An Appraisal of Hydrofoil Supported

Craft1
BYT. M. BUERMANN, ASSOCIATEMEMBER,^ LIEUTENANTCOMMANDER P. LEEHEY,
J. J. STILWELL,
U.S.N, VISITOR,^ AND COMMANDER U.S.N., VISITOR^

Summary The purpose of this paper is toarouse the interest

Introduction of the naval architectural profession in the poten-
Historical Development tialities of hydrofoil supported craft and t o enlist
State of the Art its aid in solving the problems which stand in the
Hydrofoil Drag way of fully achieving these potentialities. The
Take-off paper is essentially expository in nature. The
Stability and Seakeeping only claims to originality lie in the manner
Miscellaneous Design Considerations of presentation of known fundamentals and in
Power Plant and Propulsion certain conclusions drawn from them regarding
Arrangement and Fittings advantages gained and limitations imposed by
Evaluation of the Hydrofoil Concept the use of hydrofoils.
Speed and Power The hydrofoil is described as a hull supported
Size Limitations clear of the water surface while under way by the
Conclusions dynamic lift of underwater wings, or hydrofoils.
References For certain speed-length ratios, it offers a substan-
tial reduction in resistance and a rnarked improve-

1 Paper presented a t the annual meeting of The Society of Naval

Architects and Marine Engineers in New York, November 12-13. U.S.S. Wisconsin he undertook postgraduate studies in naval engi-
1953. neering a t the United States Naval Postgraduate School and in
The statements in this paper represent the personal opinions of applied mathematics a t Brown University receiving the degree of
the authors and should therefore not be construed as reflecting the Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Mathematics in 1950.
views of the organizations with which the authors are affiliated. From 1951 t o 1953 he served as Technical Officer, Mathematical
' In charge of research a t Gibbs & Cox, Inc., New York. N. Y. Sciences Division, Office of Naval Research, Washington. D. C.
Mr. Buermann received the degree of Bachelor of Science in Naval He is presently on duty a t the David Taylor Model Baain, Washing-
Architecture and Marine Engineering in 1939 from the University of ton, D. C.
Michigan. Since graduation he has been with Gibbs & Cox, Inc., Formerly project officer for hydrofoils in the Design Division of
most of the period being spent in the Hull Scientific Section of that the Bureau of Ships. Navy Department, Washington, D. C.
6rm. During the war he made stress analyses of the many com- Commander Stilwell received his degree of Bachelor of Science in
ponents of the various naval vessels designed by Gibbs & Cox, Inc. Electrical Engineering a t the United States Naval Academy in 1938.
During the postwar period his work has been on the preliminary Following sea duty aboard the U.S.S. California, he received a Master
design of large commercial vessels, including drawing the lines for of Science in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from
the superliner S.S. United Stales and investigating its stability under Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1943. Subsequently he
various loadings and assumed conditions of damage. has served as docking officer a t Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, chief
8 Recently project officer for hydrofoil development, Office of engineer of the cruiser U.S.S. Topeka in the Pacific and has had vari-
Naval Research, Washington, D. C. ous duties in Boston Naval Shipyard. He recently acted a s project
Lieutenant Commander Leehey received the degree of Bachelor officer for the hydrofoil project in the Bureau of Ships and is currently
of Science from the United States Naval Academy in 1942. Pol- on duty in the Hull Design Branch of the Bureau of Ships, Washing-
lowing tours of wartime sea duty aboard the U.S.S. Washinglox and ton. D. C.

242
 3IL CRAFT 243

ment in seakeeping capability over a comparable

displacement or planing craft. The efforts of
various inventors and shipbuilders to produce Tliere is a world-wide resurgence of interest in a
hydrofoil supported surface craft and seaplanes novel means of reducing the resistance of high-
during the past half-century are reviewed. The speed boats called the hydrofoil which well merits
early sporadic efforts have been followed by gov- the attention of naval architects and marine engi-
ernment supported programs in Germany during neers. It is the purpose of the authors in this
World War I1 and subsequently in this country. paper to trace the developments that have taken
The feasibility of hydrofoil craft is considered as place in this field, to evaluate the promise of the
well demonstrated, a t least for smaller sizes. device, and to outline the problems inherent in
development of these vessels with the hope that
To indicate the present state of the art, the interest created in this Society may lead to better
most important elements of hydrofoil design are solutions to some of the problems.
considered in some detail. The methods for
determining the principal components of hydro- Anyone who has faced the problem of increasing
foil resistance, or drag, are outlined. In a fashion speed of small to moderate sized ships or boats is
analogous to aerodynamic practice, hydrofoil drag well aware of the price that must be paid, particu-
may be separated into profile, parasitic, induced, larly in craft which depend on the water surface
and wave-making components. A characteristic for support. While in most vehicles such as
feature of hydrofoil craft is that the wave drag aircraft, autos, or trains the power required varies
coefficient decreases rapidly with increasing speed. roughly as the cube of the speed or less, in ships
The "take-off" speed, where the hull first clears and boats a t higher speeds the power is propor-
the water, is shown to play an important role in tional to about the fifth power of the speed. This
determining the over-all relationships between physical fact has brought some criticism to the
speed, drag, and power required. Configurations naval architects from certain lay circles which
embodying fully submerged foil systems are shown judge progress in terms of speed. A brief reflec-
to have "hump" power requirements a t take-off tion shows that wave making a t the water surface
speed. is the principal contributor to this disparity be-
tween ships and other forms of transportation.
The question of stabilizing hydrofoil craft in a When i t is seen that in a destroyer type in the 30
seaway is dealt with in a qualitative fashion. The to 40 knot range, more than half the required
forces acting on a foil in both ahead and following power goes into wave making, and when i t is
seas are described and certain tentative conclu- realized that there has been no means developed
sions are drawn regarding the ability of various so far to stop a ship from making waves, t h e
configurations to negotiate these seas. prospects for large increases in speed without large
While i t is considered that a detailed considera- compensating increases in power and size look
tion of the design and construction of hydrofoil bleak indeed.
craft lies beyond the scope of this paper, a brief Since about the turn of the century various in-
discussion is given of certain points where hydro- ventors have attempted to overcome this barrier
foil craft depart from more conventional ship de- to higher speeds by lifting the hull of a boat out
sign practice. of the water and supporting its weight by the lift
In evaluating the practicality of hydrofoil produced by hydrofoils operating in the water.
craft, comparisons are made of specific hydro- In the course of these experiments, it was dis-
foil and conventional designs both in ranges covered that, in addition to substantial reductions
where the hydrofoil shows a clear advantage and in of power required, the hydrofoil-equipped boat
ranges where the application of foils is obviously gave better riding qualities in rough water than a
absurd. From this, a general study is made to conventional boat of comparable size and speed.
determine where the proper field for hydrofoil Before proceeding to more detailed discussions
applications lies. It is concluded that upper of hydrofoils perhaps some description of hydro-
limits on size, together with lower limits on speed, foil-equipped boats might afTord better visualiza-
fix the rnaxinlum size of hydrofoil craft, consistent tion of the problems involved. While many dif-
with available powering, in the 1,500 to 3,500 ton ferent configurations of hydrofoils have been tried,
range, and set the lower limit of Froude number four general types will suffice to illustrate ways of
based on over-all length between 0.6 and 0.7. doing the job. Referring to Fig. 1 we have ex-
Within these bounds, the prospect is considered amples of craft fitted with the following systems:
favorable for application of hydrofoils to high-
speed passenger ferries, small premium cargo car- A. Tandem submerged foils
riers, military patrol craft, and pleasure craft. B. Surface-piercing ladder foils
244 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

