Tank tests to determine the effect of varying design parameters of planing-tail hulls II : effect of varying depth of step, angle of after- body keel, length of afterbody chine, and gross load

Dawson, John R Mckann, Robert Hay, Elizabeth S
naca-tn-1101
July 1946


The second part of a series of tests made in Langley tank no. 2 to determine the effect of varying design parameters of planing-tail hulls is presented. Results are given to show the effects on resistance characteristics of varying angle of afterbody keel, depth of step, and length of afterbody chine. The effect of varying the gross load is shown for one configuration. The resistance characteristics of planing-tail hulls are compared with those of a conventional flying-boat hull. The forces on the forebody and afterbody of one configuration are compared with the forces on a conventional hull. Increasing the angle of afterbody keel had small effect on hump resistance and no effect on high-speed resistance but increased free-to-trim resistance at intermediate speeds. Increasing the depth of step increased hump resistance, had little effect on high-speed resistance, and increased free-to-trim resistance at intermediate speeds. Omitting the chines on the forward 25 percent of the afterbody had no appreciable effect on resistance. Omitting 70 percent of the chine length had almost no effect on maximum resistance but broadened the hump and increased spray around the afterbody. Load-resistance ratio at the hump decreased more rapidly with increasing load coefficient for the planing-tail hull than for the representative conventional hull, although the load-resistance ratio at the hump was greater for the planing-tail hull than for the conventional hull throughout the range of loads tested. At speeds higher than hump speed, load-resistance ratio for the planing-tail hull was a maximum at a particular gross load and was slightly less at heavier and lighter gross loads. The planing-tail hull was found to have lower resistance than the conventional hull at both the hump and at high speeds, but at intermediate speeds there was little difference. The lower hump resistance of the planing-tail hull was attributed to the ability of the afterbody to carry a greater percentage of the total load while maintaining a higher value of load-resistance ratio.

An Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file of the entire report:
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1946/naca-tn-1101.pdf