to use relatively small models in order that
the corresponding speed at getaway will be in the range of
speeds of the towing carriage.
The model carriage is limited to a straight run.
To obtain a good record the water must be relatively

smooth.
Because of the small model the forces are small.
It is impracticable to determine the forces running in
curves.
Wing lift varies with the square of the speed, and is not
corrected for change in wing lift corresponding to change of
trim of model.
MODEL TESTING 8l
The Compensating Vane
Wing lift is simulated by means of a water vane whose
area is fixed, but which, towed at the same speed as the model,
exerts a lifting force according to its angular setting, which
is calibrated to give 100% lift at getaway speed, but which
does not simulate the change of lift with change of angle.
The model is driven through a towing connection, so that
the towing force is horizontal and not therefore the same as
the propeller thrust line, which like wing lift varies with the
angle of attack. This towing point is located above the float
at position of C.G.
The model is run free to trim at speeds up to and beyond
the hump speed, and at fixed trims from below the hump speed
up to getaway.
The model is usually made of a solid block of wood, and
is counterweighted to the correct weight of 100% full load
at rest. The loading is so applied that the model balances at
the correct initial trim.
While running at fixed trim, the moment necessary to
maintain the trim is measured. The gear used to determine
this moment is also used to determine the trimming moments
at rest, and thereby the metacentric heights of the model.
Because the model is heavy and counterweighted, it does
not correctly represent the inertia of the full size, and the
porpoising or oscillating tendencies of the model are only

qualitative and not quantitative.
Model vs. Full Scale
Taking into account these artificialities, it might appear
that the results are insufficiently reliable. On the contrary,
complete models, carefully built to scale, have been tested to
check possible errors and have shown them to be small. Fur-
ther, numerous models have represented actual planes whose
predicted performances have been very closely verified in prac-
tice. In one instance, moving pictures of the waves of the
models have been compared with moving pictures of waves
of the full size, and the comparison showed remarkably faith-
ful agreement. In another instance, a new model to a differ-
ent scale based on an old one appeared to have more spray-
making tendency than the original, but upon testing first one
and then the other, the conditions were found identical and,
further, air photographs of the full size showed almost exact
agreement.
The errors due to wing lift not varying with angle of at-
tack as affected by change of trim are small for the reason
that up to hump speed, which occurs at 25% to 30% of get-
away, the wing lift is less than 10%, and in the free to trim
condition, the water forces are dominant. Above hump speed
the model is usually run at 6 or 8 fixed trim, which places
the wings at near their maximum lift, on which the getaway
speed is based, and this appears legitimate, for above the hump
speed the air controls are effective in controlling trim.
The error due to the thrust line being horizontal instead
of changing with the change of trim is practically negligible
since the trim seldom exceeds 10 from normal, and the cosine
of even 80 is practically unity.
Although the forces are small the recording gear is auto-
matic and sensitive and is always carefully calibrated.

Model Requirements
In order to make a model test, the following information
is required: (a) scale of the model; (b) getaway speed; (c)
initial trim; (d) location of C.G. of plane; (e) full load or
other load at which test is to be made; (f) location of thrust
line and its direction.
Based on this information, the getaway speed for the model
MODEL TESTING 83
is determined once the compensating vane is set to give full
load lift at getaway speed.
The towing gear is attached with the pivoting point at
C.G. position. The model is counterweighed so that the
weight resting on the water corresponds to the model full
load. The model is balanced by trimming weights in the
towing gear to trim at the proper initial trim.
The model is now run free to trim at a number of speeds
up to and beyond the hump speed. The resistance and speeds
are automatically recorded. The spray condition and trim,
and any tendency to porpoise are noted by an observer as well
as the change in draft. After each run the resistance is plotted
immediately, and any spot plotted inconsistently is promptly
verified and checked if necessary.
The model is now set at 6 or 8 trim by the stern and
run at fixed trim. The observer now notes the force required
to maintain this trim and therefore the trimming moment.
The speeds used run from below the hump to getaway speed,
and spray conditions are noted. Other trims may be tested, if
of interest. In some cases, particularly near getaway speed,
a secondary hump appears. It is frequently found that this
hump can be reduced by changing the trim.
At some time during the test, the model is set free to trim,
and by means of the trimming moment gear, the moments to
change trim are noted. This gives data as to longitudinal