C. Surface-piercing V-foils both stability and altitude control by maintaining

D. Submerged after foil plus surface skids equilibrium between the lift of the foils that
(Grunberg configuration) are submerged and the weight of the boat.
The third gets its stability and control from the
All of these configurations, among others, have equilibrium between weight and the lift of
been successfully used on small to moderate size the portion of the foil remaining submerged. The
boats, and developments are continuing. Re- fourth scheme (a totally submerged after foil and
gardless of configuration, the lifting force required forward skids) is somewhat more subtle. Here,
is generated by the motion of an airfoil section after speed is reached, the skids plane on the water
through the water. This hydrofoil is smaller than surface and in effect make the boat pivot about
its sister airplane wing because of the difference in this point. Then, the large foil is designed to
density of the fluids. Basic lift and drag proper- respond to the trim of the boat, seeking an equi-
ties for hydrofoils are directly available from exist- librium trim where the lift corresponding to the
ing published airfoil data. However these data angle of attack on the foil exactly equals the weight
must be corrected for certain effects peculiar to not carried by the skids.
water and the presence of a free surface. In all these schemes, the boat starts from rest in
The inherent differences in the four configura- a displacement condition and is accelerated to a
tions, illustrated in Fig. 1, lie in the methods of "take-off" speed a t which foil lift causes the hull
obtaining stability and controlling "altitude in to rise clear of the water leaving just the propul-
flight." The first system requires electric, hy- sion and foil systems in the water. Little imagina-
draulic, or mechanical controls which vary the tion is required to recognize the kinship between
angles of attack of the foils in response to an auto- this craft and an aircraft, but the presence of the
matic signal which is a measure of the height of free water surface introduces problems not met in
the hull from the water surface. The second conventional aircraft. Thus the foil boat may be
scheme (surface-piercing ladder foils) achieves said to fall between aircraft and ships.

(A) TANDEM -SUBMERGED FOILS ( 0 ) SURFACE-PIERCING LADDER FOILS

(D) GRUNBERG CONFIGURATION

FIG.1.-TYPICALHYDROFOIL
CONFIGURATIONS
244 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

C. Surface-piercing V-foils both stability and altitude control by maintaining

D. Submerged after foil plus surface skids equilibrium between the lift of the foils that
(Grunberg configuration) are submerged and the weight of the boat.
The third gets its stability and control from the
All of these configurations, among others, have equilibrium between weight and the lift of
been successfullv used on small to moderate size the portion of the foil remaining submerged. The
boats, and developments are continuing. Re- fourth scheme (a totally submerged after foil and
gardless of configuration, the lifting force required forward skids) is somewhat more subtle. Here,
is generated by the motion of an airfoil section after speed is reached, the skids plane on the water
through the water. This hydrofoil is smaller than surface and in effect make the boat pivot about
its sister airplane wing because of the difference in this point. Then, the large foil is designed to
density of the fluids. Basic lift and drag proper- respoid to the trim of the boat, seeking an equi-
ties for hydrofoils are directly available from exist- librium trim where the lift corresponding to the
ing published airfoil data. However these data angle of attack on the foil exactly equals the weight
must be corrected for certain effects peculiar to not carried bv the skids.
water and the presence of a free surface. I n all these schemes, the boat starts from rest in
The inherent differences in the four configura- a displacement condition and is accelerated to a
tions, illustrated in Fig. 1, lie in the methods of "take-off'' s ~ e e da t which foil lift causes the hull
obtaining stability and controlling "altitude in to rise clear of the water leaving just the propul-
flight." The first system requires electric, hy- sion and foil systems in the water. Little imagina-
draulic. or mechanical controls which v a n the tion is required t o recognize the kinship between
angles of attack of the foils in response to an auto- this craft and an aircraft, but the presence of the
matic signal which is a measure of the height of free water surface introduces problems not met in
the hull from the water surface. The second conventional aircraft. Thus the foil boat may be
scheme (surface-piercing ladder foils) achieves said to fall between aircraft and ships.

(A) TANDEM-SUBMERGED FOILS ( 0 ) SURFACE-PIERCING LADDER FOILS

(D) GRUNBERG CONFIGURATION

SUBMERGED AFTER FOILS

FIG.1.-TYPICALHYDROFOIL
CONFIGURATIONS
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 245

