The Prediction of Power Performance

on Planing Craft
By J. B. H a d l e r / M e m b e r

Much of the research effort on planing craft has been devoted to obtaining and predicting
lift and drag of planing surfaces. Virtually no effort has been devoted to the hydro-
dynamics of the planing boat when propelled by marine propellers. This paper brings
together the results of research on the marine propeller with those of the planing surface
to develop a practical method for predicting the power performance of the planing craft
when propelled by conventional marine propeller(s) driven by an inclined shaft. De-
veloped in the paper are the various equations for determining the magnitude, location,
and direction of the various hydrodynamic forces on the system. They are combined in
the equations of equilibrium to establish the operating conditions and the power require-
ments of the boat. Predictions are then made for two different planing boat designs for
correlation with model test results. Finally, the method is used to make a parametric
study of the effect of angle of inclination upon planing boat performance. This study
clearly shows that the drag of the appendages is secondary to the forces of the pro-
pellers and that in optimizing a planing boat design the whole hydrodynamic system
must be considered.

FOR the past forty years an extensive a m o u n t of

characteristics of planing craft, making use of the
fundamental research has been accomplished on information developed on both planing surfaces
the hydrodynamics of planing surfaces. The and propellers.
initial motivation for this research was the hydro- Fortunately, the state of the art is such t h a t
dynamic design requirements of sea planes. More there do exist sufficient data in the literature which
recently the emphasis has shifted to the planing could be used to m a k e reasonably good predictions
boat. Practically all of this research effort has of the power performance and enable us to treat
been devoted to obtaining and predicting the lift as a whole the problem of the propulsion of the
and drag characteristics of planing surfaces and planing craft. This not only meets the immediate
virtually none to the hydrodynamics of the plan- need of providing the profession a procedure for
ing boat when propelled by marine propellers. predicting the perfornlance of planing boats
In the meantime, m u c h work has been done in equipped with marine propellers, but possibly of
the development of propeller theories. These de- even greater significance is t:he insight it gives us
velopments, with the aid of high-speed computers into the interactions between the marine propeller
provide us with an adequate tool for both design and the planing sin-face.
and performance prediction. Thus the various In treating the problem of the propulsion of
forces generated b y a propeller m a y be estimated planing craft it becomes apparent from the equa-
and their characteristics, especially their inter- tions of equilibrium t h a t the analysis of the pro-
action with. the hull surfaces, m a y be studied in pulsion performance is some.what more complex
greater details. I t seemed appropriate then to than t h a t for the displacement ship. Thus the
m a k e some effort to look into tile propulsion propulsive performance concepts developed for
1 Head, Ship Powering Division, David Taylor Model the displacement ship m u s t be modified or even
Basin, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. be discarded. Since the objective of this paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting, New York, N. Y.,
November 10-11, 1966, of THE SOCIETY OF NAVAL is to provide a methodology to assist the designer
ARCHITECTS AND MARINE ENGIN1~ERS. in predicting the power performance of a planing
563
boat, familiar terminology has been retained, but
it must be recognized that the terms do not always
have the same physical meaning.
I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p e r f o r m a n c e of p l a n i n g
c r a f t t h e e q u a t i o n s of e q u i l i b r i u m m u s t b e
balanced. However, before this can be done it
is n e c e s s a r y t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m a g n i t u d e , l o c a t i o n ,
a n d d i r e c t i o n of t h e h y d r o d y n a m i c f o r c e s a r i s i n g
on the system. T h u s in p r e s e n t i n g t h e m a t e r i a l
in this p a p e r t h e first t h r e e sections are d e v o t e d
t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s of t h e s e q u a n t i t i e s f o r t h e
various forces separatelybefore they are combined,
w h i c h is in S e c t i o n 4. T h e f i r s t s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s a
b r i e f r e v i e w of t h e h y d r o d y n a m i c f o r c e s o n a
prismatic planing surface. The second section
p r e s e n t s a m e t h o d f o r e s t i m a t i n g t h e lift, d r a g ,
a n d i n t e r a c t i o n f o r c e s of t h e a p p e n d a g e s a s s o c i -
ated with the propulsion and control systems.
T h e v a l i d i t y of t h e a p p r o a c h will b e e s t a b l i s h e d
b y c o r r e l a t i n g t h e p r e d i c t i o n s w i t h a geosim series
of m o d e l a p p e n d a g e s t e s t e d o n a f r i c t i o n p l a n e .
T h e t h i r d s e c t i o n t r e a t s t h e p r o b l e m of t h e s t e a d y
propeller forces, both thrust and normal force,
generated by the marine propeller when operating
i n t h e i n c l i n e d flow field u n d e r a p l a n i n g s u r f a c e .
T h i s s e c t i o n a l s o t r e a t s t h e e f f e c t of t h e i n d u c e d
v e l o c i t i e s o u t s i d e t h e p r o p e l l e r slip s t r e a m u p o n
the planing surfaces. In the fourth section, the
static force and moment equations are presented
t o e s t a b l i s h t h e o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n of t h e p l a n i n g

Nomenclature
Coordinate System S~ = area wetted by spray, sq ft
V~ = mean water velocity over pressure area, fps
x, y, z = rectangular, used with boat geometry 3' = angle of stagnation line with centerline in plane
x, r, v = cylindrical, used with propeller geometry view, deg
u, v , w = axial, radial, and tangential components of )X = mean wetted length-beam ratio = (L~ + L , ) /
propeller-induced velocity in cylindrical coordi- 2b = Lm/b
nate system ACI = friction coefficient allowance for roughness of
planing surface
Planing Boat Geometry AR = effective increase in friction area length-beam
ratio due to spray contribution to drag
b = beam of planing surface, ft 0 = angle of spray direction with centerline in plane
C~ = speed coefficient = V/(gb) u~
d = vertical depth of trailing edge of boat (at keel) view, deg
= angle between the keel and spray edge measured
below l~vel water surface, ft
Fnv = Froude number based on volunm of water dis- in plane of bottom, deg
placed at rest, V/(gVUa) 112
LCG = longitudinal distance of center of gravity from Appendages
transom (measured along keel), ft c = chord length, ft
p = number of propellers D
r = number of rudders C9 = drag coefficient
V = horizontal velocity of planing surface or boat p / 2 V2S
forward velocity, fps L
CL = lift coefficient
VCG = vertical distance of center of gravity above keel 0/2 V~ld
line, measured normal to keel, ft d = diameter of shaft or bossings, ft
/~ = angle of deadrise, deg D = frictional drag force in direction of flow, lb
A = gross weight, lb Dp = palm frictional drag force, lb
e = inclination of propeller shaft line relative to keel hp = wetted height of strut palms, ft
line, deg h~ = wetted height of rudder, ft
r = trim (angle between planing b o t t o m and hori- 1 = total length of shaft and bossings, ft
zontal), deg L = lift force normal to direction of flow, lb
V = volume of water displaced at rest, cu ft S = planform area, sq ft
t~ = maximum thickness of section at water surface, ft
Planing Surface Hydrodynamics t/c = section thickness-chord ratio
frontal width of palm, ft
Ci = Sehoenherr friction drag coefficient xp = distance from stagnation line to point where palm is
k attached to hull, ft
CI.o = lift coefficient, zero deadrise, - p / 2 V~-b~ AD = interference drag
C~ = lift coefficient, deadrise surface 8 = boundary-layer thickness
= frictional drag-force component along bottom
surface, lb Subscripts
L~ = difference between wetted keel and chine
lengths, ft = Lk -- L~ k = keel or skeg
Le = difference between keel and chine length wetted p = strut palms
by level water surface, ft r = rudder
L~ = wetted chine length, ft sh = propeller shaft, bossing, and strut barrel
L~v = center-of-pressure location (measured from aft st = propeller shaft struts
end of planing surface), ft i = induced drag
L~ = wetted keel length, ft
Lm = mean wetted length, ft = (Lk + L~)/2 Propeller
L~JL,~ = nondimensional location of the center of pres-
sure T
CT = propeller thrust coefficient,-p/2V~(TrD2/4)
Re = Reynolds number, VLm/V, VXb/v
S = principal wetted area (bounded by trailing edge, D = propeller diameter, ft
chines, and heavy spray line), sq ft F~ = vertical component of transverse propeller force, lb

564 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

boat. In this section a computational procedure 1 Hydrodynamic Forces ~(Jna Planing Hull
is d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e d e s i g n e r so t h a t h e c a n p r e d i c t
T h i s s e c t i o n of t h e p a p e r will p r e s e n t t h e e q u a -
the power performance prior to model testing.
t i o n s f o r t h e d y n a m i c lift, b u o y a n t l i f t a n d d r a g
The fifth section presents a comparison between
f o r c e s , a n d t h e c e n t e r s of a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e f o r c e s
the results obtained from calculations using the
for hard-chine, prismatic-like planing surfaces
m e t h o d d e v e l o p e d a n d r e s u l t s of e x p e r i m e n t s o n
based primarily upon the work at Davidson
t w o d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of p l a n i n g c r a f t . T h e l a s t sec-
L a b o r a t o r y s u m m a r i z e d b y S a v i t s k y [117 T h e
t i o n s h o w s h o w t h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e l f - p r o p u l s i o n
e q u a t i o n s a r e e x p r e s s e d in t e r m s of d e a d r i s e a n g l e ,
tests can be analyzed, and how improvements may
trim, bemn at the chine, and forward speed.
be m a d e to t h e p r o p u l s i o n p e r f o r m a n c e of p l a n i n g
T h e p r i s m a t i c p l a n i n g s u r f a c e is a s s u m e d t o h a v e
craft.
constant deadrise, constant beam, and a steady
O f n e c e s s i t y , t h i s f i r s t e f f o r t is r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e
running trim. These equations are developed for
low-deadrise, hard-chine planing boat equipped
w i t h n o n c a v i t a t i n g m a r i n e p r o p e l l e r s o n a n in- Numbers in brackets designate References at end of
clined shaft. paper.

Nomenclature
J speed coefficients, V / n D Nr = resultant of pressure forces from rudder acting
JT = speed coefficient based upon thrust identity normal to bottom, lb
jQ = speed coefficient based upon torque identity 2V. = resultant of propeller suction forces acting normal
I~Fz propeller vertical force coefficient, F . / p n 2 D 4 to bottom, lb
.KQ = propeller torque coefficient, Q_/pn=D 5
KT = propeller thrust coefficient, T / O n 2 D 4 Moment Arms on Planing Boat
"it propeller revolutions in rps
O = propeller torque, ft-lb e = distance between N and CG (measured normal to N),
R = propeller radius, ft ft
T = propeller thrust, lb e~ = distance between Na and CG (measured normal to
V = speed of advance of the propellers, fps N~), ft
gt = tangential component of the velocity vector or boat e; = distance between propeller eenterline and CO
speed, fps (measured along shaft line), ft
V. = longitudinal component of the velocity vector or ep = distance between N;, and CG (measured normal to
boat speed, fps N v ) , ft
er = distance between Nr and CG (measured normal to
- = nondimensional distance from plane of propeller in N . ) , ft
R X-direction to the center of pressure at a specific e. = distance between N. and CG (measured normal to
r/R N.), ft
-~ = nondimensional distance from plane of propeller in f = distance between shaft line and CG (measured normal
R X-direction to center of pressure of tim planing to shaft line), it
surface fa = distance between D~ and CG (measured normal to
Z = number of blades D.), ft
X = speed coefficient, V / 2 r c n R f~ = distance between Df and CG (measured normal to
l~ = propeller blade circulation DI), ft
fk = distance between Dk and CG (measured normal to
Dk), ft
Subscripts fi = distance between AD~ and CG (measured normal to
Z = when used as subscript is the force on one blade D.), ft
e = angle of inclination of propeller to direction of flow, f~ = distance between D~ and CG (measured normal to
deg D,o), ft

Forces on Planing Boat Self-Propulsion

D. = appendage drag (assumed as acting parallel to keel ehp = effective horsepower, bare hull
line), lb ehpa = effective horsepower, bare hull plus appendages
Dy = viscous component of drag (assumed as acting shp = shaft horsepower measured at the propeller
parallel to keel line), lb t = thrust-deduction fraction
De = skeg or keel drag (assumed as acting parallel to keel w = wake fraction
line), lb we = thrust-identity wake fraction
D~ = wind drag of superstructure (assumed as acting wo = torque-identity wake fraction
parallel to direction of motion), lb r/a = appendage efficiency = ehp/ehpo
AD/ = towing force provided to model to correct between r/D = propulsive coefficient, ehp/shp
model and full-scale frictional resistance, lb ~/o = open-water propeller efficiency
AD~ = augmented drag from the rudder due to propeller r/R = relative rotative efficiency
slip stream, lb r//~ = troll efficienc'y
F= = propeller force normal to shaft and in vertical
centerplane, lb Miscellaneous
2V = resultant of pressure and buoyant forces assumed
acting normal to bottom, lb g = acceleration due to gravity, 32.16 ft/sec -~
N . = lift forces arising from appendages inclined to flow v = kinematic viscosity of fluid, ft2/sec
(assumed to act normal to keel lint:), lb O = mass density of water, 3'/g
Nv = resultant of propeller pressure forces acting normal 3" = specific weight of water, pet
to bottom, Ib A bar over a symbol indicates an. average or centroid.

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 565

 L S P RR
OOTA LINE
Y

WATER ~ ~....~ ~"'--"tz~---...._~ r-..-Is

WAKE J,.r LEVEL

SECTION B-B

Fig. 1 W a t e r l i n e i n t e r s e c t i o n for c o n s t a n t d e a d r i s e surface

hard-chine planing forms since considerable re-
search has been done on prismatic planing sur-
faces.
Wetted Surface
Savitsky in reference [2] gives a detailed dis-
cussion of the wetted surfaces on both flat planing
and deadrise planing surfaces and the limitations
on the validity of the computational methods.
Only the method developed for deadrise surfaces
will be treated in this paper.
In the case of Vee-shaped planing surfaces, the
intersection of the bottom surface with the undis-
turbed water is along two oblique lines (O-C) be-
tween the keel and chine, whereas under planing
conditions there is a rise of the water surface along
the spray-root line (O-B), Fig. 1. The wetted
keel length, L~, is the same for both still water
and for the planing condition. This appears true
up to trim angle of approximately 15 deg beyond
which a noticeable pileup of water starts to oc-
cur.
In the calculation of the dynamic force it is
desirable to establish a mean wetted length, Lm.
This is defined for prismatic planing surfaces
as the average of the keel and chine lengths meas-
ured from the transom to the intersection with
the spray-root line. The difference between the
wetted keel length and the wetted chine length
measured to the still-water intersection with the
chine L~ is a function of the trim and deadrise
and is defined by
L2 - b tan ~ (1)
2 tan r
Savitsky, based upon the work of Wagner, shows
within limitations that the wave rise in the spray-
root area is actually 7r/2 times the wetted width
defined by the still-water intersection with the
bottom ; thus
Lk -- Lc - b t a n B (2)
tan r
or in terms of the average wetted length
Lk = Lm 3- b t a n J (3)
27r tan r
Equation (3) is applicable for all deadrise and trim
values when the speed coeffcient, C~, is greater
than 2.0. For deadrise surface of 10 deg or less,
equation (3) is applicable to speed coefficients as
low as 1.0.
Dynamic Lift
The equations were developed in reference [2]
for the lift and center of pressure for flat planing
surfaces in terms of the mean wetted length-beam
ratio, X, the speed coefficient, Ca, and the trim
angle r.
The lift on a planing surface can be attributed
to two separate effects: the dynamic reaction of

566 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 0.05
,/ '/
i l/ l/ ' /
TO TI.I TO TI.1

2 2.14 9 11.21
3 3.35 10 12.59
4 4.59 11 13.98
5 5.87 12 15.39
6 7.18 13 16.80

0.04 7 8.50 14 18.23

// / /
8 9.85 15 19.67
cv,
i,/ ///
I I o/ / , /
/z/ /
0.03 /
/ /,
// // / / 7 , / /
//~
/'28
CLo/rU

/ r

0.02 I //'/'d.~~Y ~

//N
/ / / P"
0.01 A
J
f

/
CI = T LA ( 0 . 0 1 2 0 k 1/z + 0 . 0 0 5 5 ; ~ s / z / ( v z )
'O

o
o 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
X
Fig. 2 L i f t c o e f f i c i e n t o f a flat p l a n i n g s u r f a c e ; /~ = 0 d e g

the fluid against the moving surfaces and the Lc, _ 0.75 -- l (5)
b u o y a n t contribution which is associated with the L,~ 5.21C,2/X 2 + 2.39
static pressure. A t low speeds the b u o y a n t com-
ponent is more significant, whereas at high speeds T h e first t e r m in each of the equations repre-
the dynamic component is predominant. Savit- sents the contribution from the dynamic forces,
sky has developed the following empirical equa- whereas the second term provides the b u o y a n t
tions for the lift and center of pressure for planing component.
surfaces : When deadrise is introduced, this tends to re-
duce the planing lift. This reduction is caused
/ 0.0055X~12 primarily b y the reduction in the stagnation
c~o = ~.~,, o.ol~ox~ ~ + ~ (4)
/ pressure at the leading edge of the wetted area.