stability at rest.
The model is now set at right angles to its former position
and the moments to trim laterally are measured, thus giving
data as to lateral stability.
The resistance measured under these conditions is not the
true resistance of the model, for it includes the air resistance
of the towing gear. The net resistance is determined by de-
ducting this quantity for which the towing gear is carefully
calibrated.
One other source of error is that the towing link from the
dynamometer has its forward end at a fixed level, whereas
the rear end attached to the model changes level with the change
in draft of the model. However, the towing link is so long
that the error is found to be negligible.
Non-Dimensional Plot
The results are now tabulated and plotted for the model,
and tabulated for the full size, and together with notes as to
behavior comprise the Report of Test. In addition, a non-
dimensional plot known as the A/i? plot is made. This plot
is of great interest for it enables comparison with other models
to different scales and to different getaway speeds.
The coordinates of this plot are: ordinates, per cent of full
load; abscissae, per cent of getaway speed. A curve is plotted
for A, i.e., the load resting on the water at any per cent of
getaway speed. At zero speed the load is, of course, the full
load, and at getaway speed it is zero. At .2 getaway, A is
100 4 = 96%; at .5 it is 100 25 = 75%; at .9 it is
100 81 = 19%, etc.
At each point of per cent of getaway speed, this A is di-
vided by the resistance R and the A/i? plot is made, the or-
dinates being to a suitable scale.
On the same plot, it is usual to plot the change of draft
as a per cent of the full load draft.
This A/i? curve is particularly handy for the determination
of the thrust required, and therefore of the horsepower re-

quired to drive the float under airplane conditions.
Typical a/R Plots
Figure 36 shows typical A/7? plots which are representa-
tions of an average of a large number of boats, twin floats,
and single floats.

MODEL TESTING
85
86
These curves have certain characteristics in common, as
follows:
At and below 20% getaway, the A/i? values exceed 8; at
about 40% of getaway they have a minimum value in excess
of 4, and notably for boats it is nearly 5. This condition is
what is known as the first hump speed. The A/i? value rises
to about 5.5 at about 70% getaway and then rapidly falls
away to about 2 at 95% and theoretically becomes zero at
3000
2000
1000
20 30 40
VELOCITY M.PH,
Figure 37. Float Performance Curves
50
60
100%. Theoretically, also, A/i? becomes infinite at 0% of
getaway.
These values have been exceeded by a number of models,
at different portions of the plot. But as here shown in the
case of boats which excel at the hump speed and are slightly
inferior nearer the getaway speed, improvement at one part
of the run often results in a deficiency at some other part.

The hump resistance is usually critical.
in
Typical Calculation or Float Resistance and Power Required Based on A/R Plot
D+R
940
000
0,0,
0,00
00-
0,-7
000
0009
9770
E.H.P.,
000
09
00
00
-0
-0
00

00
DV/070
= E.H.P.,
0.00
8.0
00.0
00.4
0.0
90.7
0o.0
07.0
00.0
DV
00
000
-000
00000
2300
0-00
00000
70000
000000
70.0
009.0
00
00
007
067
9000
904
9770
RV/010
= E.H.P.,
40
000
074
070
Sample Calculation
To illustrate the application of model test data, a specific
example will now be given.
Assume a flying boat, 15,000 lbs. full flying load, getaway
at 60 m.p.h., 800 B.H.P., L/D at getaway 8.5. Required to
determine the E.H.P. necessary up to getaway which includes
the E.H.P. to drive the float and the airplane. (See table on
preceding page.)
Plotting these results, it will be seen in Figure 37 that
the maximum float resistance occurs at 24 m.p.h. for this case,
and steadily falls away as the speed increases to 50 m.p.h.,
and very rapidly from there on. However, the total resist-
ance of float and wings has a secondary hump at 52.5 m.p.h.
On the other hand, the float H.P. reaches a maximum at
35 m.p.h., which slowly decreases until 50 m.p.h. is reached,
after which it falls away rapidly. But when this is com-
pounded with the wing horsepower, a peak is reached at about
56 m.p.h.
Comparing the E.H.P. available to the total required, it
appears that at 24 m.p.h. there is a reserve of 40 H.P. to
accelerate the plane, and at the final hump a reserve of 75
H.P.; or, looking at it from the thrust point of view, at 25
m.p.h. a reserve thrust of 500 lbs. exists, while at 54 m.p.h.,
550 lbs. reserve thrust is available.1
1 E.H.P. a and Ta have been determined for this case assuming the