Richardson and White outfitted a dinghy with

submerged foils employing manual angle of attack
The history of hydrofoil development is a record
control for stabilization and maneuvering, Fig. 2.
of many failures italicized by a few notable suc-
cesses. There is little evidence of a steady im- About 1911, Richardson and Curtiss in this
provement in types and much evidence of hap- country and Guidoni in Italy began using hydro-
hazard approaches to the problems of flight in foils on seaplane floats to assist in take-off.
near proximity to the water surface. In fairness Guidoni's work, in particular, was quite extensive.
to the many inventors and scientists who turned Over a period of 15 years he designed and flew
their efforts to this intriguing problem (including various hydrofoil-fitted seaplanes ranging in
the Wright brothers, Alexander Graham Bell, and weight from 1,400 to 55,000 lb. Float sizes were
Otto Tietjens) it should be stated that there were reduced through use of hydrofoils, resulting in a
two fundamental reasons for their meager success. substantial reduction in take-off resistance [I].
First, the problems of hydrofoil flight are inher- However, as seaplane take-off speeds increased,
ently more complicated than those of subsonic the problems of foil cavitation and stability multi-
aerodynamics. Second, the aircraft faced no real plied. Italian efforts in this direction apparently
competitor during its formative years while the were a t an end by 1925.
hydrofoil faced the prospect of comparison with Dr. Alexander Graham Bell's spectacular boat.
surface transport from its inception. As a conse- the HD-4, entered the picture in 1918, Fig. 3.
quence, serious consideration of hydrofoil vessels Together with Mr. Casey Baldwin, Dr. Bell pro-
has had to await the development of materials, duced a craft of outlandish design coupled with a
power plants, and fundamental understanding of performance which must be considered remarkable
principles, fortunately, largely derived from the even in the light of present knowledge. With a
advances in aircraft and ship design over the past gross weight of 11,000 lb, the craft reportedly
50 years. attained a top speed of 60 knots powered by two
At the turn of the century, the men experiment- Liberty aircraft engines of 350 hp each [ Z ] . The
ing with the early aircraft and those developing foils were of ladder type with dihedral and, de-
the first successful planing hulls both considered spite the complexity of foil and strut intersections,
the use of hydrofoils as an integral part of their they attained a maximum lift-drag ratio of 8.5 a t
experiments. As a result it is difficult to deter- 30 knots. During the years between the two
mine when the first true hydrofoil boat actually World Wars, Mr. Baldwin made repeated un-
lifted its hull clear of the water by foil, and not successful efforts to interest the Navy Department
planing lift. In France in 1897 the Comte de in the military potentialities of the Bell-Baldwin
Lambert drove a catamaran fitted with four trans- design. Whether it was the tendency of the HD-4
verse "hydroplanes." The floats, or hulls, were to porpoise in a seaway or whether it was simply
raised clear of the water, but it is not clear whether the sheer cumbersomeness of the design which
this was accomplished by planing or hydrofoil lift. caused these efforts to fail, one may only conjec-
Perhaps the first true hydrofoil boat was developed ture. Suffice it to say that there is no evidence of
in Italy by Forlanini between 1898 and 1905. This government support of hydrofoil development in
craft was supported by a complex system of flat any country for some 15 years after World War I.
ladder foils. There is little record of its perform- During the 1930's there was a renewal of inter-
ance other than evidence that it "flew." Also in est in the application of hydrofoils to both sea-
Italy, and shortly thereafter, Crocco developed a planes and surface craft. Dr. Otto Tietjens
craft supported by monoplane dihedral foils tested his first hydrofoil speed boat a t Philadelphia
which attained a reported speed of 50 mph in 1932, and built and tested a second larger boat
In 1907 Wilbur and Orville Wright experi- near Berlin in 1936. Both craft were supported
mented with a foil-supported catamaran on the by a configuration embodying a single large di-
Miami River a t Dayton, Ohio. Testing was hedral main foil located somewhat forward of the
abandoned following a river dam failure which center of gravity and stabilized by a smaller
resulted in insufficient water depth to permit elevator foil a t the stern. H. F. von Schertel
operating the craft. In 1909 Captain H. C. tested his first successful craft in Germany in 1936.
Richardson, U.S.N., (Ret.) fitted tandem biplane The Schertel design differed from that of Tietjens
foils to a canoe. When towed a t 6 knots this in that two V-foils in tandem were used, each
craft flew on the lower set of foils. Later, in 1911, carrying approximately one-half the weight of the
craft. During this period Guidoni's earlier work
on seaplane applications was re-evaluated by the
6 Numbers in brackets indicate references listed at the end of this
paper. British [3]; and, at the request of the United
246 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

States S a v y Bureau of Aeronautics, the National beginning in 1934 [ A ] [7]. M'hile parallel es-
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics undertook a perin~ental work in liussia was reported by
model test prograln in 1936 itlitially aimed a t Vladimiro\~[8], one finds 110 serious eirort iri that
testing various configurations originally proposed country t o develop either hydrofoil vcsselsor hydro-
by Guidoni. I n Germany, My. Sottorf reported foil-supported seaplanes prior to U'orld U7:lr 11.
on extensive experiments with various foil sec- With the advent of Li'orltl \t';-~rI I , C>erln:ul
tions for high-speed use aimed a t possible seaplane hydrofoil developlnent, already vcry active, re-
applications 141. ceived substantial support fro111 both the Navy
The first really practical configuratiot~emplop- and the Army. A t the Sachsenberg Shipyard,
ing angle of attack stabilization was conceivetl in I<osslau, a number of craft were designed and
France by V. Grunberg in 11):3,5. This system is constructed along the lines of the basic Schertel
shown schematically in Fig. l(D), and its action concept. T h e Schertel-Sachsenberg affiliatioll
in a seaway will be described later. T h e feasibility produced craft u p to SO tons displacenient with
of this system was demonstrated a t t h a t time by speeds u p to 60 knots. The 17-ton patrol boat
model tests in the towing tank of the Institute VS-6, Fig. 4, and the SO-ton tank transport VS-S,
Aerotechriique de Saint-Cyr [ 5 ] . I n subsequent Fig. 6, typify this work. A t the sanie time, a
years, his idea has been studied by various inves- 17-ton craft after the Tietjens design was built a t
tigators-attracted by its simplicity and reason- the 'irertens Yacht Yard i l l Schlcsivig- and des-
able margin of stabilization. ignated VS-7, Fig. 5 .
T h e first contributions to the understandil~gof S o n e of thc C>crnlan craft was placer1 in opera-
the wave drag of hydrofoils were made by Russian tional use, despite the coliccntratcd tlevclopment
theoreticians I<elclysch, Lavre~ltiev,:uid Kotchin effort. l'arious reasons havc been give11 for the
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 247