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 567

 0.5
/ - B : I0
--t5
0.4
-20
25:
50
0.5 /

0
02

0.1
j
0.09 - - o 1 I I I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CL o
0.08

0.07

_ CLB=CLo--O.O065 /9 CLoO'60
0.06

0.05

0 ///:o)/'
0.04 - -
/;// "~/

o _

/
0.01 "~"

I I I !
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
CLo
Fig. 3 Lift coefficient of a deadrise planing surface

Savitsky has also developed an empirical equa-
tion for use in predicting the lift of a surface with
deadrise which corrects the lift equation derived
from the flat planing surface, equation (4) :
CLt~ = CLo - - 0.0065/3CLo'6
The results of equations (4), (5), and (6) are
presented in Figs. 2, 3, and 4 which are similar to
those published b y Savitsky in reference [2].
These figures reduce substantially the numerical
work involved in evaluating the equations for
use in design estimates.
Drag
The h y d r o d y n a m i c drag of a planing surface is
composed of the pressure drag developed b y
pressures acting normal to the inclined !surface
and the viscous drag acting tangential to the sur-
face. For this analysis it will be assumed t h a t
there is no side wetting of the hull. This section
(6) will be concerned only with developing the equa-
tions for the viscous drag forces.
The viscous drag forces can be expressed as the
sum of two components, the wetted surface drag
and the viscous component of the spray drag, as
follows :
D~ = -2P V,~S(C~ + ACs)
p
+ -~ V2S~ cos o(Cf + zxCs) (7)

568 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 0.8

~ - _...__~_.__ ~ ~ ~'----- ~'--'~-~ ~

f
J
J
-~ o.6 / / / d- ~

/ /
o / / /S
0

0
/ / /I
0"/
~o,
e~
e~ /
/
J
S/ Lcp
- 0.75
Lm 5.21C~,~
0
+ 2. 39
A2
Z
0
o
Q
0

p,

I I
I I 1 i i I
I I I It I I I I I I I I
o; , i , I ~ I , I , , I ~ I I I I
3 4 5 6 7

VELOCITY COEFFICIENT, Cv = V//-g-b-

Fig. 4 C e n t e r of pressure of p l a n i n g surface

(.n
(>.
,0
where conditions are dependent on not only the drag
but also the lift forces and their center of appli-
V - - speed of planing boat
cation. This hints t h a t the planing boat append-
V m = m e a n water velocity over the pressure
ages should be treated in a manner similar to
area
t h a t employed in the design and estimation of
S = wetted surface
the performance of aircraft; t h a t is, estimating
area wetted b y spray
the drag and lift of the various components of
O = angle between the outer spray edge and
the appendages and their interaction effects.
the keel and is measured in a projected
We are fortunate to have a large volume of d a t a
plane which is parallel to the keel and
from the aerodynamic field to assist.
normal to the usual hull centerline
This section presents a method for estimating
CI = Sehoenherr friction drag coefficient
the lift, drag, and interference effects of the append-
ACI = friction coefficient allowance for rough-
ages upon the planing surface. Since appendage
ness of planing surface
design can v a r y radically from one boat to an-
F r o m reference [3 ], we have other, the information provided in this paper m a y
not be sufficient; b u t the methodology is equally
ss cos 0 = (Ax) .b~ (S) applicable. If forms other than those discussed
COS /~ herein are used, the designer is referred to ref-
where erence [5] for information on estimating the drag
of his type of appendages.
AX = effective increase in friction area length- We will t r e a t the lift and drag as a unit, since
b e a m ratio due to spray contribution to the two are interrelated. T h e equations used to
drag calculate the drag are in most instances those
but derived b y Hoerner in reference [5] and will be
identified b y footnotes as to where they appear in
Xb"~ this basic reference. In this section, most of the
COS forms treated are fully wetted; i.e., noncavitating
and not ventilated. Since some appendages,
Therefore, viscous force in the direction of V~ such as rudders on most recent high-speed planing
m a y be simply expressed as boats, are of the wedge t y p e and are frequently
p b2V 2
base ventilated, information will also be provided
- - (C~ + ~Cs) on the drag of this t y p e of rudder.
D I = ~, cos
In calculating the center of application of the
drag on an appendage, it is assumed t h a t most of
the drag arises from the viscous component.
Accordingly, the center of application of the drag
where CI is a function of Reynold's n u m b e r Re is assumed to correspond to the centroid of the
which is defined as wetted area parallel to the flow. If the sections
should be very thick (that is, over 30 percent of
R e - - V m L m _ b XuV (10)
the chord), or base vented, so t h a t the pressure
drag becomes a m a j o r component of drag, then
To solve equation (9) we express (AX) and Vm the centroid of the area of m a x i m u m thickness
as functions of the geometry and load character- normal to the flow is assumed. In m o s t instances
istics of the planing surface. Savitsky and Ross the numerical differences between these two loca-
in reference [4] have developed these functional tions will have a negligible effect upon the trim-
relationships in terms of the trim and deadrise. ming m o m e n t of the hull with the appendages.
T h e results are presented in the form of simple In general, the drag of the appendage is deter-
diagrams, Figs. 5 and 6, which can readily be used mined based upon the drag coefficient, character-
b y the designer. istic dimensions of the appendage, and the veloc-
ity. In all of the cMeulations, the Schoenherr
2 Appendage Lift, Drag, and Interference Effects friction line is used; thus CI, p, and v are readily
obtainable, for example, from reference [6].
I t is usual in naval architectural practice to In Appendix 1, the method of drag estimating
develop from model data the drag of appendages outlined herein has been applied to a geometric
and express t h e m as a percentage of the bare hull series of planing-boat appendages tested at
resistance. This approach is not practical for D a v i d T a y l o r Model Basin ( D T M B ) . This com-
dynamic planing craft because the operating parison illustrates b o t h the methodology and its

570 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 1.00
: _( = 20,._...-. ~ ~ 1
-- 6 o l

gmv 0.9 0
8"~~
I0 / /
/ - ioO/C~
{{? o f .

-0.80 I I i I I i I I I -I ~ II I{ IIIIIIII

I00 _T: 40..,.,.---~ " ~ {

_ 6 -'''''-

VIII - , 0 ~ J 2 / I / I
_

V o9o~ ,5o/ _ 15/

B--20 B : 30
o8o-I i i i I I I [ I I I ! I I I I {{ll {{tr {111
,oo 2.oo 300 I.oo 2.0( 3.00
X X
V., = average bottom velocity
V = forward planing velocity
v~ F
V
= -t
L
--
0 . 0 1 2 1 / ~ r 1"I - - 0 . 0 0 6 5 / 3
X cos r
(O.012X'/+-rl't)'+-]V2
J
Fig. 5 Magnitude of average bottom velocity for a planing surface

1,4
//
z / ~
z- [
/
T=I / /
1,2

1.0
/ ../" ~J 4- J

I / 2.5
0.8
AX
0.6
/~" J/ ~ f/ " ~i [2------+
/ ./ ~ ,I- """ -"" ...---- """

0,4
~ i ~ ..._..---.-'- ._..- ~----- _... _7

0.2 -"" ~ ~ I0

00 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
[3, DEADRISE ANGLE, DEGREES

Fig. 6 Effective increase in friction area length-beam r a t i o (z~X) d u e to s p r a y c o n t r i b u t i o n to drag

applicability to a p p e n d a g e design and perform-

ance estimating.
o,~ = p(2&) P;.~G, 01)
where
Skeg
2Sk = w e t t e d surface of sk:eg
M a n y boats are provided with a eenterline skeg C~ = frictional drag coefficient based on
or keel which is frequently provided to insure bet- wetted length of skeg
ter directional stability. T h e drag of this ap-
pendage m a y be estimated b y obtaining the A l t h o u g h the drag equation for the skeg is
wetted area and assuming t h a t the velocity on the given here, it is usually an integral p a r t of the
surface is the same as the average velocity over hull ; thus it is a p p r o p r i a t e l y p a r t of the bare hull
the planing surface; thns drag estimate when m a k i n g design calculations.

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 571

Propeller Shaft and Strut Bossing Along the Propeller
Shaft
Planing craft which are propelled by propellers
on inclined shafts experience both lift and drag
forces from the propeller shaft, the strut barrel,
and sterntube bossing. These forces m a y be
estimated if it is assumed t h a t the flow is parallel
to the b o t t o m of the hull. Since these forces
arise largely from the pressure distribution over
the appendage, the point of application of drag
and lift is more appropriately based at the een-
troid of the shaft, strut barrel, and sterntube
bossing.
If 10 a < (Re = Vd/~) < 5.5 X 10 5, the fol-
lowing equations a m a y be used :
Drag : D~, = p/2 ldV2(1.1 sin a e + 7rCr) (12)
Lift: L~h = p/2 ld V2(1.1 sin ~ e cos e) (13)
where
l=total length of shaft and bossings
d=diameter of shaft and bossing
angle of flow
C s = friction drag coefficient based upon
Re = V l / ,
If the propeller shaft enters the hull forward of
the stagnation line, it is probable t h a t the shaft
is ventilating. If ventilation is assumed to occur,
reference should be m a d e to Chapter 10 of ref-
erence [5].
water surface, spray will be produced. This
spray formation represents an increment of drag
which is given by the following equation :5
Dr = (0.24)}oV2t~ 2 (15)
where
tw --- m a x i m u m rudder thickness at water sur-
face, ft
Ventilated Wedge Rudder
Recent experience on high-speed craft has led
to the use of thin, deep rudders of wedge or
parabolic cross section. A t zero and small angles
of attack, the base or trailing edge of the rudders
ventilate to the atmosphere. T h e drag of these
rudders when base-vented is composed of fric-
tional, pressure, and spray components of drag.
Tulin in reference [15] developed the equations
for the section pressure drag coefficients for both
wedge and parabolic-shaped sections at zero
cavitation number as follows:
Cd~=2-Tr ( t ) 2 (wedge section)
Cd, = ~ (parabolic section)
where
Cd, = pressure drag coefficient based upon
chord length

Rudder and Struts t

- = section thickness-chord ratio
C
Usually the rudder and propeller shaft struts
employ streamlined sections with a m a x i m u m The pressure drag coefficient at finite cavitation
thickness near midchord. Experimental work numbers, r, m a y be approximated b y multiplying
on rudders, for example, reference [7], has shown the foregoing equations b y (1 + r). For the
t h a t the effects of aspect ratio, sweep angle, and ventilated condition, the average effective cavi-
tip ending are small for zero angle of attack. For tation number is:
the purposes of the present work, these estimates ghr
m a y be neglected. O" --
V2
T h e total strut or rudder drag at zero side
loading for nonventilated struts can be expressed where
as follows :4 h, = height of rudder immersed in the water, ft
D, or D.~t = p/2STV'[2C~ T h e spray drag m a y be estimated from equation
X (1 ~- 2t/c -~- 60(t/c)4)] (14) (15).
where Thus the total drag coefficient for base-vented
rudders becomes :
ST or S., = planform area
C = Schoenherr frictional drag coefficient if G,r = 2Cs + ,~2 1+ V2/
Re > 5 X 10 ~ t/c = section thickness-chord
ratio O.24tw:
~- - - (wedge sections)
In the event the strut or rudder penetrates the hrc
(16)
3 Reference [5], p. 3-11.
4 Reference [5], p. 6-6. R e f e r e n c e [.5], p. 1 0 - 1 3 .

572 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

CDr = 2 e l -}- g
<
1 -k V2 /
q_ 0.24t~ (parabolic sections)
h~c
where
CI = friction drag coefficient based on Re
Vc
P where
t/c = section thickness-chord ratio
h~ = wetted height of rudder, ft
& = m a x i m u m rudder thickness at water
surface, ft
c = average chord length, ft
T h e foregoing equations give the drag coeffi-
cient if the aspect ratio, h~/c, is greater than 2.5.
Recent unpublished test data have shown t h a t
the drag coefficient increases as the aspect ratio
is reduced. T h e following empirical equation
derived from these d a t a m a y be used to correct
for an aspect ratio less than 2.5 :
C~, = CD~ + ( 2 . 5 - - h/c)2, h#c_< 2.5 (17)
150
Thus the drag of the rudder becomes:
P h~.cV ~ (1S)
Strut Palms
Frequently the propeller shaft struts have the
palms m o u n t e d on the hull rather t h a n flush with
the hull surface. Even though they are in the
boundary layer they can be a source of large drag.
See the example in Appendix 1. T h e drag m a y
be estimated from the following equation :6
Dp = 0.75C~ ~/h~/~ whpp/2 V 2 (19)
where
hp = height of palm above the surface
w = frontal width of palm
5 = boundary-layer thickness ~ 0.016 Xp,
where
xp = distance from stagnation line to the point
where the plate is attached.
If the pahn is rectangular in shape with rounded
edges, a value of CDp = 0.65 appears to be satis-
factory.
Interference Drag
In addition to the basic drag of each of the ap-
pendages, there are also components of drag
arising from the interference of the appendages
Reference [5], p. 5-6.
The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft
with each other and with the planing surface.
The interference effects which are m o s t pro-
nounced are the rudder and the strut with the
planing surface.
T h e component of interference drag on a flat
plate for streamlined bodies with no side forces is
estimated by the following equation :~
(AD) = pV2t2[O.75(t/c) - O.O003/(t/c) 2] (20)
t/c = section thickness-chord ratio
Fortunately this component of drag is relatively
small as shown by the example in Appendix 1.
T h e small drag interference,; between strut barrel
and strut m a y usually be ignored.
3 Propeller Forces
The forces which arise from the propeller can
be attributed to two separate effects: the forces
generated by the propeller which are transmitted
to the hull through the shafting and struts, and
the pressure forces induced on the planing surface
from the propeller loading. The first results in
the thrust force along the shaft which drives the
planing boat and a force normal to the thrust if
there is a erossflow component across the propeller
disk such as in an inclined propeller shaft system.
T h e second results in a suction force on the b o t t o m
of the hull on the upstream or forward side of the
propeller and a pressure force on the downstream
or after side of the propeller. T h e method for
estimating each of these forces will be developed
and, where appropriate, simplified charts will be
presented for the designer in estimating the mag-
nitude of their effects upon the planing b o a t ' s
performance.
T h e last p a r t of this secticm treats the problem
of the augmented drag on the rudder arising from
the propeller slip stream.
Propeller Performance in Inclined Flow
When a propeller operates in a nonuniform
flow field, the forces (thrust and torque) generated
at any instant of time b y each of the blades v a r y
with angular position and arc'. periodic in character.
In the case of the propeller on a planing boat
where the propeller shaft is; inclined to the flow,
the tangential velocity varies sinusoidally.
T h e thrust and torque forces on each blade v a r y
periodically with the velocity variations b u t not
exactly in a linear relationship. This nonlinear
variation results in the propeller developing
greater mean thrust and torque than from the
7 Reference [5], p. 8-10.
573
 11fy
= V cos 6

V T = V s i n E sin v

t - - 0.7"n" n ( ' u ) D

0.Tw nD
=
~]l ~
TM
v

Fig. 7 Velocity diagram at 0.7 radius for propeller in inclined flow

v I

corresponding open-water condition at the same
advance ratio. The periodic variation in force
also produces a steady force in the transverse pro-
peller plane.
I t is necessary in predicting the performance of
planing boats that a method be available for esti-
mating the magnitude of the normal force as well
as the performance of the propeller in inclined
flow from the coaxial open-water characterization.
We are fortunate to have available the recent work
of Gutsche which treats the problem of the marine
propeller in inclined flow [8].
Gutsche undertook a combined experimental-
theoretical investigation of the steady forces
generated by a propeller in inclined flow. He
tested in open water six model propellers of dif-
ferent pitch-diameter and blade-area ratios. The
horizontal axis of the propeller was inclined at
10, 20, and 30 deg to the direction of advance.
In these tests not only the thrust, torque, rpm,
and speed of advance were measured, but also
the normal force. Concurrently, Gutsche de-
veloped an analytic procedure for predicting these
forces based upon a quasi-steady analysis of the
propeller action utilizing the normal noninclined
propeller open-water test. This analysis will be
discussed in some detail as the resulting equations
will be employed here in predicting the per-
formance of the propeller.
I t is usual practice in making an analysis of
marine propellers to utilize open-water character-
ization curves and to assume that the blade forces
are concentrated at the 0.7 radius and that the
velocity field in which they operate is also well
represented by the 0.7 radius. This basic as-
sumption has been made in the ensuing develop-
ments.
From the velocity diagram, Fig. 7, at the 0.7
radius we can establish a relationship between the
actual rotational speed n and an equivalent speed
n(p), taking into account the tangential velocity
produced by the shaft inclination. Definitions
of the terms used in Fig. 7 are as follows :
e = angle of inclination of axis of propeller
rotation to the flow
= angular position of the propeller blade
during one revolution
V= = the propeller axial velocity = V cos e
Vp = the propeller tangential velocity = V sin
e sin
Thus
n(v) J sin e sin p
- 1 (21)
n 0.7~
where
]- V
nD
Since the quasi-steady analysis contains certain
limitations, an empirical factor C is introduced
into the variable velocity component, I%, to
bring the experimental and analytic results into
agreement.
Thus
n(v) _ 1 -- J ' C s i n e s i n v (22)
n 0.77r
The total force on the propeller is the vector
sum of the forces on the blades. For the thrust
and torque, these are the sums of the thrust and
torque, respectively, upon each of the blades.
For the normal force, this is the vector sum of
the torque forces. Thus it is necessary to express
the forces in each of the blades as a function of the

574 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

angular position, ,, and sum over one revolu- The magnitude of this normal force, Fz, may be
tion. determined from the vector sum of the blade
The forces on each blade m a y be expressed as torque forces given in equation (24).
follows
Thus
T~(~) = P n2(t,).D4KrO, ) (23)
Fz = ~1 J'o2" n z ( , ) sin vdv (31)
Dz(v) -- P n20,)DSKQ(v) (24)
0.7 R Z Defining the normal force coefficient as
where KFz -- 17 (32)
on21) 4
Z = number of blades
Kr(~) and KQ(v) = propeller thrust and torque and combining equations (22), (24), and (31), we
coefficients at each angular position in the velocity obtain
field throughout one revolution thus the average KQ 2~
forces on each blade become

L = ~ ~(v)(~ (25)
X (1
-- J ' C s i~nre s i n v ) 2KQ(v)
~ sindv (33)

~. _ 0.35-D2~ z ~ D~(v)d,, (26) This provides us with an equation comparable to

(29) and (30) to calculate the normal force pro-
duced at the same speed of advance.
and the total axial forces on the propeller in in- With these equations, Gutsche correlated the
clined flow are results with the experiments', and found that a
L = L'Z (27) C-value of 2 gave good correlation throughout
the test speed range of the six propellers, with a
#2, = L . z (2s) few exceptions at the low thrust loadings on the
if we represent the average total thrust and high-pitched propellers.
torque of the propeller in oblique flow in terms of Induced Propeller Forces Upon lhe Hull
the thrust, T, and torque, Q, which the propeller
produces at the same advance ratio in axial flow, Hough and Ordway have, in reference [9], pre-
then we obtain the following equations: sented a simple, yet accurate, expression for the
induced velocity components of a free propeller
2P~ _ 1 2~(1 J.C which can be used in determining the pressure
T 27r 0.77r forces induced by the propeller upon the hull.