maximum V is 120 m.p.h. with a propeller having 80% efficiency at that
speed. See "Engineering Aerodynamics," by Walter S. Diehl, a volume of
the Ronald Aeronautic Series.
CHAPTER XI
TYPICAL MODEL TESTS
Model 2796
This model (Figure 38) is that of a twin float used on a
bombing plane. These floats are those shown in Figure 39.
The model was tested at 1/12 full size at 4.2 lbs. gross load,
and getaway speed 14.43 knots.
The full load as per test is, therefore, 1,728 X 4.2 =
7,258 lbs.
The getaway speed = vT2 X 14.43 X 6,080/5,280 =
58 m.p.h.
This model was tested under three conditions, (1) free to
trim (initial trim 234 by stern). The test under this condi-
tion was carried to 60% of getaway speed and shows good
values of &/R, with a hump speed at 35% to 40% getaway,
A/R being 4.5.
Run at a fixed trim of 8 by stern from 20% to 100%
of getaway, the model has a hump speed at 35%, and up to
50% closely parallels the fixed trim run. It will be noted that
at the hump speed the change in draft increases rapidly from
20% initial draft to 70%, whereas when trimmed 6 by the
stern the change of draft is greater from 60% getaway until
getaway, and corresponding to this the A/i? for 6 trim is
superior up to 90% of getaway, from which point on it is at a
slight disadvantage. This model in service is quite satis-
factory. These floats are similar to those shown in Figure 39,

which are of metal construction. A chine strip is used to hold
down spray.
89
u-
11
I 1/
/&
<
a.
t!
8.
*o
*S
lk
B]I
f<
*/
ui
>5-
r*
j ON
Z A A -t 3

9o
ijvwo
tflllNl JO 1N33 H3d
, 2 ? 8 o
\,
o>


TYPICAL MODEL TESTS 93
Model 2696
This model (Figures 40, 41)5,000 lbs. single float.
Model Y& full size. Gross load (model) 5.5 lbs. 5.3 X 512 =
2,725 lbs. full load.
5,000-2,725 2,275 .._ .
2 725 *" 2725 = 'reserve o^Y3^^-
The getaway speed, full size, is <\/8 X 17.67 K. = 50
K.
But 17.67 K. (knots) exceeds the capacity of the Washing-
ton Navy Yard model basin.
To check the performance at getaway, it is therefore nec-
essary to use an approximation, and this is done as follows:
In this case, a limit of 14 K. is set. Therefore, if the model
weighs 5.3 lbs. for a 17.67 K. getaway, for a 14 K. getaway
it should weigh 3.33 lbs.
This is determined as follows:
Wi yi
or Wt'Wi^
or W* = 5.3 X 14V17.672 = 5.3 X .790* = 5.3 X .63 = 3.33
This approximate method has been found quite satisfac-
tory in a number of cases.
Case 1. Free to trim (initial trim 3 by the stern) shows
a hump speed at 40%; at 10 by the stern the hump speed is
about 35% with a A/R = 3.8, a rather low value.
Case 2. 6 fixed trim. The hump speed is 35% and it

will be noted the change in draft increases rapidly from 20%
to 52% at 45% getaway.
Case 3. 8 by stern. The change in draft is slightly less
than that indicated in Case 3, but the A/i? values are better.
Case 4. 10 by stern shows A/i? near getaway. This
model in actual service is quite satisfactory.