. ,

FIG.3. - T I ~\:S-7, TIE.~JBS'S

COUSTERPART
7 0 T H E \-S-6

FIG. 6.- ~ P ~ K \.S-S,

T r r ~Sc

failure of the progranl, chief among which were borne in a following sea and was subsequently
the insistence of the German high con~lllandlor beachecl and abancloncd. Solne of this work is
quick results and the lack of suitable rnatcrials reported in Refs. [!I] and [lo].
and trained engineers. Nliecl bombing of the In this country, the National Advisory Coln-
buildillg yards dcstroycd most of the craft under mittee for .lcronautics has continued a lnoclest
construction and the dctcriorating co~lclition of program of hytlrofoil il~vestigations ~ ~ r i n i a r i l y
the (;er~llanwar eflort brogght an end to the pro- aimed a t seaplane apl)lications [l1 ] [ I 4. Various
gram in 11145. Tests of \TS-(i and VS-7 furnished individuals have developed llydrofoil craft since
inconclusive results. VS-7 was the faster boat, World War I1 both here a ~ l din Europe. X novel
but was 111uch poorer than ITS-6 from the point of extension of the (>runberg concept was devised by
view of stability and ~naneuverability. The Christopher Hook of Cowcs, Isle of LA-ight. The
ambitious VS-8 was apparently uriderpowcrecl. Hook boat, Fig. 7, uses two surface skicls on long
During one serics of tests shc failcd to rcillairl foil- jockey ; L ~ I I I Sahcad of the craft to stabilize i~ltlc-
 248 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

pendently two forward subn~ergedfoils, each bear- were developed t o pcr111it open \v:~ter c\raluntion
ing one-third tlie load of the craft. .in after foil, of j)erfor~nancein a seaway.
i~itegralwith the ~)rol)ulsionsystetn a t the stern, Fig. 8 shows a 12-ft open-water nod el eniploy-
carries the remaining load and recl~~ircs only craft ing a pair of biplane V-foils forward with a snlall
trim t o achieve adequate stabilization. Two V-foil elevator aft. Two basically differe~lttest
Swedish engineers, .Umquist and Elgstron~,built craft of about 20 f t ill length are show11 in Figs.
several craft basically of the Grunberg configura- I) and 10. T h e former has four V-roils arranged
tion, but with curved main foils t o obtain area in tailtlen~providing inherent st:~biliz:ltiori. T h e
stabilization a s well. latter employs a n n u t o ~ n a t i c surface-sensitive
incidellce control system acting on a tailtiel11
A number of slnall speed boats employing three submerged foil configuration. Other systems of
retractable V-foils have been tlcveloped and con- hydrofoil support are also under acti\.c considcra-
structed by J. G. Raker, of Eva~isville,A'is. An tion.
important feature of his design is the absence of I n retrospect, it appears t h a t tlie hardy per-
ili~~nersedsupporting struts. All underwater sistence of the hydrofoil conceljt for over a half-
surfaces, except for the outboard propulsion unit, century testifies both to its basic sountlncss and
are lifting surfaces with corisequent nlirlitnization to its clifficulty in execution.
of parasitic drag. Scherlel has resumed activities
in the field. His liew passenger ferry, PT-30, is STATE OF TI-IF, ART
similar to VS-0 irl appearance. I t has been operat-
T h e present state of knowledge of hytlrofoils
ing recently on Lake Lucerne, Switzerland. Kcf.
nlay be said to lie somewhcrc between research
[!I]i~ldicatesthat this craft displaces 9.5 tons and
and developtnent and practical design, depending
achicvcs -10 knots with -1.30 111).
on the size of t h e craft. T o best illustrate this
Sincc 1947, the S a v y Department has sup- status, there follows a cliscussion of the design
ported a program for hydrofoil research and tle- p r o b l c ~ ~encountered
~s in these boats and their
velol~ment involving the cooperative efforts of methods of solution.
ship clcsigners and gover~ltllerit and univcrsitv T h e same problenl exists in design hydrofoil
laboratories. 4 1 1 intensive effort has been ~ l l a d c craft t h a t is involvecl i n co~i\ic~ltiorinl
ship dcsign,
to overcome problcnis or foil tlesign and stnbiliza- namely the proper balaricc of thc major variables
t i o ~~vliich
~ thw-artcd Inany early investigators. so as to best achieve the required function. For
Studies have been nladc to tletermine the limits proper consideration of tlie iniportant factors, a
oi practical sizc ant1 speed, consistent with feasible hytlrofoil craft should be consi~lercda s a carefully
po~vering, within ~vhich the hytlrofoil possesses tlesigllrcl foil system with an i~itegratetlp r o p u l s i o ~ ~
inherent advantages over other surface craft. I n unit supporting and ~)ropellingthe lleccssary m::ss
the course of this work, certain smr~lltest craft a t a given speetl, subject t o estertlal conditions.
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 219

T h e cstitliation of power required depends 011

reasoilably accurate determinntion ol resistatlce
under flying and take-off cotiditions. Since i~iuch
of the data required in this cslin~ateis derived
from tests of airfoils and aircraft coml~onents,
aeronautical terminology is used for convenience.
T h u s resistance is described as drag.

r'.
O J f i < i c t I ~ ~ I ~ o l o ~ r.Y.~ .~\ u~t v~ l ~ ,

FIG. 10.-ACTOMATIC ISCIDENCE

CONTROL
STABILIZATION
Oh' A ~ O - F O O TL-SITED STATES
NAVY TESTCRAFT
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