)
X sin ~ sin v ~ ~ (K-~-
v ) d~
(~,_ 1 2"( J.C
O 2rr 1 0.77r
X sinesin u dv
I t is these two equations which permit us to
readily establish the propeller characteristic
curves in inclined flow so that we can easily esti-
mate the propeller performance on the planing
boat. Although integrations are required, Gut-
sche showed that the calculations need be made
at only three angular positions--60, 180, and 300
d e g - - a n d summed to obtain good results.
The vector sum of the torque-producing forces
in the plane of the propeller results in a steady
force which is directed toward the side of the
propeller slip stream which is turned away from
the oblique flow; that is, in the vertical direction
for planing boats with inclined propeller shafts.
(29)
T h e y have considered a lightly loaded propeller
of arbitrary blade number and circulation distri-
bution operating at zero incidence in a uniform
free stream. The propeller is represented b y the
conventional vortex system and the induced
velocities at any field point are determined from
(30) the Biot-Savart law'. T h e velocities are then
Fourier analyzed and the zero harmonic or steady
component is used to obtain the induced veloci-
ties.
Hough and Ordway have shown that in the
steady velocity field outside the slip stream the
tangential velocity component is zero and the
axial velocity component is; not significantly af-
fected by a wide variation in the blade circulation
(loading) distribution. The latter conclusion is
most important as it indicates that the details
of the propeller blade design, do not have a sig-
nificant effect upon the indnc.ed velocities outside
of the slip stream. T h e y have also shown that
the field velocities are a function of the disk
loading and the advance ratio and that outside of

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 575

 0.06
r/Rl= I I
0.04

0.02

0
cT - 0.02

- 0.04 m

I t I J
- 0.06
I0 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -I0

Aft x/R Fwd

Fig. 8 Steady induced axial velocities outside propeller slip stream at selected radial positions fore and aft of
propeller

0.28
I.O

0.24

[ ~ L2

0.20 - - 1.3

xi~ I 1.4 r'

"o
: R
0.16 - - 1.5
'~ , L6

0: t8
~"~._.._3o 0.12 1.9
2.0

! 2.5
3.08 - -
/ 3.0

0.04
_]/ ,0
5.0
3.5

6.0
8.0

0
~ lO,O

0 2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 [6 ~8 20

+ x/R

Fig. 9 Contours of integrated values of propeller pressure coefficient outside propeller slip stream for
any position forward or aft of propeller

the slip s t r e a m t h e i n d u c e d velocities are a n t i - c a n now be ascertained, the pressure force created
s y m m e t r i c a b o u t t h e p l a n e of the propeller. I n - on the b o t t o m m a y be o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t too m u c h
d u c e d velocities a t selected radii are s h o w n in difficulty. A s s u m i n g t h e surface is a flat p l a t e
Fig. 8. a n d u s i n g the linearized Bernoulli equation, we
T h e i r calculations ignored thickness effects of o b t a i n the pressure as :
the propeller blades. I t is k n o w n from o t h e r cal-
culations m a d e a t D T M B t h a t thickness effects Po -- P 2~ p V2
V2
are local a n d would h a v e a negligible effect unless
the propeller tips are v e r y close to the hull. where ~2 is the average axial velocitv i n d u c e d b y
Since t h e v e l o c i t y field a r o u n d the propeller the propeller.

576 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 ./ I0.0

/ ~ / > ...-7.o

t ,/ 6.0

//~//C 7" /5.o

M / / .-I
/ w"" ~ 4.0
z
6 / ////'~ / / .13s
,~ ~ ~ ~,0 R

, / / ~ ..i I- i-
IXl.,~

.....

A /5. / ,..--" .i--/- ___.-<-----'__~__-~,.9

~ _ ~ _ _ - . - - ~ _1-- ,.~
, ~ > . . : . ~ ~ __1 ,.,

A
F
/ I
r
-

0 4 6 8 ,o ,a ,, ~6 ~8 20

_* x/a
Fig. 10 Contours of cemroid of integrated propeller pressure coet~cient in Fig. 9

I n order to maintain the b o u n d a r y condition small percentage of the d y n a m i c pressure on the

on the flat b o t t o m of no n o r m a l velocity, it is nec- planing surface, the fact t h a t t h e y occur over a
essary to assume an image of equal s t r e n g t h and large area makes it necessary to integrate t h e m
distance from the flat surface; thus the velocity over the whole b o t t o m .
is double t h a t obtained for a propeller in free T h e s t e a d y axial velocities as obtained b y the
space. T h e force on a plate forward of a pro- m e t h o d of reference [9] and shown in Fig. 8 are
peller m a y be expressed as : normalized on Cr which is defined as:
]"
N = 2 (Po -- p)clx d y (35) CT --
Y
(p/2) v-'(.,D-V4)
where x and y are the axial and transverse coor- Nondimensionalizing x and y b y R , equation
dinates based u p o n the center of the propeller (35) becomes
as zero reference. +y/R
Since the m a g n i t u d e of the induced velocities N = --2R2pVeCr t"
a - y/R
along the x-axis are a n t i s y m m e t r i c a b o u t the
DT/V x .v
F
x/R
propeller, the integration is performed in two parts : X d d (36)
i.e., the suction forces forward and the pressure
force aft. A l t h o u g h the induced pressures are a To simplify the numerical wc)rk the x-integra-

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 577

 0.50( I
! I I
1 I
I
f

c
n:l

tzI> " ~
I-
(..)
0,500 t
i
t
l
!
t
i
/
2
O. 2 0 0 1

E

I

O.tO0
i
I
I
0 I t I
-0 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Fwd x/R Aft

Fig, 1 1 Average axial velocity in propeller slip stream for any position forward or aft of propeller

tion has been carried out for selected radii, r/R,
and the results are presented in Fig. 9. Thus,
knowing the length of the surface forward or aft
of the propeller, the value at t h a t length repre-
sents the quantity
positions over the width of the surface and to inte-
grate them to obtain the total suction or pressure
force.
The center of application m a y be determined
as:

x/R 2~ "C d x_
L ~IT
Since the dimensions are nondimensionalized
on propeller radius an expression for the trans-
verse position, y / R , in terms of the distance of
the propeller axis from the planing surface, a/R, is
required. With the assistance of the following
diagram, equation (37) m a y be derived.
r/R
y l R = [(r/R) 2 -- (a/R)2] '/2
= [(r/R + a / R ) ( r / R -- a / R ) ] '/~
Since the propeller position is known in relation
to the planing surface, it is now a simple m a t t e r
with equation (37) to obtain the values at various
R 2 a - y / R ,Io ~7 d~d~
(38)
R ;+y,R d xd
!a - y m J o CT R R
where Y:/R is the distanee from the plane of pro-
pellers to the center of pressures at any radius
r / R which has been determined as a continuous
function of x / R for this same radius.
T h e same approach can be used for performing
the integrations as was used for the induced pres-
sures. The results of the x-integration in the
n u m e r a t o r are presented in Fig. 10. Thus it is
necessary to perform only the integration in the
y / R direction along with the force to obtain the
fore-and-aft positions of the centroid in relation
to the propeller plane.
Propeller Augmented and Induced Rudder Drag
On m o s t planing craft the rudder is placed
(37) behind the propeller to improve the effectiveness
of the rudder, particularly at low speeds. The
propeller's action creates in the slip stream an
increase in the axial component of the velocity
and a rotational component. Consequently, the

578 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

rudder experiences an augmented drag from the where
velocity increase and also an induced drag. The
CL = lift c.oefficient and is assumed = ~-a/90
work of Hough and Ordway provides us with
(angle of attack in degrees)
adequate information to estimate these additional
A = aspect ratio, span/chord, of rudder in
drag forces.
slip stream
T h e y have shown in reference [9] that within
the slip stream the radial velocity distribution is Thus
a function of the load distribution. In general,
the load distribution of most marine propellers Co~ - 8100,4
will not deviate, for practical purposes, too far
The total drag coefficient, CD, for the rudder at
from t h a t used in their study. The axial velocity
an angle of attack is
distribution has been averaged for a number of
positions aft of the propeller and the results CD, = co + G), (44)
plotted in Fig. 11. I t should be noted that the
where Co is obtained from the bracketed part of
values are normalized on Cr, the propeller loading.
equation (14).
T h e y also provided the equations for obtaining
The added drag on the rudder, AD,, 1hen be-
the rotational or tangential component of veloc-
comes
ity, z~, inside the slip stream and behind the
propeller. AD~ = l p S ( V + fv)2C~ - pSV2C~
or
Cv - Z r ( r ) (39) ,.0
2 rrr AD~ = p V2S (C~)
where
Z = number of propeller blades
x d(r/R)C~ + 1 (Co + Co,) - C,, (45)
r(r) = propeller blade circulation
where S = planform area of rudder in slip stream
For their propeller and
F = I Z R A ( r / R ) ( 1 -- r/'R) '/~
where
is obtained from Fig. 12 for the centerline dis-
.4 -- 105 7rX Cr
32 Z tance between rudder and propeller.
The preceding development is for the rudder
I/-
k- which has an airfoil section. For the rudder with
27mR a wedgelike section there is relatively little in-
Thus formation. T h a t which is available shows a very
small rise in drag with angle of attack until
ICr - 105 J (1 - r / R ) V= (40) separation occurs at the leading edge and ven-
V 64
tilation takes place on the reduced pressure side.
Assume a nominal value of r / R = 0.60; then A discontinuity occurs in the drag coefficient
( ( v / V ) / C r = 0.33J. With the two velocity com- curve at this point and the drag coefficient in-
ponents established, the angularity of flow can be creases more rapidly with increase in angle of at-
calculated. tack.

tan a - ~/V
1 + u/V 4 Equilibrium Equations
0.33JC~, The preceding sections have discussed the vari-
= (41)
ous components of the bydrcdynamie forces
1 + 17 I C r d CT acting upon a planning boat hull and how they
can be estimated. The results have been sum-
I t is now relatively easy to obtain the drag marized in the forms of equations and charts.
using the procedure of Section 2. Again re- To be of use to the designer, they must be com-
ferring to reference [5] in this case for the induced bined to formulate computational procedures for
drag Co~ for an airfoil section s predicting the power requirements. This section
Co, = CL21rrA (42) of the paper presents a procedure for computing
the running trim, wetted length, resistance, and
s Reference [5], p . 7 - 2 . power requirements of a given planing hull and

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 579

 A

WATER
LEVEL

Forces and Momen'l's on o Planing Surface

v
-el.

\ ~ {~ ~o / - ~ ~ ~ WATER
LEVEL

Do

Appendage Forces and Moments on a Planing Hull

e~
ADf

WATER

41"'~- t
LEVEL

~of

Propeller Forces and Moments on o Planing Hull

Fig. 12 Force and moment diagrams

its propeller(s) for a wide speed range and for
arbitrary locations of the propeller and inclina-
tions of the propeller shaft line relative to the
center of gravity of the hull.
The computational method involves the deter-
ruination of the running trim, resistance, and
propeller thrust which will provide for equilibrium
conditions of the hull at a given speed, load, and
center-of-gravity location. The accompanying
sketches, Figure 12, show the forces and moments

580 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 Table 1 Bare Hull Calculation

Line Quantity Source or equation 7" = 3.0 deg r = 4.0 drg

1 Given or assumed: Displacement, lb 588.0 588.0
2 LCG Given or assunle(t: Longitudinal cent~'r of ~ravity f,rward of 3.85 3.85
transom, ft
3 VCG Given or assumed : Vertical center of gravity above kecl line, ft O. 55 O. 55
4 b Given or assumed: Beam of planing surface, ft 2. 786 2. 786
5 Given or assumed: Inclination of thrust line to keel, deg 11.0 I1.0
6 Given or assumed: Deadrise, deg 0 0
7 f Given or assumed: Distance 1)etween shaftlinc and CG, ft 0. 335 0.3:35
8 V (fps) V = 1.689 Vk 30.32 30.32
9 C, Cv = W l ( g b ) 1/2 3.21 3.21
10 r ~.~ Assumed value of r 3.35 4.95
A
11 CLB 0. 0851) 0. 085f1~'
CoO = ]oV2b ~
12 CLo CLa = Cx,o -- 0.00653 CI,o~-GoFig. 3 0. 0850 0. 0850
13 CLo/T1 .t 0. 0254 0. 0254
14 X Coo = rl'i(0.0120X~/~ + O.O055XV'-'/C,/2) Fig. 2 2.62 1.64
15 v.,IV Mean velocity--Fig. 5 O.98 , 0.97
L_
Vm VbX
16 Re Re - 2.0(l X 107 l .24 X 107
V v
17 Cf Schoenherr friction line 0. 00263 0. 00284
18 ACf Roughness allowance 0 0
19 &X Spray drag--F!ig. 6 0 0

20 Df Ds = 0/2 c~S~i (Cs + ~Cs) x + AX 46. (/ 30.4

21 fs f l = VCG -- b/4 tan 3 (ft) 0.55 0.55
1
22 L~p/Lm Lp/L,, = 0.75 -- 5.21 C,2/X 2 + 2.39 Fig. 4 0.65s 0. 707
23 e e = LCG -- L:p/L,~bX (ft) --0.96 0.62
24" fk Given : Distance between center of keel and V(2G. ft 0 0
25 c Given: Distance between keel ending and transom, ft 0 0
26 w Given: Average keel width, ft (1 I)
27 Lk b tan 3 (ft)

28 Re
20 O Schoenherr
30 Dk Dk = C I p / 2 2W(LK -- c ) V 2 0 0
31 Moment :l: = ,_X [ e cos(r ? ~) f sin r ] + D: ~./': -- taue "
bare hull
--55O +3.I,q
+ DI, ~I d -- e tan e f ] (It lb)
t_ COS e A
32 r(operating) Linear interpolation to find equilibrimu r 3.61
33 Resistance R -- cos@ -'}- e) [A sinr + DS -1- D,:] (11,)
bare hull 72.5
COS

34 ehp ehp = R V/55(] 4.00

a If keel is not installed, omit steps 2,[ through 30.
b Based on fresh water at a temperature of 68 F.

acting on a planing boat. T h e first s h o w s t h e A = (N + P'Na + r.N, + p . N v - - p . N , ) c o s ~-

s t a t i c h y d r o d y n a m i c f o r c e s oi1 t h e p l a n i n g s u r - + (p.7' + A D , ) sin ( r + ~) - - ( D r + p . D ,
face; the second, the hydrodynamic force from
+ r.bDr) slur + p-F:cos(r + e) (46)
the appendages; and the third, the propeller
f o r c e s . T h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e f o r c e s a n d m o -
For the horizontal forces:
m e n t s will b e t a k e n u p in t h e s a m e o r d e r a s s h o w n
in t h e s k e t c h e s ; i.e., f i r s t b a r e hull, s e c o n d h u l l (/). 7 ' + ~D~) cos (~ + ~)
with appendages installed, and finally self-pro-
= ( D , + p.D,, + r. ADr) cos r + D~
pelled.
T a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t all t h e f o r c e s d i s c u s s e d , w e + (N + p.N,, + r'Nr + p. Np
establish the three static equilibrium equations -- p'N.O sin r + p'~sin (r + ~) (47)
as follows :
For the vertical forces : For the pitching moments"

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 581

 N . c + p "Naea + r. N , er + p - Npep -- p . N~es
+ Dff~ + p .Dafa + &Dr.fi -- (p. T
+ A D I ) f + p . Fzes-- Dwfw = 0 (48)
All analytic solution of these equations for the
operating trim angle is very cumbersome; hence a
numerical computational procedure is used. In
order to put these equations into a more tractable
form, they m a y be rearranged as follows :
Combining equations (46) and (47) and elimi-
nating the pressure forces on the planing surface
leads to :
(p.'l'+ ADi) cose = A s i n r + D I +
+ r. AD~ + D w c o s r + p . F ,
Substituting equation (49) into (46) and solve
for N
N = p.N~ -- p . N p -- p . N ~ -- r ' N r
+ - ~s -i n&r s fI i1n-- @ c o s rcose + ~)]
-- [ D 1 + p ' D ~ + r ' & D ~ ] t a n e
--D~sin(r + e)
COS ~
Substituting (49) and (50) into (48) leads to the
moment equation (51) :
A F e c s ( r + e) fsinrl
/ COS 6 COS ~ J
+ D z [ f z -- e t a n cosf ]
+ p ' D a l f a -- e t a n e cosf ]e
-- Dw [ f~ + e sin (r e+ +feoSr]cos~_j
+ p. F, ez cos e co~e _1
+ p ' N s ( e -- e,) + p.Nj,(e, -- e)
-1- p'Na(ea -- e) -1- r'N~(er -- c)
+p'AD~[f~-- etane cosf =]0 ~
\Vhen equation (51) is satisfied, the planing hull
is in equilibrium and the resistance and power are
then easily evaluated.
Bare Hull Resistance
The first calculation which must be made is the
bare hull resistance of the prismatic planing sur-
face at the design CG location. Steps 1 through
34 in Table 1 provide the numerical procedure for
determining the bare hull resistance. The pro-
cedure is almost identical to that given by Savitsky
in reference [1 ], except that provision is made to
582 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft
include the spray and keel drag, if present, and
that an inadvertent omission in his equation (35)
has been corrected. In order to satisfy the mo-
ment equation (51), a linear interpolation can be
made between the assumed values and the running
trim established. Any other information, in-
cluding the drag, in the bare hull configuration
can then be readily determined.
Appendage Resistance
The appendage resistance can be easily esti-
mated using the method and equations outlined
P'D~ in Section 2 and numerically illustrated in Ap-
pendix 1. Table 2 is in parallel form to that used
sin~ (49)
for the bare hull resistance calculation, but of
necessity will vary from one configuration to an-
other. The moments produced by the appendage
requires a rebalaneing of equation (51). Again
linear interpolation m a y be made between the
assumed r value to establish the running trim.
Once this is established and the new forces in-
troduced, the appended resistance can be deter-
p.F: (50) mined by equation (47).
COS Propulsion
Before proceeding with the propeller calcula-
tions outlined in Section 3, it is necessary to es-
tablish the propeller design to be used for the
calculations. This requires that the usual pre-
liminary design studies be made to establish the
approximate propeller diameter, rpm, blade area
ratio to meet the cavitation criteria, propeller tip
clearance from the hull to keep the oscillating
propeller hydrodynamic forces within acceptable
limits, and so forth. It is not the intent of this
paper to treat the problem of design trade-offs,
but rather to provide a method of prediction
which will permit determining magnitudes such
that these traee-offs can be made with more factual
and less heuristic arguments than heretofore pos-
sible. The assumption is made that open-water
curves are available of the desired propeller. If
none are available, the open-water characteristic
(51) curves of the Troost propeller series [10 ] are recom-
mended. Experience at D T M B has shown that
commercially available small boat propellers have
open-water test characteristics comparable to
those contained in reference [10] for the appro-
priate number of blades, blade area ratio, and
pitch ratio at the 0.7 radius.
Once-the open-water curves are available for
the desired propeller(s), it is necessary first to
obtain the open-water performance curves in
inclined flow at the angle of inclination of the
propeller shaft to the planing surface. The
method outlined by Gutsche in Appendix I of
reference [8] should be used. The procedure is
 Table 2 Appended Hull Calculation
Line ~uantity Source or equation r = 3.0 deg r = 4.0 deg
1 d Given or assumed: Shaft diameter, ft 0.050 O. 050
2 l Given or assumed : Shaft and strut barrel, and bossing length, ft 3.0 3.0
3 Re Re = V d i f 103 < Re < 5.5 X 105 use equations (12), (13) 1.40 X 10~ 1.40 X 10s