Model 2081 A-B-C (NC-1)
This model (Figure 43) is of special interest, representing
the "NC" hulls used in the first transatlantic flight, in 1919.
The lines are given in Figure 42.
The A curve shows result of original two step, whaleboat
stern. It should be noted that this model had a A/i? value of
4/1 at 42% getaway, and that up to this point the model was
so affected by suction that the change of trim is negative, as
much as 10% at 25% of getaway in spite of wing lift.
The curve B shows the result of the first modification
which comprised straightening the body from the second step
aft by carrying the keel line parallel to the keel of the body to
the rear of the first step. The effects were as seen, to increase
the values of A/i? and to improve the planing as indicated by
the change in draft curve. The hump moved to 45 % getaway
with a value of 4.75.
The curve C shows the final modification, which was the
one adopted. The second step was wiped out and the bottom
from the rear of the first step was carried straight to the stern
post.
A/i? at the hump which now occurs at 47.5% getaway has
improved to 5.4.
Thus, if we compare A/i? at 42% getaway, we find:
A/7? for A = 4.1; for B = 4.8; for C = 5.8.
These hulls were designed to handle 22,000 lbs. full load.

Actually, they took off with loads in excess of 28,000 lbs.
Assuming that at 42% of getaway the full load is 22,000
lbs., A = 82.5% of 22,000 = 18,000 lbs.
The float resistances in the three cases would then be: for
A 4,400 lbs.; for B 3,800 lbs.; for C 3,125 lbs. That is, C
has 72% of the resistance of A and 82.5% of the resistance
of B; or conversely, A's resistance is 11.5% greater than B's,
or 40% greater than C's at the hump speed for A.

96
UVUO -IVIJANI dO J.N33 U3d
iss?s<
(%) 033NVi.SIS3JSI-rQV01 iOUWtf


The hump resistances are also of interest, being:
Model
A/R
A%
4.1
42%
45%
47.5%
82.5
80.0
77.5
18,200
17,500
17,000
4,400
3,700
3,150
4.75
5.4

Substantially of the same order of merit.
CHAPTER XII
SEAPLANES vs. LANDPLANES
Commercially, the advantages of seaplanes have not been
exploited as they should have been. They have possibilities
on these lines that have been little understood. The most
cursory examination of the maps of the world will show that
the large commercial centers of the world are located with ac-
cess to the high seas, a natural consequence of the trade of
the world being carried by ships. It will at once appear, there-
fore, that the principal cities of commerce are located on har-
bors, on the shores of rivers, bays, lakes, gulfs, seas, and
oceans.
Another matter of prime importance is that access to the
heart of the city is in most cases more readily attained from
the water than from airdromes which to date are usually so
remote from the center of the city as to vitiate greatly the
advantages gained by air transportation, due to the time re-
quired to reach the airdromes or the city from the airdromes.
Airdromes require large areas, long runways in the direc-
tion of the prevailing winds, and maintenance of these run-
ways; besides, the approaches must be good, and not over
hazardous areas of congested, built-up sections, woods, or bad
ground conditions.
In most harbors, the areas for approach are relatively open
and unrestricted, affording satisfactory approach on easy
glides, and into the wind regardless of direction. Seaplanes

may be moored out as readily as any surface craft, and hangars
are only essential for major overhaul. Ramps and runways
suffice in most cases, though when tides are high, marine rail-
ways may be required in some cases. Harbors are usually
ioo
SEAPLANES vs. LANDPLANES ioi
well lighted in addition to the provision of lighthouses, channel
buoys, lights, etc., and night landings, when required, may be
made in the open fairway with reasonable safety. After land-
ing, the plane may be safely taxied to its mooring, landing
stage, or ramp. In any case, the transfer of passengers or
cargo is readily effected with a minimum of delay.
The advantages of the seaplane over the landplane increase
with size; equal or greater flight efficiency is attained even in
moderate sizes. The speed of landing or take-off in a shel-
tered harbor may safely exceed that of landplanes for the same
loading, with consequent advantages inherent in a relatively
smaller and faster plane. There is no question of muddy fields
after heavy rains. There is usually no urgency to gain altitude
rapidly, or no necessity for turning back in cases of power
plant failure, a fruitful source of landplane crashes and disas-
ters. No maintenance of the airdrome is required to assure
the runways are in order or safe. There are no clouds of dust
incident to the take-off or landing, and in a good design the
spray condition should be almost nil, or certainly as good or
better than in speed boats, particularly in large sizes.
No oleo gears are required, no wheels, tires, or brakes;
the entire airdrome in the case of water is a subservient shock
absorber ready to act if good designs of "V" bottoms are
employed.
If the air route follows watercourses or coast line, a shore