HYDROFOIL
DRAG The principal sources of parasitic drag are:
Since the weight of the craft is supported by A. Hull windage
dynamic lift of the foils, we equate displacement B. Surface interference drag of struts (spray
to lift and write drag)
A = L = Cr;p/2.S. V 2 C. Interference drags of foil-strut intersec-
tions
where S is the projected foil area.6 The selection D. Drag of underwater appendages such as
of the foil section and operating lift coefficient propulsion nacelles, control rods, and
CL is a careful compromise between conflicting hinge joints
requirements for high foil strength, minimum
total drag, and avoidance of foil cavitation a t Where intersections of one or more lifting surfaces
maximum craft speed and flow separation a t take- occur, the corresponding interference drag coeffi-
off speed. The method of stabilization and the cients are functions of the CL2for the lifting sur-
sea state which the craft must be capable of nego- faces. No detailed treatment of the various para-
tiating on foils play important roles in this de- sitic drags will be attempted here as their deter-
termination. Generally speaking, the selection of mination for hydrofoil configurations follows from
a foil. section with a flat suction-side pressure dis- the many experimental and theoretical results
tribution, a thickness ratio in the order of lo%, obtained in aerodynamic and naval architectural
and a design lift coefficient of about 0.25 affords work [14].
a reasonable starting point for a preliminary drag One parasitic drag, however,. is peculiarly im-
estimate. portant to hydrofoil craft. This is the surface
Lift coefficients obtained from aerodynamic interference drag, or spray drag, occurring a t the
data should properly be modified for the effect of point where struts or foils pierce the water surface.
foil submergence. However, while a hydrofoil I t results from a complex combination of effects
tends to lose lift as it approaches the water sur- involving air entrainment and spray formation.
face, the effect on lift coefficient is not particularly The wave-making component of this drag is of
significant for submergences of one chord or little consequence because of the very high Froude
greater and may reasonably be ignored in pre- numbers, based upon strut chord, c, a t which most
liminary calculations. hydrofoil craft operate. A reasonable measure of
The total drag of a hydrofoil craft may be ex- this drag has been derived froni tank tests as
pressed as
where t is the strut thickness and where an
where the dimensionless total drag coefficient C, approximate value of the coefficient CDt = 0.2
is the sum of profile, parasitic, induced, and wave v/~G
may be assumed for F, = greater than 10.
drag coefficients: For lower Froude numbers, C,, assumes much
higher values which are roughly proportional to
the thickness ratio t / c . The dependence of spray
each expressed in terms of the projected foil area. drag upon strut profile and rake angle make
The induced and wave drags are entirely residual further generalization on its magnitude difficult.
in nature, while the profile and parasitic drags An important assumption is made in the calcu-
have both frictional and form components. lation of the remaining portions of the drag of hy-
The free surface does not appear to have an drofoil craft; namely, that the induced and wave
important effect upon the profile drags of struts drag components may be treated separately.
and foils, hence these coefficients may be obtained Considering a uniformly loaded submerged hydro-
from known aerodynamic data such as in [13]. foil represented by a horseshoe vortex, this as-
For a lifting surface, the profile drag coefficient is sumption amounts to a n arbitrary separation of
the bound and trailing vortex drags. The induced,
or trailing vortex, drag may be calculated by use
of classical biplane theory considering the image
expressed as where (CD,),in and K are dependent vortex system to have circulations of the same
upon the section used and are functions of Reyn- direction and magnitude as those representing the
olds number. submerged hydrofoil. The separation between the
hydrofoil and its image is, of course, twice the foil
6 All coefiicients, such as CL, appearing in this paper are dimension- submergence. The induced drag of the hydrofoil
less. Where units for physical quantities are not explicitly stated,
they may be inferred fromcontext. is then the sum of the drag derived from the effect
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 25 1

of trailing vortices of the foil itself plus that de- respect to foil chord c and Fh = v/d& is the
rived from the effect of the image trailing vortices Froude number with respect to foil subtrlergence
on the foil. This may be expressed in coefficient h.
form as I t is thus seen that the wave drag coefficient is
a function, not only of C," but also of two dis-
tinct Froude numbers F, and F,. However. since
practical considerations of strut drag and strength
where a is the Munk interference factor and 6 is limit foil submergences to the order of one to three
the planform correction [Is]. This representation chords, a single Froude number F, may be con-
is consistent with the free surface conditions only sidered to govern the magnitude of the wave
for infinite craft velocity (or infinite Froude num- drag component for feasible hydrofoil designs.
ber Fh = ( 1 dgh)).However, since the Froude Here the "effective craft length," or characteristic
nunrbers, Fh, of most hydrofoil craft a t their de- dimension, is simply the chord of the lifting hydro-
signed speeds and foil submergences are usually foil, consequently all hydrofoil craft operate in a
quite large, and the corresponding wave drags are regime where wave drag decreases with increasing
usually small, this formulation agrees reasonably speed. As may be seen in Fig. 11, very small,
well with experimental results. high-speed craft have almost negligible wave drag.
A two-dimensional treatment of wave drag With the increase in size of hydrofoil craft, and
effect based upon bound vortex circulation ap- corresponding decrease in their designed speeds to
pears adequate for estimating the wave drag limits imposed by available powering, the wave
coefficient. This result, obtained in 1934 by drag becomes a very appreciable component of
Keldysch and Lavrentiev [B], is here modified by total drag. A possibility then arises for the elimi-
the assumption that the effect of submergence nation of a substantial portion of the wave effect
upon lift may be neglected. The resulting expres- by use of a tandem foil configuration with foil
sion in coefficient form is spacing so adjusted to the design speed that the
wave created by the forward foil is partially
annulled by the wave from the after foil. The
two-dimensional treatment of Ref. [ 6 ] gives the
where F, = I'd&is the Froude number with disturbance of the free surface a t a distance x in

FROUOE NUMBER Fc =
FIG.11.-RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
O F WAVEDRAGFOR VARIOUS
HYDROFOIL
TYPES
 252 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

feet behind a bound vortex of strength I' a t a sub- evaluation of these effects. There is, perhaps,
mergence h as some small comfort in the realization that the
knowledge of the effects of surface roughness on
,, = - 2I' e- 1/Fh2 .i'n E* the full scale resistance of conventional ships and
-