4 Re Re = --Vl 8.37 X 10~ 8.37 X 10~

It

5 C] Schoenherr friction line 0. 00302 0. 00302

6 D~h D,h = p/2 ld V2(1.1 sina e -I- 7rCf) (lb) equation (12) '2.30 2.30
7 N~ N~ = p/2 ld V2(1.1 sins e cos e) (lb) equation (13) 5.29 5.29
8 f~,h Distance between D,h and VCGf, = VCG + 1sin e (when 0.836 0.836
/3 = 0) (ft)
9 e~ Distance between L,h and LCG, ft 2.51 2.51
10~ D~ Rudder drag, lb 5.30 5.30
11 f~ Distance between D~ and VCG, ft 0.877 0. 877
12 N, Rudder pressure force, lb 32.2 32.2
13 e~ Distance between N, and LCG, ft 3.22 :3.22
14 D~ D, = D~h + D~ (line 6 + line 10) 7.60 7.60
15 f, f~ = D~'f"*h + D~f~ (lb) 0.864 0.864
D~
16 S~ Given or assumed: Hull and superstructure cross-sectional 5.45 5.45
area, sq ft
17 CD~ Given or assumed : Hull and superstructure drag coefficient 0.86 0.86
18 f~ Given or assumed : distance between Dw and VCG, ft 0.44 0.44
p(air)
19 D~ D~ = CD~. ~ S w V 2 5.14 5.14

20 Moment
appended hull M, = M(tine 31, Table 1) + p'Da Ef. -- e tan e ------ecos
f _~ --24, +53,

D~ rf,~ -b esin (r -k e) q- f c s r 7 -k r-N~(e, -- e)

L7 c o s e _1
-t- p.Na(e~ -- e) (ft-lb)
21 r(operating) Linear interpolation to find equilibrium r 3.32
22 appendedResistanCehull R~ - COScos(r+e e) [A sinr + Df + Dk + Dw cost + p.D~] (lb) 95.4

23 ehp~ ehp~ - R,
550V 5.25

Steps 10 through 13 were special calculations made on a digital computer in view of the unusual type rudders used
on Model 5032.

also t a b u l a t e d in A p p e n d i x 2 of this paper. T h i s 5 Correlationwith Model Experiments

c a l c u l a t i o n should be m a d e for a t least three ad-
v a n c e ratios in t h e expected ran~:e of o p e r a t i o n of
the p l a n i n g boat.
I t is n o w necessary to calcu]tate the i n d u c e d
propeller forces u p o n the p l a n i n g surface a n d ob-
t a i n t h e n o r m a l i z e d s u c t i o n a n d pressure coeffi-
cients for use in the p e r f o r m a n c e calculations.
T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s are o u t l i n e d i n A p p e n d i x 3.
I n b o t h of the preceding propeller c a l c u l a t i o n s
the a s s u m p t i o n is m a d e t h a t t h e flow u n d e r the
p l a n i n g surface is parallel to t h e p l a n i n g surface
a n d a t the v e l o c i t y of a d v a n c e of the boat. W h e n
the curves a n d coefficients are available, the pro-
pulsive p e r f o r m a n c e c a l c u l a t i o n s of t h e b o a t a t t h e
desired speed c a n be made. T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s
are similar to those m a d e for the bare a n d ap-
p e n d e d hull resistance. A r a n g e of v a l u e s of r
m u s t be a s s u m e d a n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of equa-
tion (51) m e t b y a s s u m i n g linear i n t e r p o l a t i o n .
T a b l e 3 shows the n u m e r i c a l procedure.
T h e v a l i d i t y of a t h e o r y or c o m p u t a t i o n a l
m e t h o d can o n l y be verified b y correlation with
experiments. I n m a n y i n s t a n c e s the t h e o r y can
o n l y be developed c o n c u r r e n t l y with t h e experi-
m e n t s , each g u i d i n g the other. F o r the analysis
developed in this p a p e r such a c o n c u r r e n t in-
v e s t i g a t i o n was m a n d a t o r y . T w o different plan-
ing configurations, b o t h provided with twin-screw
propulsion, were used. One:, Model 5032, was a
simple f l a t - b o t t o m e d hull. T h e other, M o d e l
5048, was a c o n v e n t i o n a l high-speed p l a n i n g b o a t
with a fairly u n i f o r m deadrise over Lhe a f t e r b o d y
of 9 deg a n d with the chine w i d t h decreased a
small a m o u n t from amidships to the t r a n s o m .
T h e l a t t e r b o a t had c o n v e n t i o n a l shaft a n d s t r u t
a r r a n g e m e n t s and wedge-type rudders representa-
tive of c u r r e n t high-speed b o a t practice. T h e
p r i s m a t i c p l a n i n g surface was e q u i p p e d with an
u n u s u a l propulsion s y s t e m in t h a t the propeller

The Prediction o f Power Performance on Planing Craft 583

 i
J j l

Fig. 13 I n b o a r d profile o f M o d e l 5 0 4 8

Table 3 Propulsion Calculation

Line Quantity Source or e q u a t i o n r = 3.0 deg r = 4.0 deg
1 p Given: N u m b e r of propellers 2 2
2 D Given: Propeller d i a m e t e r , ft 0.583 0.583
3 Kr,Ko vs J Given: Propeller o p e n - w a t e r c u r v e s Fig. 26 Fig. 26
4 ey Given: D i s t a n c e a l o n g s h a f t line f r o m propeller p l a n e to 3.40 3.40
CG
5 K'T,, KQ~, A'F: Calculate: M e t h o d of A p p e n d i x 2 Fig. 26 Fig. 26
v s fl
1
6 T T~--[Asinr-t-Df+p.Da+Dwcosr]Eq.(49)(lb) 48.6 45.8
p'cos e
7 -f~ A s s u m e v a r i o u s v a l u e s of J~ over e x p e c t e d r a n g e of opera- 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2
tion
T
8 KT KT pD~V 2 J,2(for each a s s u m e d v a l u e of J , ) 0.0966 0.1150 0.0910 0.1084
9 P l o t KT/J~ 2 c u r v e f r o m line 8 -- --
10 J~ (first a p p r o x ) I n t e r s e c t i o n of KT,/J~ 2 c u r v e w i t h KT,: c u r v e 1. 144 1. 154
11 KTe I n t e r s e c t i o n of K T / J , a c u r v e w i t h KTe c u r v e 0. 104 0.099
12 KFz F r o m line 5 u s i n g J , o b t a i n e d in line 10 0.0420 0.0424
13 F~ F , = K F , / K T . T (lb) 19.6 19.6
T
14 ~ CT CT = p/27rDa/4 Va O. 203 0. 191
15 ~ ~D~ Fig. 11 a n d e q u a t i o n s (41), (43), a n d (45) 1.44 1.44 b
1
16 T(final) T = - - [4 sin r + D I + p.D. + r.ADr + Dw cos r + 53.8 51.1
p'cos e
p . F , sin e]
17 J , (final) ] 1. 125 1. 132
18 KT~ (final) f 0. 112 0. 109
19 F~ (final) R e p e a t s t e p s 7 t h r o u g h 14 19.8 19.6
20 CT (final) 0. 224 0. 213
21 C.v~ F r o m i n d u c e d propeller force c a l c u l a t i o n - - m e t h o d of 3.172 3.172
Appendix 3
(D'~ a 1
22 N, N, = C.vrCT. \ ~ 2 ~ pV a (lb) 54.2 51.5
23 e, M o m e n t a r m f r o m i n d u c e d propeller force calculation, ft 2.02 2.02
24 CNp F r o m i n d u c e d propeller force c a l c u l a t i o n 1. 076 1. 076
(DV 1
25 Np Np = CNfCT. \ ~ ] 2 p V a (lb) 18.4 17.5
26 ep M o m e n t a r m f r o m i n d u c e d propeller force calculation, ft 3.60 3.60
27 Moment E q u a t i o n (51), ft-lb --265 +604
28 r(operating) L i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n to find e q u i l i b r i u m 7 3.30
29 J, Linear interpolation 1.127
30 KT~ F r o m c u r v e s of line 5 0. 111
31 KQe F r o m c u r v e s of line 5 0. 0259
6O V
32 rpm r p m = 60n = - - - 2805
J~D
33 T(perpropeller) T = KT,onaD 4 (lb) 54.4
34 Q (per propeller) Q = KQepn~D5 (ft-lb) 7.38
35 shp shp 2~'p.Qn 7.9
55O
T h e s e two s t e p s m a y be o m i t t e d if r u d d e r ( s ) a r e n o t b e h i n d t h e propeller(s).
b B a s e d on r u d d e r 2.4 propeller radii a f t of propeller a n d no i n d u c e d d r a g for t h e t y p e r u d d e r sections e m p l o y e d .

584 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 Fig. 14 View of stern appendages--Model 5048

UrMB MODEL 5 0 3 2

:l
i

f ,'J

Fig. 15 Inboard profile of Model 5032

0 2 4 6 8 l0 ~2

shaft was supported b y the rudder without a n y
intermediate struts. This permitted testing with
the propeller in three different positions along the
shaft. In this model the rudders are not movable
and are fixed rigidly to the hull with no gap be-
tween the top of the rudder and the b o t t o m of
the hull. The rudder sections were slightly wedge
shaped with a cylindrical leading edge. Figs. 13
through 16 show photographs and sketches of the
models and their appendages.
An extensive amount of testing was done on
both models. Most of the results from the flat-
bottomed hull, Model 5032, will be presented, as
these tests were done exclusively to both guide and
check the developments of this paper. Only a
representative number of the results from the
planing boat will be presented to show the applica-
bility of the methodology developed for use in
practical boat design and performance predic-
tion.
M o d e l 5032
T h e experiments on the prismatic planing
surface were conducted at the Langley Field
Station towing tank, employing the usual test
techniques. T h e model was towed with a so-
called " a u t o m a t i c tow gear" which maintains the
tow force along the propeller shaft line, within

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 585

 MODEL 5032 - RESISTANCE
BARE HULL 7 APPENDED 7
~---Et~ec~ o~ 1
~ . ~ Omltt ing Rudd0 r)
6 Pressure Force 6

5 5
T-"

3 ~ 3
120 -- I i

2 2
100 C{" i

z
60 I
- - - -P e ~ ,
'n

~. 40 I
," I I I
/
E0 7 z - - F r l c g l n -
I I I

i0 12 14 16 18 20 O~o ~2 ~ ;0'1'~ 2o
V(knots) ~/(~:nots )

Fig. 17 Predicted and experimental results of resist.

ance tests o n Model 5032

Fig. 16 V i e w of Model 5032 with appendages

Table 4 Estimated Accuracy of Model Measurements

m e c h a n i c a l limits, as t h e hull rises a n d changes LCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.5in. or 0.04 ft

VCG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 in. or 0.08 ft
trim. T h e tow force was m e a s u r e d along t h e Rise of bow and stern . . . . . . . . . 0.1 in. or 0.01 ft
s h a f t line. T h e self-propulsion t e s t s were con- Initial trim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 deg, Model 5032
=1=0.05deg, Model 5048
d u c t e d in a similar m a n n e r e m p l o y i n g t w o 5-hp, Change in running trim . . . . . . . =1=0.05deg
100 in-lb, v a r i a b l e - r e l u c t a n c e electronic t r a n s m i s - Carriage speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.06knot, Model 5032
sion d y n a m o m e t e r s a n d t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d r e c o r d i n g =1=0.01 knot, Model 5048
Model weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=3lb
e q u i p m e n t . Since these results were to be used Angle of tow to shaft line . . . . . . =1=1.5deg, Model 5032
d i r e c t l y a t m o d e l scale, t h e r e was no a u x i l i a r y 4-1.0 deg, Model 5048
t o w force, AD~, i n t r o d u c e d to t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.1lb
Transmission propulsion
t h e difference in the viscous d r a g f r o m m o d e l to dynamometers
t h e full-scale boat. T h e m o d e l L C G was care- Calibration (Repeatability) =1=0.5 percent of maxi-
mum torque or thrust
f u l l y d e t e r m i n e d w i t h all t h e e q u i p m e n t a n d Thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=2 percent of maxi-
b a l l a s t weights i n s t a l l e d b y b a l a n c i n g on a knife mum thrust
edge. T h e V C G was e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e usual Torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=2 percent of maxi-
mum torque
inclining e x p e r i m e n t technique. M e a s u r e m e n t s Rpm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =1=0.02percent
were m a d e of hull d r a g b o t h b a r e a n d w i t h ap-
p e n d a g e , t h r u s t , torque, a n d r p m when p r o p e l l e d
o v e r a r a n g e of speeds in t h e p l a n i n g c o n d i t i o n T h e results of t h e e x p e r i m e n t s , a l o n g w i t h t h e
until porpoising instabilities commenced. For p r e d i c t e d p e r f o r m a n c e , are shown in Figs. 17, 18,
all tests, t h e rise of t h e b o w a n d s t e r n were care- a n d 19. T h e first figure p r e s e n t s t h e r e s i s t a n c e
fully m e a s u r e d . Visual o b s e r v a t i o n s were m a d e d a t a for b o t h t h e b a r e a n d a p p e n d e d hull. Also
of t h e e x t e n t of side w e t t i n g . I n general, t h e i n c l u d e d are t h e v a r i o u s c o m p o n e n t s of t h e d r a g
m o d e l was free of this a d d i t i o n a l d r a g a b o v e 13.5 force. T h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m e a s u r e d
knots. Since t h e m o d e l h a d a r a t h e r l a r g e box- a n d c a l c u l a t e d forces a t t h e h i g h e r speeds is as
like hull, it was n e c e s s a r y to e s t i m a t e t h e w i n d good as c a n b e expected, a b o u t 2 p e r c e n t . T h e
drag. T a b l e 4 p r o v i d e s e s t i m a t e s of t h e m e a s u r e - c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e n o t v a l i d a t t h e lower o r h u m p
m e n t a c c u r a c y of t h e i n s t r u m e n t s used on this speed, as e x t e n s i v e side w e t t i n g o c c u r r e d in this
m o d e l a n d on M o d e l 5048 which was t e s t e d a t region. I t s h o u l d also be n o t e d t h a t a t t h e l o w e r
DTMB. speeds t h e p r e s s u r e d r a g is t h e l a r g e s t c o m p o n e n t .

586 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 Calculated i
O Position i __
O Position 2 . . . . . .
Position 3 - - - -
Side Wetting O b s e r v e d

3000
T-
4

2
14C
/,
2
/
12C 2000
12 //
-7
i0
E RPM

,-4 8C 8

SHP I000

~. 6c 6 o___. . . .
.//I/"
40 "4

7
2C 2 0

9 ii 13 15 17 19 21 0'7 9 ii 13 15 17 19 21

V(knots) V(knots)

Fig. 18 Predicted and experimental results of sel~propulsion tests on Model 5032

At the top speed of 20 knots, tile appendages con-
tribute about 17 percent and the :air drag on the
hull about 6 percent of the total drag.
The predicted and measured values of trim
are shown in the same figure also. Again in the
higher speed range the agreement is quite good,
within the range of experimental error.
These experiments brought forth the significance
of the pressure force that the rudders can produce
upon the bottom of the planing surface. I t m a y
be noted in Fig. 15 t h a t the rudder is mounted on
a small plate flush with the bottoin of the planing
surface; thus the bottom of the boat acts as an
end plate. The leading edge of the rudder is in
line with the transom. The rudder is also quite
thick with a cylindrical leading edge. Conse-
quently, a large pressure force on the planing
surface is induced which results in a reduction
of the trim angle. The magnitude of this force
is estimated by two steps: First utilizing airfoil
theory to obtain the field point velocities g forward
9 The computer program contained in :reference [11] was
used to make this calculation.
of a two-dimensional foil with a cross section of tile
type used on this rudder and then using Ber-
noulli's equation to obtain the pressure inte-
grating these pressures over the planing surface,
we obtain the pressure force. The magnitude of
this force is shown in. Fig. 19. The effects on the
trina and total drag of ignoring this force are
shown by tlm dashed lines in Fig. 17. These
results anake clear that the location of the rudder
and its clearance from the hull can have an im-
portant bearing upon the running attitude of the
boat.
The results of the propulsion tests and calcula-
tions are presented in Fig. 18. The good agree-
ment between the predicted and measured trims
for the various propeller positions indicates that
the estimates of the propeller forces are quite
good. The calculated values of thrust and shp
for propeller position 1 agree with the experi-
mental values within the limit of the experimental
error. For propeller positions 2 and 3, the agree-
ments are not as good. For position 3, there is
good agreement on thrust, but the predicted slip

The Prediction o f Power Performance on Planing Craft 587

 APPENDAGE ~ PROPELLER FORCES -160 A P P E N D A G E 4 P R O P E L L E R M O M E N T S
120

I00 -120
f
~Posltlon 1
(D
80 -80
o

o
120 60 g -40

".. P o s l t l o n 2

i00 40

C
80 20 z 4o Appendage ~" ~

,-4

60 80

", \ \
40 IEO
\ '
\

20 160 \\
0
7 9 ii 13 15 17 19 21 2007 9 ii 15 15 17 19 21
V(knots) V(knots )

Fig. 19 Calculated forces and moments from appendages and propellers on Model 5032

is about 7 to S percent lower; for position 2, the
thrust prediction is higher by about 8 percent,
whereas the shp is a few percent lower. An
analysis of the torque and thrust-identity wakes
(l -- w) of the model experintents shows the vari-
ations in these quantities are between 2 and :3
percent. This indicates that there may be more
scatter in the experimental data than desirable
or that in positions 2 and 3 where the tip clear-
ances are smaller there are interactions between
the planing surface and the propellers which have
not been accounted for in the predictions.
Fig. 19 shows the magnitudes of the normal
forces and the trim moments produced by the ap-
1)endages and the propellers to give some idea of
their magnitudes. These curves show clearly
how the fore-and-aft position of the propeller can
affect the net suction forces and the trimming
moment on the boat.
Model 5 0 4 8
The tests on Model 5048 were done as part of an
extensive test program for the Bureau of Ships on
conventional high-speed planing boats. The
results from these model tests provided an ex-
cellent opportunity to show the applicability of
the methodology for predicting the performance
of conventional planing boats with inclined pro-
peller shafts.
The tests were performed on the No. 2 carriage
at D T M B , employing the newly devdoped towing
equipment. In principle, the procedures are the
same as those described for the Langley tank.
in this instance, the towing force is maintained
along tile shaft line but only the horizontal com-
ponent is measured. The maximum speed was
limited to that of the carriage, :20 knots. The
same propulsion dynamometers were used to meas-
ure the propeller forces.
In the course of the test program, additional
tests were incorporated to ascertain the effect
of tile appendages upon the performance. As a
basic test, bare hull tests were conducted at a
number of LCG locations. Self-propulsion and