line is always within gliding distance, and an infinite number
of intermediate emergency landing fields are available with
no maintenance costs.
It is not necessary to follow every bend of the river or
coast line; the higher the altitude of flight, the straighter the
course may be flown, keeping in mind only that a water land-
ing should be possible through gliding in the event of power
plant failure.
Even overland flying from watercourse to watercourse, or
from lake to lake, is less hazardous for a seaplane than is the
hazard of a landplane over water in case of a forced landing.
Numbers of forced landings of boat types on land have oc-
curred with only minor damage to the planes or their occupants.
Seaplanes have flown the length of Africa, following the
Nile and its tributaries, and chains of lakes. Canada has been
crossed from the Lakes to the coast by a seaplane, the longest
overland hop being less than 30 miles. South America has
been flown, a large portion over jungles. Two expeditions
have explored the upper Amazon. Chains of lakes run from
the Great Lakes to northern Alaska. The same is true of
northwestern Europe, and of parts of Asia and Africa.
For overseas flights, seaplanes are the only sane com-
mercial solution. If it is objected that seaplanes should confine
their routes to waterways, then landplanes should confine them-
selves to landways, but for both, at only a slight sacrifice in
weight carrying and efficiency, there is the alternate proposition
of the amphibian.
In many cases, the advantages of the amphibian over a
mixed land and water route are of greater importance than the
disadvantage of the weight, complication, maintenance, and air
resistance involved. Besides, when beaching or launching, no
handling trucks are required, which is of considerable advan-
tage as to time involved and crew required. This is particularly
true in exploration work when landings on unknown beaches
may be involved.

Seaplane routes are available so generally between im-
portant centers (where the speed of air travel excels that of
surface craft by a greater margin than in the case of trains)
and have such close access to the heart of cities that they well
merit careful consideration.
GLOSSARY
Of Terms Particularly Applicable to Sea Types of Aircraft;
Also Abbreviations Employed in This Volume
Airworthiness. The quality of an aircraft in flight; embraces
maneuverability, controllability, stability, and performance.
Amphibian. An airplane designed to rise from and alight on
either land or water.
Angle of attack. The acute angle between the chord of an air-
foil and its direction of motion relative to the air. (This
definition may be extended to other bodies than airfoils.) Its
symbol is a.
Beam ratio. The ratio of the load-water-line length and the
maximum beam of a float at the step. Symbol is L/B.
Bearing. The under surface at the bow of a float above the load
water-line, which comes into play to prevent burying the bow.
Blades, hydrovane. Normally submerged wing-sectioned blades
under the hull, designed to develop hydrodynamic lift under-
way and lift the hull clear of the surface at moderate speed.
B. M. Metacentric radius.
Center of buoyancy, C. B. The center of gravity of the sub-
merged volume of a float.
Center of flotation, C. F. The center of gravity of the load-water-
line plane.
Center of gravity, C. G. The center about which a figure or a
volume or a body is in balance in any position. The point
at which, if all particles could be concentrated, the gravity

effect would be the same.
Chine. The dividing line between the bottom and the side of
an aircraft float.
Close coupling. An airplane is said to be close coupled when its
weights are closely concentrated.
Controls, air. The means employed to operate the control sur-
faces of the aircraft.
Counter. The overhanging under surface of the tail of a float.
103
A/i?. "Delta over R," the ratio of the displacement to the
resistance of a float under way.
Dirty. Description of a messy type of water flow about a float,
much spray and broken water; the opposite of clean running.
Draft. The distance from the surface to the deepest portion of
a hull or float.
Flare. The spreading of lines of sections of the body plan as they
rise from the keel or chine.
Fly-off. Refers to assuming flight after more than flying speed
has been attained.
Free-board. The height of a deck above the L.W.L.
Friction, skin. The friction of water flowing over a hull.
Getaway. The minimum speed at which flight is attainable.
G. M. Metacentric height.
Ground loop. A turn of small radius on the surface, usually
violent and out of control.
Hogging. The condition of a float in waves when the ends tend
to droop.
I. Moment of inertia.
Keel. The lower margin of a hull in the plane of symmetry; or
the structure in this location.
Keelson. Strictly, an inner member of the keel, but in aircraft
floats it generally refers to intermediate longitudinals between
the keel and chine.
L/B. See "Beam ratio."
afloat.