v v aircraft is far from adequate, despite years of

where V is the free stream velocity in fps. Strictly investigation.
speaking, this formula applies only for very large
x. Practically, it is a good approximation to the TAKE-OFF
surface for distances of one-quarter wave length In the design, and particularly in the powering
or more behind the foil. The wave length of this of hydrofoil craft, careful attention inust be paid
disturbance is 2?rV2jg, hence locating a second to the conditions of take-off. Take-off may be
bound vortex of the same strength a distance defined as the instant that the hull leaves the
?rV2/gft behind the vortex would result in a com- water, or the instant a t which the hull ceases to
plete cancellation of the disturbance. For a hy- contribute to either the lift or the water drag of
drofoil ship with a designed speed of 30 knots, the the boat.
required foil spacing would be about 250 ft. This This discussion is limited to the "aircraft type"
must be regarded as approximate, for the formula take-off which may be described as follows: At
is only asymptotically correct and does not con- rest, the entire weight of the boat is supported by
sider the bound vortex and source distribution the hull buoyancy; as the craft accelerates, the
necessary to form a mathematical lnodel of a foil foils increase their lift, unloading the hull, until
whose chordjsubinergence ratio is of the order of a t take-off speed the entire weight is on the foils
unity. hlore importantly, the three-dimensional and the buoyancy (or lift) of the hull is reduced to
effect of the trailing vortices results in waves zero.'
characterized by the appearance of a roach The phenomenon that causes the most trouble
or "rooster-tail" in the wake of a single submerged in foil craft take-off is the drag hump. Charac-
foil. This non-uniformity in flow may well affect teristically, the thrust required to propel the hull
the foil spacing required for optimum recovery of and foils increases to a maximum as take-off is
wave drag. approached. Then, as the hull clears the water,
E~~~ a brief discussion of hydrofoil drag such thrust requirements drop to a minimum value a t
as this one should not onlit some consideration of a speed slightly over take-off and then climb again,
the troublesol~lequestion of the effect of surface until with Proper design, the full power is reached
roughness and fouling upon the profile drags of atmaxilnunl speed. Although the power available
foils and struts. I t seeins that the acceptance of for full speed is usually considerably more than
drag coefficients, based upon standard roughness the maximum Wuirernent at take-0ff, the
as defined by the NACA ~ 1 3 1 leads , to pessi- normal characteristics of propellers, attempting
mistic conclusions regarding the perforlnance to deliver high Power a t relatively low speed of
attainable by hydrofoil craft. such conclusions advance, limit thrust available. Therefore, the
are probably unwarranted, especially in the case resistance at take-off rather than the
of smaller craft employing retractable foils. Here power required is the controlling factor, Fig. 12.
it appears quite feasible to construct and maintain In addition, the margin of thrust available over
foil surfaces with a degree of smoothness prac- resistance is the accelerating force, the amount of
tically unattainable in aircraft wings (with due which determines the time and distance required
regard to pro9er scaling in this comparison). On for take-off. A good thrust margin is required
the other hand, acceptance of very low profile drag because take-0ff may be necessary in rough seas
coefficients obtained for "laminar flowl1sections is and under other adverse conditions that increase
equally unjustified in view of the turbulent nature resistance, particularly of the hull. Even in ideal
of a seaway and the variable operating conditions conditions, a craft that can just get to a condition
required of the foil. of equilibrium between thrust and resistance a t
take-off speed will not take off, as there inust be
large craft-where a slight excess of lift over to provide for the
becomes clearly impractical-fouling and corro- vertical acceleration needed to lift the boat to its
sion will certainly take a heavy toll in increased flying attitude.
drag. This situation will probably be only par-
- -
tially mitigated by the possibility of improving the
relative smoothness of foils during construction An alternative "elevator type" take-off has, on occasion, been
used with submerged foil craft. Here the craft accelerates to flying
because of the increased craft sizes. Little or no speed without lift on the foils, then, suddenly, lift is applied and the
craft rapidly ascends to its flying attitude. The authors find no
data exists which would a quantitative advantage in the elevator typetake-off.
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 253

I The speed selected for take-off coupled with the trim from the action of the forward and after
foil lift coefficient that can be tolerated in this foils, the estimation of the total resistance a t any
condition will detennine the minimum foil area pre-take-off speed is a complex job that is best
required for the craft and thus will affect the top handled by model experiments.
speed, unless a surface piercing or ladder-type foil For the initial selection of the hull form for this
is used where some of the area reauired for take- service, certain guides can be set down. To reduce
off comes out of the water a t top speed. In choos- impact loading during inadvertent high-speed
ing take-off speeds and lift coefficients, i t is con- touch down or during momentary wave slap when
I
venient to use a relatively high value of lift coeffi- flying, V- or U-shaped sections appear to be prefer-
cient and a relatively low take-off speed to avoid able to flat sections. As for the. best form for
prolonged runs a t full power and with objection- take-off, the speed a t take-off and the size of the
able wave encounter. I t can be shown that take- craft must be considered. If the take-off speed is
off distance is a function of speed squared so that in the range of speed-length ratios for the craft
an increase of take-off speed causes a large increase that are favorable for displacement operation,
in distance. However, since the induced drag of then a displacement type hull should be used. If,
the foils increases as the square of the lift coeffi- however, the speed is such that in a normal craft
cient, this practice may induce unacceptable power of the size planing would be an advantage, then
humps requiring a compromise in top speed or the a planing type is indicated. 111addition to these
inclusion of variable pitch propellers in an already considerations of impact and minimum hull re-
complicated propulsion problem. sistance, if t!~e foil configuration is a surface-
The problem of designing a hull and estimating piercing, Grunberg, or ladder type, the triirl of the
its ~erformanceunder these conditions of unload- hull under the speed and load conditions to be
ing with increased speed is peculiar to the hydro- met must be investigated, since, in these cases, the
foil and seaplane fields. Since the amount of foil ability of the foils to achieve a proper lift coeffi-
lift and drag imposed on the hull depends on the cient to lift the craft depends to a certain extent
speed and the trim, and since the trim during on the hull trim.
take-off is a resultant between the natural trim The surface-piercing and ladder type configura-
of the hull a t the given speed and the impressed tions generally have a smooth take-off with little
254 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