588 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 BARE HULL ~ RUDDERS APPENDED

[3" -k
q--o
-F-

fD\ 3 dd .... ~< - - - .3

I

80 OC~BSlde
a r e Wetting
Hull Rudders2 80 --2
[DBare Hull and

Hull and Appendages

70 8!e1 Hull,nd!u
t 1 i7~
iJ 70

60 1 1
Bare
I
Hull
I
Y[ 6O
_~a2 //--
z ~n ,, 2 / //--_
" i- "[/~r"i I :ceek O9

~
40
//Bare Hull
t Pressure // , /_Including Wind Drag

30 . . . .

i
1,///
~.,z/

2o [ /// 20
Friction
t

i0 , 10

! I

lO
t 12 14 16
T
18 20
0
6 8 i0 12 14 16 18 20
V(knots) V(.Knots)
Fig. 20 Predicted and experimental results of resistance tests on Model 5048

r e s i s t a n c e tests w i t h all a p p e n d a g e s installed c a l c u l a t e d p r e d i c t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d in Figs, 2t)

were c o n d u c t e d a t a n u m b e r of l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n s
a n d C G locations. Speeial r e s i s t a n c e t e s t s were
m a d e a t one l o a d i n g a n d C G position, first with
o n l y t h e r u d d e r s i n s t a l l e d and t h e n with t h e r u d -
d e r s r e m o v e d a n d o n l y t h e shafts a n d s t r u t s in-
stalled. T h e p r o p e l l e r s h a f t s were o p e r a t i n g a t
2000 a n d 3000 r p m to a s c e r t a i n if p r o p e l l e r s h a f t
r o t a t i o n m o d i f i e d t h e lift or drag. No measur-
a b l e effects were n o t e d on e i t h e r t r i m or drag.
T h e results of t h e e x p e r i m e n t s along with t h e
alld 21.
Fig. 21) gives a c o m p a r i s o n of the results of two
resistance tests, run c o n s e c u t i v e l y - - t h e first b a r e
hull and t h e second w i t h o n l y t h e r u d d e r s in-
stalled. "l'hese were c o n d u c t e d to check the
v a l i d i t y of t h e d r a g p r e d i c t i o n for w e d g e - s h a p e
r n d d e r s of the type. e m p l o y e d o11 this m o d e l and
to a s c e r t a i n t h e possible :magnitude of the
pressure forces from t h e r u d d e r u p o n t h e hull.
In this instance, t h e r e are large gaps b e t w e e n the

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 589

 4000
' Calculated
Experiment 0 0 0
4Z-~ o" o" a"
b
--)_Side We%tlng
f

2
/
/
9O

3000

.e0
RPM /

/ IO

70

Thrue% / /
/
/
/
6O
oo/ 0
2000
RPM
d d~
~2 50 d
,/ 5

/
SHP

40 6 /
/ SHP
i000

30 --.
_ /
-- e//

lO --0

~l 8 i0 12 14 16 18 20 6 8 i0 12 14
I 16 18 20

V(knots) v(knots)

Fig. 2 l Predicted and experimental resuhs of self-propulsion tests on Model 5048

rudders and the hull; thus it was assulned that
pressure forces would be negligibly small. The
,uodel trim measurements tend to confirm this
assumption.
Also shown in this figure are the various com-
ponents of resistance. The spray, keel, and wind
drag contribute significantly at the higher speeds :
at 20 knots about 9, 5, and 1.5 percent, respec-
tively. Although there is excellent correlation
between the predicted and experimental results
at the higher speeds for both of these resistance
tests, this was not true for the other resistance
tests, the results of which are not included in this
paper. The predicted results were distinctly
high for speeds above about 17 knots. The agree-
ment in the speed range of 14 to 17 knots seemed
to be good for all tests. This would indicate
that the empirical equations of lift, drag, and
center of pressure are in doubt at low trim angles.
I t is not at all clear why these two resistance tests
should not show this trend when the other re-
sistance tests, as well as the thrust measurements
from the propulsion tests, showed this tendency
to overpredict above 17 knots when the trim
angle was below about 3.5 deg.
The second part of the figure shows the total
appended resistance over a wide speed range.
Again at the higher speed, the predictions of
trim and drag are within experimental limits.
The calculations shout that the appendages at
top speed increase the drag by about 16 percent.
The drag predictions at lower speeds are somewhat
low as was true for Model 5032. I t m a y also be
noted that the predicted trim in the hump speed
region is out of position, implying that both the
magnitude and center of application of the
buoyant forces are not treated with sufficient
precision in the equations of Section 1.
The results of the self-propulsion tests are shown
in Fig. 21. The trim results are somewhat erratic
although they clearly demonstrate that the pre-
dicted trend is correct except in the hump region.

590 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 Table 5 Table 6
Bare Change in ~-Experimcntal~ ~Calculated - ~
hull Appended Append- resistance Model No. Speed l -- W z 1 - W Q 1 -- W T 1 - - W e
resist- resist- age due to 5032 (Pos 1) 19.95 0.97 0.97 0.959 0.958
Model ante, anee, drag, appendage 5032 (Pos 1) 16.60 0.98 0.98 0.960 0.959
No. lb lb lb lift, lb n. 5032 (Pos 2) 20.17 0.99 0.97 0.959 0.968
5032 85.47 108.60 18.83 +4.30 0.787 5032 (Pos 2) 16.68 1.01 0.98 0.960 0.959
5048 67.64 78.48 10.46 +0.38 O.863 5032 (Pos 3) 19.75 1.01 0.99 0.959 0.958
5032 (Pos 3) 16.51 1.01 1.00 0.960 0.959
5048 20.00 0.95 0.98 0.950 0.947
18.50 0.96 0.98 0.951 0.947
The predicted thrust is in good agreement in the 17.00 0.96 0.98 0.951 0.948
intermediate speed range, 14 to 17 knots, as has
been commented on earlier. The predicted rpm to demonstrate the usefulness of the prediction
in the intermediate speed range tend to be low, method in improving a planing boat design.
whereas the shp tends to be high. This is due The measurement of the effectiveness of a pro-
primarily to the method used to predict the in-
pulsion system is the ratio of the o u t p u t power to
clined open-water performance of the propeller
the input power. In naval architectural terms
outlined in Section 3. In developing the quasi- this is the propulsive coefficient, nD, which is de-
steady equations to predict the forces, it was
fined as ehp/shp, where ehp is the effective horse-
necessary to introduce the empirical constant C ~
power based upon the appended resistance and
to achieve good correlation between the ex-
the velocity of advance and the shp is the horse-
perimental and predicted normal forces. A
power at the propeller. Using the usual notation,
careful examination of Figs. 4 through 9, in ref-
we write:
erence [8], which correlate the results of all of
the measured forces with the predicted, shows that ehp~ 1 -- t
for the higher pitch propellers operating at the ~u- shp - 70'~R'~u = 7o"~R' 1 - - w
high advance ratios the thrust and torque predic-
where
tions are higher than the experimental. This
results in underpredicting the rpm. I t m a y also 7o = open-water propeller efficiency
be noted that the predicted propeller efficiency ~n = relative rotative effieiiencv
is lower in relation to the experimental results, ~i~ = hull efficiency
thus resulting in overpredicting the shp. Unfor- t = thrust deduction
tunately, the propeller used in this model falls w = wake fraction
into the range where the predictions tend to be
On displacemenl2 ships, where the various effects
somewhat unreliable.
due to propeller forces are small in relation to the
displacement of the ship, and where only one
6 PerformanceAnalysis means is used to 1Lransmit the power to the pro-
peller, this definition is quite practical. On
One of tile prime benefits to be derived from a
planing boats, where all components of force
rational prediction method is the insight it pro-
arising from both the appendages and the pro-
vides as to the relative roll t h a t each of the factors
peller are significant, and where there is more than
plays in the overall performance. This is par-
one means for transmitting power to the propeller
ticularly true in the case of the planing boat. In
(Z and right-angle drives) as well as other forms
analyzing the power performance, the normal
of propulsion (waterjet or air-screw), this ap-
tendency is to apply the customary methods used
proach does not l?ermit a reasonable means for
with surface displacement ships. To a limited
measuring the elTeetiveness of the propulsion
extent this can be useful; however, the hydro-
system. In this case it is more meaningful to
dynamic characteristics of planing craft introduce
use the bare hull ehp at the same loading, that is,
other problems which are not usually encountered
A and CG location, as for the propeller condition.
in the displacement ship. Thus it is necessary to
The propulsive coefficient based on the bare
examine this relationship in some detail.
hull resistance is defined as :
In this section the various propulsion factors
will be examined and their numerical significance (7/D)bare = @/D)app'T/a
will be shown by using the results of the calcula-
where ~/~, which will be called "appendage ef-
tions made on the two models. In addition, a
ficiency," is defined as follows:
parametric study will be made on Model 5048
'bare hull resistance
10 See equation (22), Section 3. ~ appended resistance

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 591

 Table 7
Appended Propeller
~ - T h r u s t deduction item: Gain ( + ) or Loss (--), l b - ~ resistance, thrust,
Model No. No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 Net lb lb (1 -- t) (1 -- t) exp
5032 (Pos 1) --3.40 --11.10 +5.20 --1.90 --1.64 --12.84 108.60 121.44 0.895 0.91
5032 (Pos 3) --3.48 --10.96 +2.54 --3.30 --3.29 --18.49 108.60 127.09 0.854 0.89
5048 --2.92 --9.60 +2.77 --0.50 --2.37 --12.62 78.48 91.10 0.872 0.90

Table 8
V, ~ ~o - - ~ ~ ~H -~ - - ~ ~-~D A p p e n d e d - ~ l ) Bare hull~
Model No. knots Cal Exp Cal Exp Cal Exp Cal Exp Cal Exp Cal Exp
5048 17 0.878 0.85 0.690 0.68 0.920 0.93 1. 010 1.08 0.643 0.69 0.564 0.59
5032 (Pos 1) 20 0.787 0.78 0.750 0.76 0.934 0.93 1. 003 0.98 0.702 0.69 0.552 0.54
5032 (Pos 2) 20 0.787 0.78 0.750 0.76 0.910 0.95 1.000 0.90 0.681 0.65 0.536 0.51
5032 (Pos 3) 20 0.787 0.78 0.750 0.76 0.890 0.88 1.003 0.92 0.669 0.62 0.527 0.48

T h e v a l u e s of b o t h of t h e s e resistances in t h e a n d p o s i t i o n 1 of M o d e l 5(132 shows t h a t t h e basic

expression of ~a a r e o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e hull a t t h e
s a m e l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n as a t rest, t h a t is, s a m e A
a n d C G location.
Since t h e a p p e n d a g e s c r e a t e a lift force as well
as a d r a g force, i t b e c o m e s r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t
t h a t t h e r e are two effects w h i c h d e t e r m i n e t h e
m a g n i t u d e of this r a t i o : t h e d r a g of t h e ap-
p e n d a g e s a n d t h e c h a n g e in hull r e s i s t a n c e d u e to
t h e c h a n g e in r u n n i n g trim. T h e c a l c u l a t i o n s
for t h e t w o m o d e l s given in T a b l e 5 c l e a r l y d e m -
o n s t r a t e t h e m a g n i t u d e of these t w o effects. T h e
c a l c u l a t i o n s are m a d e a t 20 k n o t s w h e r e t h e effects
a r e m o r e p r o n o u n c e d b e c a u s e of t h e low r u n n i n g
t r i m angles.
T h e definitions of t h e o t h e r efficiency e l e m e n t s
a r e t h e s a m e as for d i s p l a c e m e n t ships; however,
we m a y e x a m i n e t h e m s o m e w h a t m o r e closely
t h a n h e r e t o f o r e possible for p l a n i n g b o a t s .
T h e p r o p e l l e r efficiency, 70, is t h e o p e n - w a t e r
p r o p e l l e r efficiency b a s e d u p o n t h e inflow v e l o c i t y
a t t h e p l a n e of t h e p r o p e l l e r a n d needs no f u r t h e r
comment.
Since t h e basic a s s u m p t i o n was m a d e t h a t t h e
flow u n d e r t h e p l a n i n g surface is p a r a l l e l to t h e
b o t t o m a t t h e v e l o c i t y of a d v a n c e of t h e craft,
t h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e t h r u s t a n d t o r q u e i d e n t i t y
w a k e s is
J~
1 -- I'V~ - 2 T h e n o r m a l force f r o m t h e p r o p e l l e r c r e a t e s
and
1 - l,Vo = Jo Jo since Jo~ = JT~
which m a y b e c a l c u l a t e d f r o m t h e p r e d i c t e d in-
clined a n d n o r m a l o p e n - w a t e r curves. T a b l e 6
gives a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e t o r q u e a n d t h r u s t -
i d e n t i t y w a k e v a l u e s d e r i v e d f r o m t h e experi-
m e n t s a t t h e h i g h e r speeds w i t h t h o s e c a l c u l a t e d .
T h e a g r e e m e n t oll t h e t h r u s t w a k e on M o d e l ;5048
a s s u m p t i o n is r e a s o n a b l y good for a first a p p r o x -
i m a t i o n when t i p clearances are large a n d t h e t r i m
angles a r e low. Since t h e c a l c u l a t e d v a l u e s a r e
lower, t h e r e is a m e a s u r a b l e p o t e n t i a l flow effect
which should be a c c o u n t e d for in f u t u r e work.
P o s i t i o n s 2 a n d 3 on M o d e l 5032 c l e a r l y show t h a t
t h e r e a r e i n t e r a c t i o n a n d p o t e n t i a l flow effects
which are q u i t e significant a n d m u s t be a c c o u n t e d
for if a c c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n s a r e to be m a d e . T h e
large differences in t h e m e a s u r e d a n d c a l c u l a t e d
t o r q u e - i d e n t i t y wakes, p a r t i c u l a r l y M o d e l 5048,
p r o v i d e f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e per-
f o r m a n c e a n a l y s i s m a d e in t h e p r e c e d i n g section
on precision of t h e p r e d i c t e d o p e n - w a t e r c u r v e
inclined to t h e flow.
T h e f a c t o r of t h r u s t d e d u c t i o n , t, which e n t e r s
the hull efficiency e l e m e n t as 1 - t is sensitive on the
p l a n i n g b o a t d u e to m a n y influences a n d w a r r a n t s
a d e t a i l e d analysis. B y definition 1 -- t = R/T
where R is t h e a p p e n d e d hull r e s i s t a n c e a n d 27
is t h e t h r u s t in t h e s h a f t line. I t t h e n b e c o m e s
o b v i o u s t h a t t h e following i t e m s are i m p o r t a n t
to this r a t i o :
1 T h e t h r u s t in t h e s h a f t line m u s t be resolved
i n t o its h o r i z o n t a l a n d v e r t i c a l c o m p o n e n t s .
T h e h o r i z o n t a l c o m p o n e n t is a c c o r d i n g l y a func-
tion of t h e s h a f t angle a n d t h e r u n n i n g t r i m a t
a p a r t i c u l a r speed.
a n e g a t i v e t h r u s t . T h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e n o r m a l
force is p r i m a r i l y a f u n c t i o n of t h e s h a f t inclina-
tion, e. T h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e n e g a t i v e t h r u s t
c o m p o n e n t is a f u n c t i o n of b o t h t h e s h a f t inclina-
a n d t h e r u n n i n g trim.
3 T h e p r e s s u r e force c o m p o n e n t on t h e hull,
i n d u c e d b y t h e propellers. T h e s u c t i o n forces
f r o m t h e p r o p e l l e r u p o n t h e p l a n i n g surface aug-
m e n t t h e t h r u s t , w h e r e a s t h e p r e s s u r e forces f r o m
t h e slip s t r e a m a f t of t h e p r o p e l l e r r e d u c e this
t h r u s t a u g m e n t a t i o n . T h e m a g n i t u d e of these

592 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 Table 9 Inclined Shaft Study on Model 5048 at :20 Knots
Apparent
Shaft Trim Appended Appendage Propeller Propeller prof eft shp
angle, angle, hull drag, drag, Thrust, normal suction J KT, (shp)
e deg deg lb lb lb force, lb force, lb ep, 27r KO~ shp 12 deg
16 2.30 84.06 11.66 103.42 51.81 67.29 0.754 8.41 1. 102
12 2.42 80.34 10.46 91.10 38.40 59.40 0. 729 7.65 1. O00
8 2.50 78.99 10.68 83.90 25.39 54.59 0. 708. 7.24 0.947
5 2.57 78.48 11.41 80.55 15.74 52.41 0.697 7.06 0. 924

MODEL 5048 - SELP-PROPULSION

forces is a function of the propeller loading and
5
propeller position in relation to the planing sur-
face. T h e magnitude of the vector component
which provides a thrust is of course a function of
5
the trim angle. 7-o

4 Since the appendages h a v e been treated as a 2

specific efftciency element, it is necessary to con- II0 I

sider the effect of the propeller upon the ap- 0

pendages. T h e rudder in particular, being in the
propeller slip stream, experiences both an aug- i00

mented velocity and an induced drag from the ro- SH[

tational component in the propeller slip stream. 90
T h e magnitude of this component of augmented
drag is a function of propeller loading and ad-
vance ratio. The interaction between rudder and 80

propeller is considerably more complex than the m

relatively simple explanation given irl the fore-
going, b u t it is suspected t h a t this m a y be a major 70

influence.
5 T h e other m a j o r component is the change in
g0
appended hull resistance due to the effect of the
propeller upon the running trim of the boat and - - - 1 6 "
the augmented loading upon the boat due to the 5O
. . . . 12"
----8*
suction forces. This component can be either .... 5
positive or negative b u t more likely negative.
At low running trim angles where the boat is 4O
12 14 16 18 20 12 14 16 18 20
operating below the o p t i m u m lift-drag ratio of the
V(knots) V(knots)
hull, the propeller suction forces tend to increase
the trim angle favorably, b u t this gain is offset Fig. 22~ Predicted performance of Model 5048 with
by the added a p p a r e n t load of these forces to the different propeller shafts inclinations
hull. At high trim angles both effects are del-
eterious to the performance.
The significance of these various components also to illustrate how this method of analysis m a y
of 1 -- t, are shown in T a b l e 7 for the two models be used to improve planing boat design. In mak-
when operating at 20 knots. T h e calculated ing this parametric study, of t]he shaft angle, it was
values are in all instances somewhat lower than assumed t h a t the propeller shaft diameter did not
the experimental. change. I t was al,;o assumed t h a t in the arrange-
In Table 8, all of the efficiency elements have m e n t of the boat the same load and CG would be
been tabulated to give an overview of their sig- maintained. Calculations were made at shaft
nificance upon the h y d r o d y n a m i c performance angles of 16, 12 (design), 8, and 5 (minimum prac-
of the systems. tical on this hull) degrees. At the lower shaft
F r o m the analysis of the thrust deduction it angles, an intermediate strut, was introduced to
becomes obvious for a given boat design t h a t the maintain bearing spacings comparable to the
shaft angle can be one of the m o s t i m p o r t a n t criteria contained in the nomograph of reference
elements in the propulsive performance. This [12]. T h e 8-deg ,,shaft angle required an inter-
parameter has been investigated for Model 5048 mediate strut as did the 5-de.g. The results are
not only because of its obvious importance but presented over a speed range from 12 to 20 knots