L.W.L. Load water-line; the line of the water surface on a hull
Optimum streamline. A form of float generated by a streamline
swept around the axis.
Plane of symmetry. The vertical plane through the fore-and-
aft axis of an airplane or of a hull.
Roach. The flow of water in the form of a plume or mare's tail,
where the flows from the opposite sides of a float converge and
meet.
Running, clean. The condition of a float which runs without
undue spray or fuss; the opposite of dirty.
Sagging. The condition of a float in waves in which the middle
tends to droop.
GLOSSARY IOS
Seamanship. The art of maneuvering marine craft in a seaway.
Seaplane. Any airplane designed to rise from and alight on the
water. This general term applies to both boat and float
types, though the boat type is usually designated as a "flying
boat."
Seaworthiness. The quality of marine craft in a seaway; embraces
maneuverability, stability, and performance.
Slipstream. The stream of air driven astern by the propeller.
(The indraft is sometimes included also.)
Span. The distance from tip to tip of a wing.
Stall off. To take the air at less than flight speed, by being tossed
off.
Stalling. The condition of an airplane in flight at less than flight
speed. (The condition is critical as the plane necessarily
settles and there is a tendency to go into a nose dive or a spin.)
Surf-boarding. The condition of a seaplane adrift on the face
of a curling wave where it tends to behave like a surf-board.
Taking off. The act of leaving the surface.
Taxying. Maneuvering a seaplane under its own power on the
surface.
Weaving. The action of a seaplane float tending to twist about
its axis.
Wracking. The action of twin floats in which the bow of one
tends to rise relative to the other.

J?

INDEX
Acceleration, 8, 10, 12
Action,
float, 9, 10
hydroplane, 12
step, 11, 16, 25, 30, 31
Advantages of amphibian, 102
Advantages of seaplanes, 100,101,102
Ailerons, 11
Air control, 8, 12
Air maneuvers, 8
Air rudder, 10
Aircraft, floats, 6
Airmanship, 4
Airworthiness, 6, 30, 31
Alighting, 13
Amphibian type,
advantages, 102
gear, 44
Anchor, sea, 15
Angle of attack, 30, 80, 82
Approach, gliding, 13
Architecture,
aero, 3
naval, 3
Area,

determination of, 44, 47
planing, 32
water-line, 47
wetted, 31
Arrangement, float, choice of, 6, 8, 43,
45
Assumptions, model basin, 80
Attack, angle of, 30, 80, 82
Beam,
determination of, 73
ratio, 46, 73, 74, 75, 76
Bearing, 3, 30 31, 34
Biplane, 38, 45
Blades, hydrovane, 42
B. M., 57, 103
Boards, spray, 31
Boat type float, 44
Body plan, 31, 55, 57
Bottom of float, 64
hollow, 26
"V," 10, 26, 28
Breaking seas, 4
Buoyancy,
C. B., 47
reserve of, 7, 46, 47
Calculations, float, 88
Cambered wing, 16
Canoe, profile, 36
Center of buoyancy, (C. B.), 47, 58
Center of flotation, (C. F.), 57
Center of gravity, (C. G.), 46, 54, 79
Central float, system, 44
Chine, 25, 32, 66
Chine strip, 89
Cleanness, 12, 30
Close coupling, 8
Compensating vane, 81, 83
Compromises, 3, 6, 9
Computation, 58
Conditions, operating, 25, 26
Controls, air, 8, 12
Corresponding speed, 78, 80
Counter, 28
io8
INDEX
Displacement, 46, 47
Displacement types, 27
Double-ender type, 34, 35
Draft, 77
Drifting, 14, 21
Ease of running, 7
Effect, suction, 16, 19, 22, 30
Elevator, 11, 14
Facilities, terminal, 6
Factors of safety, 64
Failure, a practical, 20
Features, float, 26, 39
Flare, 30, 31
Flight, 10, 12
Float,
properties of, 47
proportions, 73
Float systems, 44
boat type, 44, 46
central float, 44, 46
triple, 44
twin, 44
Floats,