drag hump as compared to the fully submerged ments of stability and wave response are not fully
foil types. On the other hand, the submerged understood. Speaking in general terms the flying
types usually can take off a t lower speed but with characteristics of a hydrofoil should be a compro-
a sharper transition evidenced by a considerable mise between two requirements. From the point
drag hump, Fig. 12. This condition is brought on of view of comfort and minimum acceleration, the
by the fact that the submerged foil uses the same craft should fly in a straight path with the irregu-
amount of area a t take-off as it does a t top speed. lar water surface positioned within the gap be-
Thus there must be a large lift coefficient a t the tween the hull and foils. This implies no wave
low take-off speed to support the weight. This response and is indeed the most satisfactory means
can only be achieved by increasing the angle of of flying in small waves. However, from the point
attack. Assuming a take-off a t one-half of top of view of maintaining the hull above the water
speed, the submerged foil will require a lift coeffi- surface the craft should closely follow the wave
cient equal to four times that a t top speed, and pattern as the waves get larger. Since these are
since the induced drag varies as CL2,the induced limiting conditions, a compromise between the
drag a t take-off will be about four times its value two is strived for in most hydrofoil designs.
a t top speed. With the surface-piercing type foil, Surface-piercing V-foils have been used exten-
on the other hand, it is common practice to use sively since they serve as stabilizing members as
about one-half of the total area available for top well as lifting surfaces. Lateral stability is inher-
speed operation, and almost all the available area ent if the center of gravity is not too high, since
a t take-off. Therefore, the take-off lift coefficient heel provides increased foil area on the low side,
can be about twice that for top speed and the in- and the increased lift produces a righting moment.
duced drag, taking into account the effects of Longitudinal trim is maintained in a similar man-
aspect ratio change, will be about the same for ner since when a foil sinks below the equilibrium
both conditions. The above effect is so marked position i t adds more foil area producing a restor-
that in actual operation it is often difficult to ing force. I t should be noted that as speed in-
ascertain the exact take-off point with surface- creases a craft with a constant chord V-foil con-
piercing foils. figuration tends to rise in the water. If this
All of these factors affecting take-off assume proves undesirable, the rates of change of lift
added importance when it is realized that a hydro- with submergence for the forward and after foils
foil is usually capable of flying through sea condi- can be physically altered so that the trim of the
tions which it would have difficulty negotiating as craft and resultant angle of attack of the foils is
a displacement craft, and that unless it has excel- reduced as the speed is increased. This prevents
lent take-off capabilities, a landing in such a sea the craft from rising too high.
might become permanent. Where permissible foil dimensions unduly limit
the rate of change of lift with submergence of V-
foils, or where an increased range of flying speeds
A major advantage of hydrofoil craft is their is desired, ladder foils can be used. Dihedral is
ability to operate a t full power in a seaway, i.e., usually incorporated in the ladders making the
they are capable of maintaining higher sustained stabilizing action much the same as that of V-foils.
speed in a seaway than displacement or planing However, the operation of a ladder configuration
craft of comparable size and power. This is in a seaway produces complex spray and inter-
accomplished by keeping the hull above the wave action effects characterized by erratic variations
surface resulting in a large reduction of wave im- in hydrodynamics forces on the system.
pact forces. The seakeeping advantage is most The Grunberg configuration has one main sub-
beneficial to small vessels (below 1,000 tons) since merged foil aft with surface stabilizers forward
sea states experienced are frequently large by and lateral and longitudinal stability are achieved
comparison. While the reality of this advantage by the forward planing surfaces. These surfaces,
has been amply demonstrated by small craft or "skids," have strong depth stability and poor
presently in @>eration, the full potentialities of lift/angle of attack curve slopes. Since these are
hydrofoil stabilization have not been attained. no better than conventional planing hulls, they
Some of the troublesome (and challenging) prob- are not used for main lifting surfaces, and nor-
lems involved are indicated. mally carry only 10 to 20% of the weight of the
hlost hydrofoil craft can be stabilized in calm craft. The remaining weight is carried on the
water and the requirements are clear. However, main foil placed aft of the center of gravity. HOW-
with few exceptions hydrofoil craft are required ever, the "skids" are quite satisfactory as stabiliz-
to operate in waves, and the conlbined require- ing surfaces, providing a positive force to locate
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

the craft in the proper relation to the water sur- as well as the admissible normal accelerations
face. The craft trims about the planing surfaces. equivalent to limiting column loading of the
Consequently if the main foil tends to rise, it struts.
automatically decreases its angle of attack and lift The frequency of encounter with wave crests is a
as the hull trims, thus the craft returns to the function of craft velocity relative to the sea and
original position. The dynamics of such a craft of the wave length. I t governs the time in which
can be investigated by making the assumption corrective actions a t the foils must act, and con-
that the skids follow the wave contour. In prac- versely, the time in which orbital velocities may
tice it has been shown that is true for low frequen- affect the foil lift. The higher the frequency of
-
cies of wave encounter but is not realistic for high encounter with waves, the less time there is for
frequencies. Therefore, such calculations must be variations in lift to act, and the smaller the vertical
properly weighed, and since they are tedious, displacement. For the same boat speed the fre-
model tests are probably n o r e desirable. The quency of encounter is lower while running with
tendency of the "skids" to skip and the light the waves than when going into them. Hence the
damping of disturbance motions are disadvan- need for changing the attitude of the foil or foil
tages. area is not as great in the case of head seas as in
With fully submerged foils the situation is some- following seas.
what different. Since the foils must remain sub- The orbital velocity of the water, added vectori-
merged a t all times, they are not affected by their ally to the craft velocity and to the instantaneous
depth of submersion. Essentially, no inherent velocities due to pitch and heave of the craft, de-
stability or control is present and some type of termines effective change in the angles of attack of
stabilization must be p r o ~ i d e d . ~The possible the foils from their steady state values. These
configurations are a large foil under the center of eEects on foil lift must be coupled with the sta-
gravity supporting most of the weight of the craft bilizing effects of the configuration (area change
with a small tail foil aft for balance purposes and for V-foils or angle change for controlled sub-
the tandem foil arrangement where the two foil merged foils) in relation to the instantaneous
areas are approximately equal. There has also position of the craft in a wave train.
been some use of the "Canard" configuration with In the head sea condition as a foil systein ap-
the small foil forward. All of these must be arti- proaches the face of a wave either more foil area
ficially stabilized. is added or in the case of a controlled submerged
Submerged foil configurations can be provided foil a signal developed indicating a depth error in a
with incidence or flap control for the foil sections. direction that causes the foil to increase its angle
The angle on the foils or flaps is governed of attack thus causing the foil to rise. Also as the
either by a very lightly loaded planing surface foil enters this portion of the wave it enters an
and mechanical linkage or by a water surface area of upward water particle rnotion which fur-
detector providing a signal to an autopilot which ther increases the effective angle of attack of the
in turn motivates an actuator to position the angle foil relative to the water flow, hence causing an
of attack of the foil. With a configuration of this additional upward force on the foil.
type i t can be assumed that the foils are com- There are two basic differences between head
pletely submerged a t all times and the stability and following seas which affect the behavior of
may be investigated satisfactorily by theoretical hydrofoil craft. The frequency of encounter in
means, namely the traditional aircraft approach following seas is greatly reduced giving the craft
to dynamic stability and servo mechanisms, modi- more time t o respond and the orbital motions are
fied b y the hydrodynamic surface effects. in a detrimental rather than favorable direction.
The ability of the hydrofoil craft to fly in waves The orbital rnotion of the water particles in the
of various heights depends upon the relation of back slope of a wave is downward which, when
strut to craft length, the frequency of encounter vectorially added to the horizontal velocity of the
with succeeding wave crests, and the effects of water past the foil due to the forward velocity of
orbital velocities. The relation of strut to craft the craft, has the effect of decreasing the angle of
length determines what vertical displacement the incidence of the foil relative to the water flow. If
craft must make to keep the hull clear of the wave the geometric foil angle is not changed or if the
profile. The choice of strut length governs the slope of the lift/angle of attack curve is not
maximum craft motion normal to the wave profile altered by other means, the foil experiences a re-
8 A small stabilizing force exists due to a decrease in lift as a foil duced lift force a t the very time that lift should be
approaches the surface. It is possible in model scale to produce a
configuration with fixed submerged foils which is stable for small increased in order for the foil to rise and track the
disturbances. This is of little practical importance in full scale wave it is approaching and overtaking. The re-
operation in a seaway.
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