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 593

in Fig. 22. These results indicate t h a t it is de-
sirable to use as small a shaft angle as possible;
however, the gains are small for angles less t h a n 8
deg. Thus, on this hull, a shaft angle of 7 to 8
deg appears attractive, the gain being 4 to 5
percent overall reduction in shp in the higher part
of the speed range.
T o assist in understanding the interrelationship
which is occurring in the various force components
of the foregoing study, some of the more signifi-
cant components are t a b u l a t e d for 20 knots in
T a b l e 9.
F r o m Table 9 it m a y be noted t h a t the drag of
appendages represents a small effect and t h a t it is
near a m i n i m u m at the design inclination of 12
deg. The effects of the propeller forces are the
most significant. Their change in magnitude
due to shaft angle is large. These forces also
change the running trim which at the higher boat
speeds results in a reduction of the hull drag.
This rather clearly demonstrates that, in achiev-
ing high-performance boats, design optimization
m u s t be done on the whole system rather than
any of the components.
Conclusions
T h e developments of this paper m u s t be viewed
as an initial step in treating the problem of the
propulsion of planing craft. Although the limited
objective of providing the profession with a pro-
cedure for predicting the power performance of a
specific t y p e of planing craft has been achieved,
m u c h effort is still required for greater precision
and a wider range of application. T h e present
work is restricted to the low-deadrise planing
hull propelled b y noncavitating propeller(s)
driven b y an inclined shaft. I t should be ex-
tended to include both the high-deadrise boats
and other forms of propulsion.
The parametric design studies on shaft angle in
Section 6 clearly show t h a t the drag of the ap-
pendages is secondary to the forces of the pro-
peller. The study indicates t h a t in optimizing
the design of high-performance planing craft the
whole hydrodynamic system must be considered.
The analysis and comparisons m a d e during the
course of this work d e a r l y indicate t h a t much
research needs to be made in the following areas:
1 Although an extensive research effort has
been directed to planing surfaces, m u c h of this
is at the high trim angles appropriate to sea plane
application. Further effort is required at the
low trim angles of planing craft. Further effort
is also needed at low speed in the region where
transition from b u o y a n t to dynamic forces
occurs. This transition results in the so-called
"resistance h u m p " which frequently has as
594 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft
marked an influence upon the design of the pro-
pulsion system as the operating or m a x i m u m
speed. I t is clear from the two examples in this
paper t h a t current theory is not satisfactory.
2 T h e method used for predicting the forces
created b y the appendages appears to be satis-
factory as long as the appendage configurations
are similar to those for which data are well docu-
mented in the literature. T h e availability of
computer programs such as the Douglas program
[11] provide a ready means for calculating the
pressure field around the body as well as the lift
if circulation is present. T h e greatest lack is
sufficient drag data on ventilating shapes em-
ploying wedge-shaped sections.
3 The fundamental assumption has been made
t h a t the flow under the planing surface is parallel
to the planing surface and the velocity is t h a t of
the forward speed of the boat. F r o m the com-
parisons in this paper, this assumption is adequate
for a first approximation, particularly at the
higher speeds where the trim angle is low. A
method should be developed for predicting the
velocities under the planing surface at various
loadings and trim angles.
4 T h e other major assumption t h a t interaction
effects are of secondary importance should also
be examined. I t is known from model studies
on propeller-rudder interaction [13] t h a t the pro-
peller and rudder interaction results in an improve-
m e n t in propeller efficiency which can be sig-
nificant under certain circumstances. T h e solu-
tion of this problem is of m a j o r importance to all
ships employing rudder-propeller combinations.
I t is also suspected t h a t the interaction of the
propeller with the planing surface m a y have an
effect upon the propeller, particularly when tip
clearances are small.
5 Gutsche's work on the propeller performance
in inclined flow was one of the keystones to the
developments in this paper. T h e weakness of the
quasi-steady theory in accurately predicting all of
the propeller force for the higher pitched propeller
at the high advance ratios indicates the need for a
more rational propeller theory. Current ad-
vances in propeller lifting-surface theory should be
helpful, although they will have to be modified
to account for the erossflow component.
6 T h e possible importance in certain instances
of the pressure field from the rudder upon the
planing attitude indicates t h a t simplified pro-
cedures for estimating its effect should be de-
veloped.
7 Lastly and m o s t importantly, the restric-
tion on noucavitating marine propellers should be
removed so t h a t this work can be applied to high-
performance vehicles using advanced propeller
propulsion such as ventilated or supercavitating
propellers.
The author is continuing his effort to include
more of the interaction effects into the calcu-
lations as well as examining the velocity field under
the planing surface. He is also extending the
methodologT to other propulsion schemes as well
as to the higher deadrise boats. The methodology
will be adapted so that it can be used in con-
junction with resistance tests on planing hulls
With special features such as spray strips, to
predict the self-propulsion performance. It is
hoped that a sequel to this paper will be possible
which will broaden the range of applicability and
increase the effectiveness of the analysis.
Acknowledgment
Although this work is presented as that of the
author, it would never have been possible without
the efforts of many who have or are devoting their
efforts to improving our capabilities for designing
more effective planing craft. Through the ref-
erences, the author hopes to have adequately
acknowledged the efforts of those who have
preceded him and provided the building blocks on
which he started his work. Correspondingly, the
assistance of many colleagues at DTMB was
equally important to the development of this
work. The assistance of Messrs. A. L. Boyle,
H. 1VS.Cheng, and E. E. Harley, and W. D. Bau-
man of the Bureau of Ships in developing com-
ponents of the various computer programs was an
essential first step. The timely assistance of
Mr. Boyle and Mr. G. H. Smith made possible
the multiplicity of calculations required. The
assistance of Messrs. D. H. Blount and P. K.
Spangler and their staffs in carefully conducting
the required model experiments to verify the
validity of the approach developed in this paper
was another major key. The assistance of Mr.
E. P. Clement based upon his long experience in
this field was most helpful in leading to the most
useful literature and acquaintance with the state
of the art. The professional stimulation of the
author's colleagues Drs. P. C. Pien and W. B.
Morgan has helped to achieve the insight required
to make the analysis contained herein. The
support of the management, particularly Dr.
Cummins, is gratefully acknowledged. Lastly,
the author would like to acknowledge the editorial
help of Dr. Morgan and Messrs. Cheng and Cle-
ment and his secretary, Mrs. Pat Snyder, who
have helped make this paper more readable and
hopefully more useful.
References
1 D. Savitsky, "Hydrodynamic Design of
The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Croft
Planing Hulls," Marine Technology, vol. 1, 1964,
pp. 71-95.
2 B. V. Korvin-Kroukovsky, D. Savitsky,
and W. F. Lehman, "Wetted Area and Center of
Pressure of Planing Surfaces.." Stevens Institute
of Technology, Davidson Laboratory Report
No. 360, August 19.'-1:9.
3 E . P . Clement and J. D. Pope, "Graphs for
Predicting the Resistance of Large Stepless
Planing Hulls at High Speeds," DTMB Report
1318, April 1959.
4 D. Savitsky and E. W. Ross, "Turbulence
Stimulation in the: Boundary Layer of Planing
Surfaces, Part II[, Preliminary Experimental
Investigation," Report 444, Experimental Towing
Tank, Stevens Institute of Technology, August
1952.
5 S . F . Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag, pub-
lished by the author, Midland Park, N. J., 1965.
6 F. H. Todd, "Tables of Coefficients for
A.T.T.C. Model-Ship Correlation and Kinematic
Viscosity and Density of Fresh and Salt Water,"
S N A M E TECHNICAL AND RIgSEARCH BULLETIN,
No. 1-25, May 1964.
7 L. F. Whicker aJld L. F. Fehlner, "Free-
Stream Characteristics of a Family of Low-Aspect-
Ratio, All-Movable Control Surfaces for Applica-
tion to Ship Design," DTMB Report 933, May
1958.
8 F. Gutsche, "Untersuchung yon Schiffs-
sehrauben in Schrager Anstromung," Sehiffbau-
forschung, March 4, 1964:, Translation in DTMB.
9 G. R. Hough and D. E. Ordway, "The
Generalized Actuator Disk." Proceedings of the
Second Southwestern Conference on Theoretical
and Applied Technology, Atlanta, Ga., 1964.
10 L. Troost, ':Open Water Test Series with
Modern Propeller Forms," a paper read before the
North East Coast Institution of Engineers and
Shipbuilders in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England,
December 15, 1950.
11 J. P. Giesing, "Extension of the Douglas
Neumann Program. to Problems on Lifting, In-
finite Cascades," Douglas Aircraft Report No.
LB 31653, dated July 2, 1!)64.
12 P. G. Tomalin, "Marine Engineering as
Applied to Small Vessels," TF~ANS. SNAME, vol.
61, 1953, pp. 590-634.
13 "The Influence of Propeller Clearance and
Rudder Upon the Propulsive Characteristics,"
Published by the Swedish State Shipbuilding
Experimental Tank, Goteborg, Sweden, No. 33,
1955.
14 E . P . Clement, "Scale Effect on the Drag
of a Typical Set of Planing Boat Appendages,"
D T MB Report 1165, August 1957.
15 M. P. Tulin, "Supercavitating Flow Past
595
 Fig. 23 Appendage sets tested, and starboard side of friction plane with 1/2-scale
appendages in place

I0 13.17" I
S 26.34"
131 4s.as" [
2 I 63.85"~

MODEL 4343
A
PLANI~ ' / PLANE

0.25"R "~--PROP.
SCALE IN INCHES FOR 1/10 SGALE
0

Fig. 24 Drawing of 1/10-scale appendage set

Foil and Struts," published in proceedings of a
symposium on "Cavitation in H y d r o d y n a m i c s , "
held at the National Physical Laboratory, Sep-
tember 1955.
Appendix 1
Appendage Drag Calculations
At D T M B , Clement conducted scale-effect
experiments on a geometric series of P T boat
appendages mounted on a friction plane [14].
This series provides an ideal media for evaluating
the effectiveness of the method of drag estimation
outlined in Section 2. T h e appendages are typical
of those used on planing boats and employ shapes
which are well documented in the literature.
T h e planning of the experiment also insures t h a t
high accuracy was achieved in the drag measure-
ments. T h e experiments cover a wide range of
appendage sizes, varying from 1/2, 1/3, 1/5, and
1/10 those of the full-scale P T boat. Fig. 23
is a photograph of the four pairs of appendages
and of the friction plane with the 1/2-scale ap-
pendages installed. Fig. 24 is a sketch of the
appendages.
Resistance tests were first conducted on the
bare friction plane up to a speed of 18 knots.
A pair of appendages was installed, one on each
side of the friction plane and the drag measure-

596 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 ments made over the same speed range. This Table 10
w a s d o n e for e a c h p a i r of a p p e n d a g e s . The
Scale 1/2 1/3 1/5 1/10
difference between the two measurements at the
Rudder, percent 23.0 24.3 26.4 28.6
s a m e s p e e d p r o v i d e d t h e d r a g of a p a i r of ap- Strut, percent 9.5 10.2 11.0 12.0
pendages. Shaft and bossing, percent 30,6 3 l. 1 3 i. 6 32.2
Aft pahn, percent 17,6 16.6 15.2 14.1
T h e m e t h o d o u t l i n e d in S e c t i o n 2 h a s b e e n Fwd pahn, percent 15,0 13.6 11.7 9.2
e m p l o y e d t o ' e s t i m a t e t h e d r a g of t h e s e a p p e n d - Interference, percent 4,3 4.2 4.1 3.9
ages. T h e c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e o u t l i n e d in d e t a i l in Total drag, pound 33.0 14.92 5.49 1.44
t h e f o l l o w i n g for t h e 1 / 2 - s c a l e a p p e n d a g e s , to Measured drag, pound 31,92 15,45 5.98 2.10
Calculated/measured drag 1,03 0.96 0.92 0.69
i l l u s t r a t e t h e m e t h o d in d e t a i l a n d to s h o w t h e
d e s i g n e r h o w t h e m e t h o d h e l p e d in d e t e c t i n g t h e
components which provide the greatest drag. D = (}.01095 I zo-

Calculation of Drag for 1~2-Scale Appendage for D r a g of S t r u t P a l m s :

PT8 Tested on a Friction Plane
Given :
Rudder Drag:
Aft pahn Fwd palm
G i v e n : t / c = 0.14, S = 0.875 sq ft, c = 0.834 Height, hv . . . . . . . . . 0.48 in. 0.35 in.
Width, w . . . . . . . . . . 5.23 in. 5.20 in.
ft, V = 30.4 fps Distance from L.E.
of plane, x~ . . . . . . 65.75 in. 30.00 in.
Re= __Vc = 30.4fpsX0.884ft = 2,5X 1()G CDr, assumed . . . . . . . 0.65 0.65
u 1.01 X 10 -~ sq f t / s e c = 0.016 xp . . . . . . . 1.053 in. 0.48 in.
Dp = . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.110633 V2 0.00541 V~ Eq. (19)
CI = 0.00372
I n t e r f e r e n c e Drao- :
F r o m e q u a t i o n (14)
Given :
CD~ = 2 X 0.00372 [1 -1- 2 X 0 . 1 4
Rudder Strut
+ 60 X (0.14) 4] = 0.00972 t/c = 0.14 0.14
t = {).117 ft 0.0625 ft
1.94
D = p/2SV 2 C. t - -- X 0.875 1.94 [
2 (AD) = ~ [(0.117):~ -t- (0.0625)':J (3.75 M 0.14
X 0 . 0 0 9 7 2 V " = 0.00825 V ~- 0.0003 -] iz2 iz~
(-~.1~).2] = 0.00153 equation (20)
Strut Drag :
Given: t / c = 0.14, S = 0.324 sq ft, c = (/.460 Percent
ft Drag summary of total
Rudder 0. 00825 V'-' 23.0
Vc 80.4 X {}.46 Struts 0.110340 I/'2 9.5
Re . . . . 1.38 X l{V' Shaft and strut barrds 0.111095 V2 30.6
1.01 X 10 -~ Aft strut pahn 0.00633 V" 17.6
Fwd pahn 0.00541 V~ 15.0
CI = 0.00415 Interference 0.00153 V-~ 4.3
0.03587 V2 100.0
D = 0.00340 V 2 Total drag = 33.0 lb

Shaft and Bossing Drag:

The summary clearly shows that the two strut
G i v e n : s h a f t d i a m e t e r = 0.104 f t ; s t r u t b a r r e l p a l m s n e e d l e s s l y i m p o s e a l a r g e d r a g l o a d (ap-
a n d f a i r i n g d i a m e t e r = 0.167 f t ; s h a f t l e n g t h p r o x i m a t e l y 30 p e r c e n t of t h e a p p e n d a g e d r a g )
= 3.12 f t ; s t r u t b a r r e l a n d f a i r i n g l e n g t h = 1.69 f t which can be easily reduced by fairing the pahns
Vd 3O.4 X 0.167 i n t o t h e hull. O n t h e a c t u a l b o a t , t h e d r a g
Re= - - =
p e n a l t y m a y n o t be so large, as t h e r e is a g r e a t e r
v 1.01 X l O -5-
w e t t e d l e n g t h a h e a d of t h e a p p e n d a g e s to e s t a b -
= 5.02 X 10 s use e q u a t i o n (12) lish a t h i c k e r b o u n d a r y layer. T h e s e r e s u l t s also
_ _V/ _ 3 0 , 4 X (3.12 + 1.69) s h o w t h a t t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e d r a g is q u i t e small, in
Re- -- = 1.44 X 107 this instance approximately 4 percent.
P 1.01 X 10 -s
T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s h a v e also b e e n m a d e a t 18
C~ = 0.00277 k n o t s for t h e o t h e r size a p p e n d a g e s . A compari-
D = 1.94 son of t h e r e s u l t s w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t s is g i v e n in
3 . 1 2 X 0.104 q- 1.69 T a b l e 10. T h e re.sults of the: c a l c u l a t e d q u a n t i t i e s
a r e g i v e n as p e r c e n t a g e s of t h e t o t a l so t h a t t h e
X 0.167)[1.1 (sin 12) a -F 7r 0.110277]V-" effect of R e y n o l d s n u m b e r c a n m o r e r e a d i l y b e

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing (:raft 597

 Table 11
Row Item or equation Values for propellers 4214, 4215
1 ~ 60 deg 180 deg 300 deg
J-C .
2 0.7~sm esinv; C = 2 0.172 0 --0.172
3 n(v) 1 J- Csin esin v 0.828 1.000 1. 172
n 0.7~
4 O. 685 1. 000 1. 376

5 f~ = d.cose n. 1.240 1.026 0.876

n(~)
6 A j = j~ _ d 0.190 --0.024 --0. 174
dKr
7 AKT = ~ j .AJ --0.092 0.012 0. 084
dKo
8 AKQ = ~ - .AJ --0.0146 0.0018 0.0134

9 KT(V) = 1 + &KT 0.370 1.082 1.575

KT KT
AKo
10 K Q@__)= 1 + 0.579 1.0.52 1. 386
KQ KQ
11 " ]~T 0. 253 1.082 2. 165

12 ("(~)'~'-'
, , ~ - / . ~Q(~)
~ 0.a96 1.052 1. 906

13 k-~-t / " ~ sin v 0.343 0 -- 1. 650

KT e
Kr - ~ [(Line 11)~=~o o + (Line 11)~=isoo + (Line l l ) ~ = : m o ]

= } (0.253 + 1.082 + 2.165) = 1.167

K r . = 0.170

Ko~ _ [(Line 12).=6o o + (Line 12)~=18o o 4 (Line 12)~=aooo]

Ko

= 3(0.396 + 1.052 + 1.906) = 1.118

Ko, = 0.0388

Kz - K [(Line 13)~=6o o + (Line 13)~=aooo]

3 X 0.35

0.0347
(0.343 -- 1.650) = -- {I.0432
3 X 0.35

] Kro 1.05 0.170

= 0.730
~r~ = 2~r Ko~ 27r 0.t1388

n o t e d al o n g w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y of t h e drag. Since, in general, a p p e n d a g e d r a g is

l a y e r was p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y t h i c k e r w i t h t h e smaller
a p p e n d a g e s since t h e l e a d i n g edge of t h e shafts
of all of t h e geosims were l o c a t e d a t t h e s a m e fore-
a n d - a f t position on t h e friction plane.
T a b l e 10 clearly i n d i c a t e s t h a t on t he larger
scale a p p e n d a g e s good e s t i m a t e s c a n be m a d e
less t h a n 20 per c e n t of t h e hull drag, an error in
e s t i m a t i n g of 10 p e r c e n t w o u l d r e s u l t in less t h a n
a 2 p e r c e n t error in t h e t o t a l d r a g force. T h e
c o m p a r i s o n s in T a b l e 10 also show t h a t some
r e l a t i v e l y i m p o r t a n t c o m p o n e n t s of d r a g are
missing or n o t c o r r e c t l y calculated.