Floating, 10
aircraft, 6
side, 21
sled, 27
tip, 11, 23, 39, 40
triple, 21
twin, 22
Fly off, 12
Form,
aerodynamic, 7, 8
plan, 30, 31, 34
streamline, 27
Forms, early, 27
Freeboard, 7, 46
Friction, skin, 17
Frictional resistance, 78
Froude's Law, 79
Fuselage, 43
General requirements, 6
Getaways, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12
Gliding approach, 13
G. M., 62, 63, 104
Graphic methods,
area, 50
C. G. location, 54, 55
Ground loop, 21, 22, 104
Gunboat profile, 36
Half-beam, 57
Half-breadth, 57
Heavier-than-air, 17
Height, metacentric, G. M., 48
Hogging, 65
Hollow bottom, 26
Hump, 12
resistance, 12
Hydroplane, 28
three step, 37
two step, 37
Hydroplaning, 11
Hydrovane blades, 42
7, 57, 104
Incidents, getaway, 10
Initial trim, 83
INDEX
109
Maneuverability, 8
Maneuvers, air, 8
Metacentric height, G. M., 57
Methods, graphic, 50, 54, 55
Military uses, 9
Model basin,
assumptions, 80
Teddington, England, 3
tests, 3, 17, 19, 24, 76
Washington, D. C, 3-44
Model testing, 79, 83, 85
Model tests, typical, 89
#2796, 89, 90, 91
#2696, 92, 93, 94
#2081, 95, 96, 97
Model vs. full scale, 81
Models, some bad, 17
Moments, determination of, 54
Monoplane, 38, 44, 45
Moving pictures, 82
Naval architecture, 3

Profile (Continued)
gunboat, 36
sled, 26, 36
streamline, 26
whaleboat, 36
wing, 30
Properties of floats, 47
Proportions of floats, 73
Punishment, 8, 12
Quilt nails, 66
Regimes, 27, 28
Requirements,
general, 9
military, 9
model, 82
special, 9
Reserve of thrust, 29
Resistance,
air, 8, 83
frictional, 79
hump, 12, 83
model, 83
net, 83
residual, 78
towing gear, 83
Roach, 21, 27, 33
Rudders,
air, 45
water, 10, 45
Rule,
Simpson's, 52, 53, 54, 55
Trapezoidal, 50, 58
Running,
clean, 8
ease of, 7
Ogival, 17
Optimum streamline, 38
Outriggers, 44
Pancake landing, 13
Parasitic, floats, 13
Plan, body, 55, 57
Plan form, 20, 34
Plane of symmetry, 65
no
INDEX
Seaworthiness, 6, 46
Shock-absorbing struts, 42
Side steps, 22, 33, 34
Skidding, 65
Skin friction, 17
Sled types, 35
Slewed, 24
Slipstream, 11, 14
Somersaults, 24
Span, 44
Speed,
getaway, 12
hump, 12
stalling, 12
Sponsons, 33, 34
Spray
board, 31, 32
strip, 32
Stability, 6
at rest, 6
underway, 6
Stalled, 13
Stalling, 12
Stall off, 12, 29

Step, 4
Step action, 16, 30
Stern post, 26
Stern, transom, 28
Stiffness, 29
Storm, 4
Strakes, 66, 67
Streamline, 8, 17, 26
optimum, 38
Stream, slip, 11, 14
Strength, adequate, 8
Strip,
chine, 89
spray, 31, 32
Structural considerations, 64
Struts, shock-absorbing, 43
Subdivision, watertight, 7
Suction, 15, 27, 29, 30, 31
Suction effect, 16, 19, 22, 30, 33
Surface float, central, 44
Surface, wetted, 17
Surf boarding, 15
Symmetry, plane of, 65
System, float,
triple, 44
twin, 43
Tadpole type plan, 35
Taking off, 5, 10, 11, 12,22
Taxying, 6, 10
Terminal facilities, 6
Three step hydroplane, 37
Thrust line, high, 3, 11, 27, 28, 77
Thrust, reserve of, 29
Tip floats, 23
cambered deck, 41
streamline, 40, 41
tank type, 40
"V" bottom, 40
wing section, 40
Transom sterns, 28
Trim, 10, 11
fixed, 83
free, 83
initial, 83
INDEX in
Weaving, 43 Winged-type hull, 35
Weight, minimum, 8 Wooden floats, 65
Wetted area, 31 Wracking, 43
Wetted surface, 17
Whaleboat profile, 36, 95 Y
Wing, cambered, 16

Wing lift, 12, 80, 81 Yawing, 15, 45

Aircraft Float Design by H.C.richardson 1928

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aircraft Float Design by H.C.richardson 1928

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generated for aerospike591@gmail.com on 2012-06-04 15:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.

CAPTAIN (C.C.) UNITED STATES NAVY; CHIEF OF DESIGN SECTION,

THE RONALD PRESS COMPANY

Generated for aerospike591@gmail.com on 2012-06-04 15:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015021078657

The Ronald Press Company

In the preparation of this work, the author has been in-

fluenced by the numerous requests that have been received for

information on aircraft float design from students, engineers,

and designers. In responding to these requests, it has been

necessary to refer to isolated and fragmentary treatises on

pertinent phases, where such existed in the engineering and

trade journals, but in many cases no references were available.

These demands for information indicated a real need for a pres-

entation and discussion of the fundamentals of aircraft float

shapes and arrangements. It is primarily this class of infor-

mation that the author has undertaken to provide herewith.

Another impulse to write this book came from the fre-

quent suggestions for incorporating design features that have

been tried heretofore and found unsatisfactory. Therefore,

it appeared desirable to review in considerable detail the ef-

fects of different shapes and combinations,even to include

the record of some failures, where these disclose little known

or novel phenomena of importance.

The subject of design is treated from the viewpoint of form

arrangement and proportion, and is carried into the determi-

nation of performance. The detailed methods for computing

the strengths of members comprising float structures have not

design can be applied to aircraft floats when the fundamental

Generated for aerospike591@gmail.com on 2012-06-04 15:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015021078657

principles are known, consequently a repetition of well-known

procedure seemed unnecessary. However, the considerations

affecting loading conditions are pointed out; also the useful-

ness and importance of model tests are emphasized.

Aircraft float design differs importantly from speed-boat

design because of the presence and effects of wing lift and

the presence of, and a need for, a different provision for

The author believes that a better understanding of the

problems of float design will lead to a more general employment

of seaplanes, which in many respects have advantages over

large bodies of water.

November 10, 1928.

Generated for aerospike591@gmail.com on 2012-06-04 15:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015021078657

Enumeration of desirable characteristics.

Taking Off - Alighting - Drifting - Actions of different types.

Suction Effect and Step Action 16

Unsatisfactory shapes and reasons - Failures discussed - Unsus-

pected danger - Ground looping - Dangerous tip floats - Step

Operating conditions - Early forms - Mutual influences - Body

plan or sections - Plan form - Profiles, center line - Hydrovane

Twin float system - Central float systems - Water rudders - Re-

Determination of areas - Strip method - Simpson's Rule - Deter-

Generated for aerospike591@gmail.com on 2012-06-04 15:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015021078657

mination of moments and location of C.G. - Mensuration, volume,

area L.W.L. - Moment of inertia of L.W.L., C.B. - Volume to

L.W.L. - Computation and C.B. location.

Bottom of float - Wooden floats - Decks and sides - Metal floats.

Grouping and plotting - Verification - Application.

Froude's Law - Wing lift - Model basin assumptions - Compensat-

ing vane - Model vs. full scale - Model requirements - Non-dimen-

sional plot - Typical plots - Sample calculation.

Typical Model Tests 89

Model 2796 - Model 2696 - Model 2081 A-B-C (NC-1)

Seaplanes vs. Landplanes 100

Generated for aerospike591@gmail.com on 2012-06-04 15:54 GMT / http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015021078657