598 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 1.2

)- ,.... 1
Z
i,i PROPELLER 4214 (RH)
0
,7 I.C \ 0 PROPrLLE'R 4215 (LH)

%%
- - - - - CALCULATIED FOR INCLINED
i, FLOW
i,i
TEST n = ~:I.0 rp!~
g TEST Va=.~,O TO 12.0 fps
l
R e = 5 . 5 :( IO 5
0.8
o
hi
O
11:
O
U.
J
.J
IE
lIE
13
Re=5"Ix105 /
Z #,-
-g
0.4

hi /
rt-

O
/ .~ o
I--,
0.2
%
,/
"

/

ne
"1"
/
~- 0
0 O. 2 0,4 0.6 0.8 1.0 I. 2 1.4
SPEED COEFFICiENT,J

Fig. 2 5 Open-water propeller performance curves for Model 5048

Table 1 2
Given: x/R = 16
a/R = 1.5
Item Source Values
r/R 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 6.0
y/R Eq. (87) 0 1.00 1.32 2.00 2.60 3.71 5.82
C, a Fig. 9 --0. 160 --0.128 --0.113 --0.086 --0.06!) --0.048 --0.027
2 Fig. 10 3.19 3.65 3.93 4.53 5.04 5.88 7. i0

a Cp = R 2 [ ' x / R 2 1 2 1 ~ d
do
(;)
Appendix2
Inclined Propeller Open-Water Calculations
T h e p r o c e d u r e for c a l c u l a t i n g t h e inclined open-
w a t e r t h r u s t , t o r q u e , a n d n o r m a l force is b a s e d
u p o n A p p e n d i x I of reference [9]. T h e s a m p l e
c a l c u l a t i o n is m a d e for p r o p e l l e r s No. 4214- a n d 4215
on M o d e l 5048; t h u s t h e angle of inclination,
= 12 deg. F r o m t h e o p e n - w a t e r curve, Fig. 25,
t h e following v a l u e s a p p l y for t h e a d v a n c e r a t i o
J = 1.05; KT = 0.146; dK~/dJ = - 0 . 4 8 4 ; KQ
= 0.0347; dKe/dY = --U.077. T h e inclined
p e r f o r m a n c e is c a l c u l a t e d in T a b l e 1 l.
T h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s h a v e been c a r r i e d out for o t h e r
values of J for these propellers a n d for e = 11
deg on p r o p e l l e r s 4177 a n d 4175 u s e d on M o d e l
51)32. T h e results h a v e been a d d e d to t h e open-
w a t e r curves, Figs. 25 a n d 26, for t h e s e t w o sets of
propellers to show t h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e c h a n g e in
p e r f o r m a n c e d u e to t h e i n c l i n a t i o n of t h e propeller
to t h e flow.
Appendix 3
Induced Propeller Force Calculation
T h e c a l c u l a t i o n of the i n d u c e d p r o p e l l e r forces
requires t h e use of Figs. 9 a n d 1(/and an integTation
of t h e s e forces a n d m o m e n t s o v e r t h e p l a n i n g
surface. T o i l l u s t r a t e t h e procedure, a s a m p l e
c a l c u l a t i o n is i n c l u d e d for t h e s u c t i o n forces for
M o d e l 5032 discussed in Section 6.

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 599

O,
0
0
L77 (mJ) - - o
;78 (Ltl) - -

5 to 12 fps
rps
1965
0

.,4 0.~
0
q.

0.;

Iq
[,z 0.'
0

0
-% 0
0.
0 0

,-4

0.~

Q
3 0.~!
I'D
o Q
r-I

0.:
0

Q
0.',

0.1

(
u v.a u..~ o.~ 0.6 0.7 0,8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
SPEED COEFFICIENT J
Fig. 26 Open-water propeller performance curves for Model 5032
 ~ 1 BEAM ~1

/, t
/ (

/ ^4/
/;/7
Y2 ~ Yl
o/R PROPELLER PLANE

"~,,..~ PROPELLER

a = NON-DIMENSIONAL NORMAL DISTANCE FROM PROPELLER

R CENTERLINE TO PLANNING SURFACE

_r = NON-DIMENSIONAL DISTANCE FROM PROPELLER CENTER-

R LINE TO ANY POINT IN PLANING SURFACE

y = NON-DIMENSIONAL TRANSVERSE ORDINATE ON PLANING

R SURFACE

y = N~,/ (r ~) r _ (1)

Fig. 27 Sketch of planing surface forward of propellers

Table 13 Fig. 27 shows t h e n o m e n c l a t u r e used a n d t h e

y/R (:,oa 2 SA{ f(Cp) .f(2, Cp) areas o v e r w h i ch t h e i n t e g r a t i o n is m ad e.
-- 3.05 0.058 5.40 1 --0.058 --0.814 T h e s u m m a t i o n of t h e n o r m a l i z e d suction
--2.10 0.083 4.60 4 --0.332 --1.528 forces along t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l axis of t h e b o a t for
--1.15 0.121 3.77 2 --0.242 --0.915
-0.20 0. 159 3.23 4 - - 0 . 6 3 { 3 --2.055 v a r i o u s t r a n s v e r s e positions are t a b u l a t e d in
+0 . 7 5 0. 139 3.48 '2 --0.278 --0.968 T a b l e 12. T h e s e d a t a are o b t a i n e d f r o m Figs.
+ 1.70 O. 098 4.25 4 --0.392 --1.665 9 an d 10 in S ect i o n 3. T h e Lransverse position is
+2.65 0.067 5.08 2 --0.134 --0.680
+3.60 O. 049 5.80 4 --0.196 -1.138 d e t e r m i n e d b y e q u a t i o n (37) f r o m t h e s a m e section
+4.55 0.037 6.40 '2 --0.074 --0.474 of t h e paper.
+ 5.50 O. 030 6.92 4 --0.120 --0.830 T h e results f r o m T a b l e 12 are p l o t t e d in Fig.
+6 . 4 5 0.023 7.37 1 --0.023 --0.170
Summatioll --2.485 --10.737 2S. T h e b e a m of t h e boat, y~Lto Y2, is d i v i d e d i n t o
a u n i f o r m n u m b e r of spaces, in this case, 10, so
t h a t an i n t e g r a t i o n m a y be p e r f o r m e d using
S i m p s o n ' s Rule. [n T a b l e 13 t h e i n t e g r a t i o n has
been p e r f o r m e d an d t h e c e n t r o i d of t h e forces
c.v/ = 5 x x ~f(c,) = 5 determined.
33.43
X - - X --2.485 = --0.793 Finally:
10 X 3.5
2 _ Ef(2, Cp) --10.737 C~-~ = No. of propellers X 2 X C'N~ = 2 X
4.32
R EfCp -2.485 2 X --0.793 = - - 3 . 1 7 2

The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft 601

 j

Locatlon of Centerllne
0.18
PPessuPe Coefficient

0.16

.iJ
4- 3.14
f
/

\
/ r\ /
./
./
/
J
f

0.12 :m

N
/ ~0
0.i0
XR -16.0~ c-i

~q
R
4
/ N
/ \ 0 . OP

/ \ 0.06

2 / __Lx.2.0
""~-- 0.04
R
~ --
_ __
i / / _2~_- /- ~
k O. 02

0
-2 -I 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0

Y2
I
PrVpeller
y/R
Yl

Fig. 28 Plot of transverse distribution of propeller suction and pressure forces on bottom of Model
5032 propeller position No. 2

3.5 C.~ = L C G - - d i s t a n c e p r o p e l l e r s are f o r w a r d of

C e n t e r of a p p l i c a t i o n = ( R ) R = 4.32 X -
12 t r a n s o m + c e n t e r of a p p l i c a t i o n of suction forces
f o r w a r d of propeller
= 1.26 ft fwd of propeller = 3.85 -- (0.57 + 1.26) = 2 . 0 2 f t

Discussion
Capt. S. R. Heller, USN, Member: This paper is a
veritable milestone in the study of the hydrody-
namics of planing hulls. It is, to m y knowledge,
the first real effort to provide a means of predict-
ing power requirements for a planing craft, al-
though there is a storehouse of work devoted to
predicting resistance of such craft. As such, it
fills a gap of long standing.
As Mr. Hadler rightly recognizes, his paper is
b u t a first step. I n a d d i t i o n to being p l e a s e d
w i t h t h e a u t h o r ' s p i o n e e r i n g effort, I a m o v e r j o y e d
to find in his conclusions t h e s t a t e m e n t : " I n
optimizing the design of high-performance planing
craft the whole hydrodynamic system nu~st be con-
sidered" (italics his). All too often heretofore.
r a n k i n g s h a v e been m a d e on t h e basis of one a s p e c t
o n l y ; rarely, if ever, h a s t h e t o t a l p a c k a g e b e e n
governing.

602 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

 Fig. 29 (Courtesy Jack Knights)
As gratifying as this paper is to me, it is dis-
couraging to find t h a t the author must seek cor-
relation with model experiments only. Surely,
the real proof of validity is by comparison with
full-scale trials. There is currently underway a
vigorous effort to establish, as a field division of the
N a v a l Ship Engineering Center, a Boat Engineer-
ing Center, one function of which will be to conduct
standardization trials to obtain the needed full-
scale data.
I am encouraged t h a t Mr. Hadler and his as-
sociates at D T M B will continue their efforts to
extend this first step. I urge them to include the
effects of deviations from prismatic forms, to
characterize the commercially available stock
propellers, and to inquire into rough-water ef-
fects. Indeed, I anxiously await a steady stream
of papers refining and extending power prediction
schemes for planing craft.
Peter Du Cane, Member: This is a very interest-
ing and well-timed paper, which certainly takes
our knowledge of the m a n y factors influencing the
performance of planing craft a considerable stage
further.
A b o u t two years ago we discovered, somewhat
to our consternation, t h a t in the case of an 18-ft
racing boat with 20 deg deadrise the trim was dras-
tically changed between tank testing and full-
scale running. So much was this the ease t h a t it
became necessary to take a number of steps to
improve the trim, which was initially too low for-
ward, leading to unpleasant behavior in turning
and following waves.
In making an investigation into the reason for
this change between model and full scale, the ap-
pendages were first added and then an actual run-
The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft
ning propeller. While the addition of the ap-
pendages certainly accounted for some of the trim
change, by far the major factor proved to be the
influence of the propeller. In fact, although the
propeller could not scale so far as cavitation num-
ber is concerned, b y providing the necessary thrust
we found a good-enough qualitative answer to let
us kngw we were on the right track.
By taking certain measures, which included the
provision of plates or "fences" a b o u t halfway
down the rudders, having an angle of attack to the
flow such t h a t a downward force was developed
through the stock, the running trim was to a large
extent corrected. Finally, instead of a flat cavi-
tation plate being provided at the transom, we
fitted a cambered plate of greater chord with a
profile approaching the upper or suction side of
an airfoil. In this case the suction side was on the
underside in contact with the water, which quite
transformed the trim and handling qualities of the
boat.
Sonic experimentation was necessary to obtain
o p t i m u m shape and so avoid separation. T h e
same can be achieved, to some extent, b y setting
a moveable flap up about 6 deg, provided the
chord is sufficiently large and there is no air leak
at the hinge. This particular boat is shown in Fig.
29 running in the 24-hour race at Rouen earlier
this year. Her top speed was in the region of 60
mph.
Of course, the interesting thing is to know the
extent to which cavitation alters the forces and
distribution under the bottom of a fast planing
hull. T h a t these craft are very sensitive to this
aspect is shown by an experience we had with a
" B r a v e " class Fast Patrol Boat fitted with three
Bristol Sidde!ey Proteus gas turbines as main pro-
603
 (a) Craft fitted with appendages

.... ~ ~ ~ : ,

! m'

(b) Craft with appendages removed

Fig. 30 Effect on draft of removing appendages (displacement = 5 tons; trim fixed;
LCG = 28 percent L; speed = 50 knots) (courtesy Westland Aircraft Ltd.)

pulsion units. In an effort to reduce vibration in
the aft peak, three 5-bladed propellers were fitted
in lieu of the original 3-bladed propellers.
In each cake they were in the fully cavitating
regime at high speed but, whereas with S-blade
propellers 53 knots could be reached quite com-
fortably, when the 5-blade propellers were fitted
the trim above about 48 knots was markedly re-
duced and the stability of the boat became un-
satisfactory. This might have been due to a dif-
ference in the pressure field and vertical forces
under the b o t t o m caused by different propeller
characteristics.
In another case of an aluminum boat, built
specially for the Daily Express Offshore Powerboat
Race Cowes-Torquay, we had carried out, at the
Westland T a n k in East Cowes, England, the most
exhaustive series of tank tests we have yet con-
ducted, including the test of three models of hulls
which had performed well in past races of this
sort.
Fig. 30 shows the rather extraordinary result
of running the model with and without append-
ages. Although there m u s t be a considerable
appendage drag, yet the total resistance in this
case was less than for the naked huIl. T h e photo
shows this clearly, as the model with appendages
fitted is running much more cleanly with less spray,
which m u s t indicate t h a t the appendages, at least
in this case, are providing an overall lift without
any noticeable trim change. There is also a
bonus due to the reduced wetted surface in the
model fitted with appendages.
Taking account of the foregoing it m u s t be ques-
tionable as to whether any value can be placed
on a naked-hull model test, at least in this speed
range, which was high (V/-v/L ~ 10). At these
speeds it is also clear t h a t the spray strakes, when
associated with considerable deadrise, are effec-
tive in reducing resistance. Removal of the spray
strakes only, leaving the appendages in situ, in-
volved 25 percent more resistance, though this
result would probably not have been achieved at a
point lower in the speed scale or with less dead-
rise. I t has to be pointed out that, although
shafts and struts were fitted, the propellers were
not actually providing thrust. This could well
have influenced the situation somewhat so far as
trim is concerned, as is made clear in the author's
paper under the headings " I n d u c e d Propeller
Forces on Hull" and "Propeller Performance in
Inclined Flow."
As stated by the author, there are m a n y ques-
tions requiring further investigation, especially
regarding performance estimation and the example
given in the foregoing, where the demonstration
t h a t naked-hull model resistance is greater t h a n
with the appendages must give food for thought.
However, the paper is of great value and interest
to those working in the planing field. I n m a n y re-
spects a new outlook seems to be required, es-
pecially in relation to the propeller-induced forces
on the bottom.

604 The Prediction of Power Performance o n Planing Craft

 ,_o--117 /
L0"O7, ----V----
~ L~ DEEP-VEE AND/OR
HIGH SPEED
D / = 1/~ py,,2 (C/ + &C:)S
Fig. 31 Viscous drag of hull
I t m a y be of some interest to mention t h a t since
reading this paper we, at Vosper, have simulated
the flat b o t t o m of a planing boat in way of the
propellers in our cavitation tunnel.
T h e propellers, which are of the fully cavitating
type, were fitted at a realistic shaft angle and the
local pressures on the b o t t o m were plotted.
There is a clear indication t h a t once a substantial
a m o u n t of cavitation is developed on the back of
the blades the local pressure behind the propellers
becomes negative and this effect increases with
speed beyond about 50 knots. I t is not found t h a t
this effect is changed when the flow is horizontal,
but it has quite a marked effect on overall trim.
W. D. Bauman, 1~ Visitor: I t is frequently conceded
t h a t planing doesn't begin until approximately 1(i
knots, and the planing hull design-speed range is
20 to 40 knots. Bearing seaworthiness and other
considerations in mind, the typical high-speed
planing hull is of deep-vee design. With that hull,
there are at least two problem areas in predicting
the bare hull ehp b y the Savitsky method t h a t
should be resolved before the refinements of this
present paper are relied upon.
1 In equation (7), the hull frictional drag is
assumed as the algebraic sum of the hull wetted-
surface drag and the viscous component of the
spray drag. I t is quite likely t h a t for the high-
speed or deep-vee hull (particularly one with a
d r y chine) the hull wetted-surface drag does not
act parallel to the keel, Fig. 31. This postulated
problem might he ignored in parametric or pre-
~ Department of the Navy, Naval Ship Engineering
Center (C6421), Washington, D.C.
The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft
ASSUMED NORMAL
PROBABLE CASE
D.~ == 5 0V ~ (G + AG)S
Fig. 32 Viscous drag of spray
liminary design studies except for its influence in
problem 2.
2 In equation (48), the two hull frictional-drag
forces are taken as eolinear. In actuality, the
spray drag is parallel to qD, the angle between the
keel and spray edge measured in the plane of the
bottom, and acts at approximately ~,~ rather than
/1~ the chine height, Fig. ,32. In other words,
with a low, aft center-of-gravity location, the bow-
up pitching m o m e n t due to spray can be of the
same order of lna.gnitude as the bow-down hull
frictional-drag pitching m o m e n t by virtue of the
lever arms, resulting in an error of 15 percent or
more in predicting the hull trim angle.
Certainly the study of appendages is long over-
due, as is the full-scale trials and correlation with
model tests of a prismatic planing hull. Perhaps
the author will continue his model-theory correla-
tion studies into the 20 to 40-knot range and use a
deadrise hull. T h e Swift hull is nearly prismatic,
and some day one m a y be available long enough
for careful full-scale trials, commensurate with the
details required for correlation with the Savitsky
ehp prediction or this Hadler shp prediction
method.
Prof. Daniel Savitsky, Member: I t is most satisfy-
ing to those working in the "small-boat n a v y "
to be currently witnessing what appears to be a
renaissance in hydrodynamic research studies
aimed directly at helping the smaU-boat designer.
For m a n y years the planing craft has been a sec-
ond cousin to the "large-ship n a v y " and received
most of its technical nonrisbment as spillovers
from the substantial hydrodynamic research
studies of the take-off and landing problems of
water-based aircraft. Mr. Hadler's paper is an
excellent example of planing hull research aimed
605
directly towards helping the small-boat designer.
Studies of appendage drag and propeller inter-
ference effects as developed by Mr. Hadler are
most i m p o r t a n t contributions to the development
of methods for o p t i m u m hull design. Certainly
work of this nature m u s t continue to be done, and
so it is reassuring to learn t h a t the author plans
to continue studies in this area.
I should like to briefly c o m m e n t on Mr. Hadler's
concern with the adequacy of the empirical lift,
drag, and center of pressure equations for the hull
at low trim angles. Apparently in testing his
model 5048 (9 deg deadrise) the predicted resist-
ance at trim angles less than 3.5 deg was larger
than the measured values. I would suggest that
a possible area of doubt is the spray drag contribu-
tion at 1OuTtrim angles. In the October 1964 issue
of Marine Technology I cautioned against using
the spray drag increment contained in Fig. 6 of
Mr. Hadler's paper at such low trim angles since
the development of these curves is based mainly on
data obtained at higher trim angles. T h e reason
for this caution was that, at very low trim angles,
the spray sheet becomes very thin so t h a t the as-
sumed friction coefficient (based on Reynolds
number of the pressure area) is probably too high.
In line with the recommendations contained in
21/[arine Technology, it would certainly be of in-
terest to recompute the resistance of model 5048
at trim angles less than 3.5 deg, omitting the spray
contribution to drag.
The agreement between measured and computed
low trim resistance for model 5032 (0 deg dead-
rise), where because of the orientation of the stag-
nation line there is no spray drag formulation, is
perhaps some evidence t h a t the spray component
of drag at low trim angles is not y e t thoroughly
understood. Perhaps additional detailed studies
can be made of this drag component.
G. G. Cox] 2 Visitor: Tile author has produced
a paper of m u c h practical interest for those con-
cerned with planing craft, and the detailed de-
scription of analysis procedure and comparison
with experiment enhances its value. The general
approach used should stimulate similar efforts
for other types of craft which pose special con-
siderations. T h e essential importance of the
author's approach is the relative ease with which
future improvements can be incorporated for
individual aspects of the problem, without dis-
turbing the analytical framework.
As inferred b y the conclusions, the use of
Gutsche's analysis procedure for propeller per-
~2Adnfiralty Experiment Works, Haskm, Gosport,
Hants, England.
606 The Prediction o f Power Performance on Planing Craft
formance in inclined flow is not very satisfactory.
This is especially so since the propellers and their
effects have such an i m p o r t a n t influence on the
outcome of the analytical results. T h e magnitude
of the empirical factor C in equation (22) which is
necessary to bring analytic and experimental re-
sults into line is a clear indication of a m a j o r
deficiency. The consequence of shaft inclination
is increasing variations of flow angle as :
(a) advance coefficient J increases
(b) radial position r decreases
Although preliminary prediction procedures should
be of minimum complexity, the use of a represent-
ative radius r = 0.7R might not be pernfissible.
However, it is doubted t h a t it will be necessary
to go to the complexity of lifting-surface theory,
as suggested in the conclusions. Proper adap-
tion of lifting-line theory should prove adequate
for propeller performance.
I t is pointed out t h a t equations (23) and (24)
actually represent the average force per blade of
all the blades when the identification blade is at
position ~. Hence, it would be more straight-
forward to omit equations (27) and (28), and
modify other relevant equations accordingly.
In dealing with induced propeller forces, it
is stated t h a t the field velocities are a function of
loading and advance ratio. However, Figs. 8, 9,
10, and 11 do not include advance-ratio depend-
ence.
In dealing with propeller augmented and induced
rudder drag, a nominal r = 0.6R is used in equa-
tion (40) for propeller-induced tangential veloc-
ity within the slipstream. Would the author
state why he departed from using r = 0.7R
in this sole instance? Also, should not equation
(45) include axial velocity u, i.e.
D r = l p S ( V -~- ~t --[- 7~))2CDr - - l p S I Z 2 C D
E. P. Clement, Member: The quantitative infor-
mation provided in this paper regarding the forces
and moments on planing hulls from the appendages
and propellers is very interesting and illuminat-
ing. Also, the author makes a persuasive case
for the point t h a t these forces and moments must
be taken into consideration if the required horse-
power for a particular planing boat design is to be
minimized. The author stresses the importance
of trim angle in his discussion concerning opti-
mization of the system as a whole. This suggests
t h a t what would be needed for m a n y applications
would be an adjustable means of trim control.
One reason is t h a t m a n y planing boats are subject
to relatively wide ranges of loading conditions and
L C G locations during their normal usage. Such
changes can be expected to produce even larger
 -..~-Range of d (v)---,,,--
i 1%S
KT
KT( )
Fig. 3 3
changes in trim angle and in overall performance
than would result from different appendage and
propulsion arrangements. Therefore, although the
appendage and propulsion arrangement could be
optimized for a particular condition of loading
and L C G location, it is doubted t h a t this would
remain the o p t i m u m for other loading conditions.
An adjustable method of trim control could be
utilized, however, to attain the best running trim
for different loading conditions, and also for dif-
ferent speeds and different weather conditions.
T h e relatively simple device of transom flaps will
go a long way toward providing such control over
trim.
As a further development of this thought, not a
few high-speed planing boats have shown the
need not only for trim control, but also for roll
(or aileron) control. This case usually arises
when the propellers of a high-speed boat turn in
the same direction and the resultant torque reac-
tion produces a consistent heel of the boat. Cor-
rective rudder is then needed in order to maintain
a straight course, and the boat accordingly makes
its way in a heeled, yawed attitude, with the
rudder(s) at an angle to the flow and with signif-
icantly increased resistance. T h e single remedy
for both undesirable heel angle and nonoptimum
trim angle would be a pair of transom flaps which
could be adjusted independently.
H. M. Cheng, Member: M y comments are con-
fined to the propeller force calculation method.
1 Equation (23) of the paper
T.(u) = pn2(v)D 4[K,,(v)/Z]
expresses the thrust on each blade at an angular
The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft
-,. 0n
.
Water Curve
'
[ tan a =
dd
I
I
I
d(v)
d
position v in ten:as of KT(u) which is defined as
the (total) thrust coefficient al cmudar position u.
The Kr(v) thus de.fined is really based oi1 a "loose"
quasi-steady concept, treating all the blades the
same as the reference blade at v, whiehis not totally
correct. Its application here is rather confusing be-
cause we have no way of obtaining this information
except through analytical means. But this would
have been an unnece.ssary step because any
analytical method (quasi-steady or unsteady)
would give directly the estimated thrust. The
Kr(v), from its actual usage in the Appendixes,
should be defined as the thrust coefficient from
the open-water characteristic curve evaluated at
an equivalent J(v) which is defined as J(v) =
Vu/n(,)D.
As the propeller rotates, J(~) takes on different
values as shown in Fig. 33.
If we start with this definition of Kr(v), then
the total thrust a~: an inclined flow is
7'.(v,) = pn"(v)D4Kr(u)
Disk-mean thrust
1 ~
Disk-mean thrust ratio
]'. 1 "'[n(nv)_]~Kr(v)
7~0 -- 2:r ~ dv
which is a function of J and e, and is the same as
equation (29) of the paper.
2 Appendix 2 (Table 11) also outlines a nu-
merical procedure for the evaluation of the fore-
going i n t e g r a l i.e., approximating the integral
by a finite sum of three angular positions as sug-
607
gested b y Dr. Gutsche. This is not necessary J dKq
because the integration can be evaluated analyti- K4 = 1
KQ dJ
cally. Substituting the expressions developed
in the paper into the foregoing equation we get: K5 --
J dK~ OS~
KQ dJ
ToT' 127r 2~ [~]2 3 In equation (22) an empirical constant C is
introduced. A value of two for this constant is
used b y the author as suggested by Dr. Gntsche
x
in his work. I would like to offer a word of cau-
tion here because the value of this constant is af-
For a given problem, all quantities except n(v),
fected b y the propeller characteristics. A value
which is a function of v, are constants and they
suited for one propeller m a y not be adequate for
m a y be factored out of the integral. Using equa- others.
tion (22) for n(v)/n and carrying out the integra-
Since the calculation method presented by the
tion we obtain
author was based on Dr. Gutsche's work [8],
T. 1 the foregoing discussion m a y be considered as an
- [K,0 + K~V2) + 2~Kd indirect c o m m e n t on t h a t paper.
To 2~
where
Ralph Norrby,13Visitor: The papers so far writ-
ten on propulsion for planing craft usually
J dKr attack the problems with statistics from model
K~ = 1 tests or full-scale observations. Further, there
KT dJ
are a number of data from resistance tests with
J dKr planing craft. However, this material is of com-
Ko - cose
KT dJ paratively minor value to the designer as long as
a thorough propulsion analysis is lacking for this
J.C t y p e of craft. Thus Mr. Hadler's paper is of con-
Ka = ~ sine
siderable interest to the designer. In this con-
nection we would like to contribute to the dis-
and they are functions of J and e. Similar de-
cussion b y giving views and operating experience
velopments m a y be m a d e for the torque.
on propellers for high-speed craft.
T h e torque force m a y be expressed as follows:
There is a considerable number of planing craft
which have not achieved the propulsion perform-
F(v) - O,(v) _ 1 pn2(v)DSKe(v )
0.7R 0.7R ance foreseen by the designer. This might result
in, for instance, too low speed, erosion, and vibra-
where KQ(V') has the same meaning as the Kr(v). tions.
The disk-mean of vertical component of the torque T h e low speed m a y be due to the fact that the
force F, is then propeller pitch is too low or too high in relation to
1 " the design condition, so t h a t full power cannot
o. F(v)sinvdv be attained from the propulsion machinery. This
problem does not arise with a controllable-pitch
Define a force coefficient propeller (CPP), in which case the required pitch
can always be set.
KF a --
pn2D 4 T h e blade erosion due to cavitation can be
rather serious from the strength point of view.
Substituting P, in the foregoing definition, and There are propellers for high-speed craft which
simplifying, we obtain have had to be changed after only 5-10 hr run-
ning due to risk of blade failure from erosion.
Kr" - KQ {K4 2~ [ ~ - 1 2 The conditions can be improved by increasing the
manufacturing accuracy, especially on the leading
edge, combined with a possible local change of the
q- K5 2~ [ ~ - ~ ] sinvdv} blade sections there. A propeller of the super-
cavitating type is much less likely to erode than a
wide-bladed propeller. The blade material will
Ko (2K4 + Ks)Ka
0.7
laTechnical Manager, Aktiebolaget Karlstads Meka-
where niska Werkstad, Kristinehamn, Sweden.

608 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft

have a high Brinell value and, therefore, it is
suitable to choose Stainless steel or, in exceptional
cases, titanium.
Vibrations from the propellers can, for instance,
be caused by low balancing accuracy or too small
a clearance between blade tips and hull. Propel-
lers with a high rpm should be dynamically bal-
anced.
Propellers on high-speed craft usually work in
an inclined flow due to the shaft inclination.
We test such propellers in our cavitation tunnel
on an inclined shaft dynamometer. Propellers
with shaft inclinations up to 15 deg can be tested
in 2.5-deg stages. These tests are valuable, as
the blade cavitation pattern changes with the
blade position in the propeller disk.
For ten years we have designed C P P ' s of the
supercavitating type and delivered 39 such pro-
pellers. At the moment we have another 1S on
order. For all these propellers, stainless steel has
been used; the majority have now been working
for around four years. The speeds are between
40 and 50 knots; the craft displacements vary be-
tween 15 and 200 tons. The power per shaft
is between 2000 and 4000 hp and the revolutions
are between 900 and 2000 per minute. The shaft
inclinations are from 5-10 deg. No erosion or
corrosion has been observed. Well-designed and
accurately manufactured propellers of this type
will usually have a low vibration and noise level.
As an example, we m a y mention observations
from a trial trip which was recently carried out
with a high-speed craft with three propellers.
The power per shaft is 4000 hp, the propeller revo-
lutions 1450/min and the shaft inclination 10 deg.
In the whole speed range the boat worked very
s m o o t h l y - - t h e propeller vibration and noise level
were so low that the crew in a jocular vein asked
whether there were no propellers on the boat.
Dr. -Ing. Fritz Gutsche) 4 Visitor: The spectacular
information given by the author on the weight
of the various elements of the resistance shows
that the influence of the appendages m a y be cal-
culated in a similar manner as the resistance of the
hull itself. By a special test it was found that the
drag of the appended hull with rotating shafts
within the limits of experimental error was the
same as that without rotation of the shafts.
This result is not surprising at all, because of
the fact that the relation of circumferential ve-
locity of the shaft surface DTrn and the speed of
advance v in the quoted instances show only the
numerical figure D 7rn/v ~ O. 25.
The influence of the circumferential velocity
H 1254 Sch6neiche b. Berlin, Ernst Th/ilmann-Str. 55.
The Prediction o f Power Performance on Planing Craft
on the drag of the shafts is given by the factor of
augmentation ~5
,,--E1 +
which results in the tested model only by a percent-
age of 3 percent. Notwithstanding the fact that
this special result is in accordance with the build-
ing practice of today, I would prefer to add the
factor a to equation (12) of the report and to sub-
stitute the usual surface friction factor C: with
the special friction factor C:' = a.. C:.
Regarding the unknown future development
using supercavitating propellers with higher fac-
tors a, the influence of the circumferential velocity
on the shaft drag may be augmented to a m u c h
higher percentage of the total drag and therefore
it seems to me worthwhile to eliminate this small
source of inaccuracy from the reported well-
rounded method of calculating the mauy elements
of the whole resistance.
To determine the influence of oblique flow on
the performance of the propeller, I recommend
preferably the use of the charts in Figs. 19 through
22 instead of the somewhat cumbersome method of
Appendix 1 of my own report [8] outlined by the
author in Appendix 2 of his, report. The inter-
polation within the limits of the tested propeller
parameters (0.5 <: P / D < 1.5; .-]D/Ao = 0.35
and 0.80) m a y help to dimirlish the numerical
work of the determination.
A,Jthor's Closure
The discussers have made my task quite easy,
as their points are either complimentary or sup-
plementary to this work. The latter have added
significantly to the value of the material in this
paper.
The comments of Commander Du Cane, which
are so rich with experience, along with those of
Mr. Clement bring forth the. importance of trim
upon performance. I t is thiis planing-boat char-
acteristic which makes the prediction of per-
formance more difficult than that of the displace-
ment hull and makes it so important to treat the
whole hydrodynamic system if good performance
is to be achieved.
This leads to the desire to control trim through-
out the speed range by using such devices as trim
tabs to obtain better performance. Analytic
work should be undertaken to determine the lift
of flaps which, in conjunction with the methods
15F. Gutsche, "Einwirkung dec Rauhigkeit an Schiffs-
sehrauben auf Leistungsaufnahme und Wirkungsgrad,"
(Anhang 3) Sehiffbauforsehung 2 Jahrg, 1963, Nr. 3, S.81.
609
in this paper, should be most effective in optimiz-
ing designs for the best flap installation on planing
boats.
T h e interest and support of personnel such as
Captain Heller and Mr. B a u m a n in the N a v a l
Ship Engineering Center are essential if progress
is to be made in this work. Possibly they could
lend their assistance in obtaining full-scale trial
boats for comprehensive testing. Mr. B a u m a n ' s
suggestion to consider the lift component from
the spray will be incorporated in future work.
This component, of course, is negligibly small with
low-deadrise boats; however, it m a y be significant
when high-deadrise planing hulls are considered.
Mr. Savitsky's suggestion to reduce the magni-
tude of the spray drag at low trim angles does bring
the calculated results into better agreement with
the experimental results for Model 5048. How-
ever, it is not sufficiently large enough to bring
the higher speeds, i.e., over 17 knots, into as good
agreement as the results in the 14 to 17-knot range.
Need for more research on resistance, particularly
at low trim angles, is apparent. T h e author has
undertaken as an extension to this work the use of
statistical methods to obtain better empirical
equations for predicting the lift and the drag.
But he would like to encourage more basic re-
search into the phenomena of spray drag; wave
drag, particularly in the h u m p region; a~d the
prediction of the buoyant lift. Analytic work
should also be extended to other forms of boat
geometry such as the cathedral and stepped hulls.
Dr. Gutsche recommends the addition of the
rotational component to the shaft drag estimate.
This is quite small for the average-size shaft
employed; however, the addition of this term will
assure t h a t it is not omitted when the shaft is
quite large, and it conceivably could be significant.
The suggestion t h a t the propeller forces in inclined
flow be obtained by interpolation rather than cal-
culation can easily be accomplished if the user
has a copy of reference [8] available.
Mr. N o r r b y ' s comments should assist the de-
signer in determining the type of propeller for
these craft. The author is currently extending
the methods of this paper to take into account the
61 0 The Prediction of Power Performance on Planing Craft
effect of cavitation on performance. I t is hoped
t h a t fully eavitating propeller propulsion can
also be treated for this type of craft. T h e com-
ments of Mr. Cheng and l~r. Cox are similar in
nature since they suggest simplification of the
equations used to arrive at the forces on a propel-
ler operating in inclined flow. As such, their
comments are an indirect discussion of the work
of Dr. Gutsche [8]. Simplification developed b y
Mr. Cheng is recommended to those using the
method in m y paper for predicting the perform-
ance.
Mr. Cheng is currently conducting researeh on
propeller theory and will, I hope, eventually pro-
vide us with a more analytic and possibly more
aecurate method for predicting these forces.
Lifting line methods as suggested b y Mr. Cox m a y
be adequate. This will be known only after
computations have been made with the m o s t com-
plete mathematical models possible.
Mr. Cox noted a lack of clarity where the state-
m e n t is made t h a t the field velocity is a function of
loading and advance ratio. T h e statement is
true if all field velocity components inside and
outside the slipstream are considered. Specif-
ically, axial velocities both inside and outside the
slipstream are a function only of the loading coef-
ficient, Ct, as shown in Figs. S-11. Tangential
velocity components outside the slipstream are
zero, while inside the slipstream they are a func-
tion of both loading and advance ratio.
Mr. Cox also questioned the use of velocity
components at the 0.6 radius in estimating the
rudder drag augmentation due to the propeller.
The choice of the 0.6 radius is, of course, arbitrary.
Numerical averages of values in tangential veloci-
ties from the root to the tip of typical propellers
indicated the choice of 0.6 radius might be more
reasonable than the value at the 0.7 radius.
Hence the arbitrary choice of the 0.6 radius in
lieu of the 0.7 radius, which is standard for m o s t
propeller force calculations. Inclusion of the
axial-induced velocity [equation (45)] should be
made. This is an error in the text of the paper;
however, the calculations do have this factor in-
cluded.