verse and equally detrimental condition occurs conditions. Yet the state of hydrofoil art, as
under the forward face of the wave. There, the demonstrated by the various radically different
orbital velocities tend to raise the foil as i t aD- configurations presently in use, is curiously akin
proaches a trough. The above is premised on the to that of aircraft just prior to the first World
practical assumption that the craft velocity is War. The underlying cause is the problem of
higher than that of the waves. In the unusual stabilization, now as then. I t is here, more than
case, where the following sea overtakes the craft in any other particular, that emphasis on research
from astern (very large fast waves), the orbital and development must be placed if the hydrofoil
velocities aid the craft response as in a head sea. is to realize its full potentialities. Modern tech-
The actions of submerged and surface-piercing niques of analysis, inodel studies, and full scale
foils in response to these dynamic conditions are evaluations developed in allied fields are certainly
quite different. For V-foils the principal restoring applicable-although the problem is severely
forces are provided by changes in foil area. At complicated by the seaway. Even a cursory ex-
design speed these foils operate about half sub- amination of the reported effects of sea state on
merged, hence the maximum restoring force is sustained speed for conventional ships, however,
approximately equal to the steady state lift. Sub- shows that the speed losses incurred by them are
merged foils, on-the other hand, operate with a great. I t is felt that the prospect of alleviating
constant lifting area and meet changing flow con- this situation, for certain size-speed ranges, by use
ditions by changes in angle of attack as signaled of the hydrofoil is great enough to warrant further
by some surface sensing device. At low flying serious consideration.
speeds, restoring forces in the order of 3 to 4 times
steady state lift are obtainable without stalling.
ow ever, a t high speeds in a seaway, the permis- Sufficient information on hydrofoils is available
sible variations in lift coefficient,and the restoring to enable the designer to select the foil-strut com-
forces available, must be severely limited if cavi- bination to satisfy the design conditions. In most
tation is to be a ~ o i d e d . ~ cases, however, it is difficult to rule out all but
One cannot make generalizations about the one possibility and two or Inore approaches may
relative seakeeping capabilities of various con- necessarily be developed in prelininary design
figurations without considering the foils in their form before the choice becomes apparent.
relation to the motion of the entire craft. Cer- Generally, for small high-speed craft, the sur-
tainly trim, for example, plays an important role. face-piercing systems such as V or ladder configura-
Despite the many variables involved, a few tions are preferred for simplicity and reliability.
qualities appear inherent in each system operating As the size of the craft increases, geometry
in specific sea states. From the foregoing discus- usually dictates that the main lifting surfaces be
sion one may conclude that an automatically con- placed under the hull indicating submerged foil
trolled submerged foil craft will be superior to a configurations. The size a t which the complica-
V-foil craft in a following sea where relatively tion of automatic control of submerged foils is
large, slow changes of flow occur. Conversely, a required has not yet been definitely set but it
V-foil craft should perform better in head seas appears to be in the 25-50 ton range. Even below
where high frequency of wave encounter is pres- this size, submerged foils with surface sensing such
ent. Ladders offer one possibility of improving as the "Hook" configuration may be worth the
the following sea operation of area stabilized craft, extra complications if extreme seaways are antici-
if the added drag penalties can be accepted, since pated and good riding qualities are required. The
the higher foils of the ladder system can be placed ladder foil system will also give excellent seakeep-
a t greater angles of attack. The relative insensi- ing but inherently gives a rougher ride. The V
tivity of planing skids to orbital velocities indi- foil system while not as good in a seaway as some
cates why a Grunberg configuration shows better of the others, has proved to be one of the lowest
ability to fly a t low frequencies of encounter than drag configurations and should be considered
a V-foil craft. w!lerevcr speed and simplicity are important.
I t is perhaps too much to expect that the future Once the configuration has been indicated it
will see the development of a single method of becomes necessary to decide on a distribution of
stabilization which is optinlum for all o?erating the foil area. Here the location of the center of
O l e may fairly ask if i t is really necessary to avoid cavitation. gravity is of prime concern. The single foil with
Ref. [ l l ] , for example, presents test data indicating that the incep-
tion of cavitation is not accompanied by catastrophic effects on lift the main lifting surface under the center of gravity
and drag. From the point of view of stability, however, there is
little doubt that it introduces a significant, and relatively unknown, is practical in some instances, but may involve an
factor into an already complex problem. Here such danger as con-
trrl reversal must be considered. added drag penalty due to the necessity of a non-
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 257

lifting stabilizing surface. Also placing all the Hull design is a straightforward naval architec-
area in one foil increases the span and this be- ture problem influenced strongly by such factors
comes a disadvantage in the larger sizes. Foil as take-off performance, wave impact, and the
areas can be distributed fore and aft, in a "tan- concentration of loads over the strut attachments.
dem" arrangement with two nearly equal foils. I n smaller sizes, experience has shown that hulls
This has advantages but in quartering seas pro- designed for displacement or planing operation
duces asymmetrical loading and subsequent rack- usually have sufficient strength for foil operation.
ing. The third possibility of main area aft is not I n fact, in one case, a hull that was satisfactory
as common as the others, but works satisfactorily with foils was found to fail when subjected to
in some configurations. Generally, if the idea of a low speed planing operation.
inail foil supporting most of the weight is used,
the closer the center of gravity of the boat is to
this foil, the better the seakeeping qualities of the The over-all design of hydrofoil boats is ma-
boat. terially affected by the characteristics of available
Foil areas inust be carefully selected after due power plants. As in any boat or ship in the higher
consideration of the effect of various foil loadings. speed ranges, lower machinery weight and lower
Foil area contributes greatly to the parasite drag fuel consumption give a better design. In larger
and should be kept to reasonable proportions. I n sizes of hydrofoils, the great growth of foil size u ~ i t h
order to respond to sea conditions and the varia- increased over-all weight places an added penalty
tion in speed from take-off to full speed, a lift of on heavy machinery. Since, in general, machinery
3 to 4 times the weight of the craft should be pos- weight per horsepower increases with the capacity
sible without loss of lift. The stall lift coefficient per unit, this process is magnified to the point
equals 0.9 or 1.0; so, in practice, the design lift where very large hydrofoil craft may well depend
coefficient a t operating speeds cannot vary greatly for their existence on the development of very
from about 0.2 to 0.3 except for very high speeds light high-powered machinery. I n small sizes,
where lower values may increase cavitation free however, the hydrofoil can compete with other
speed. craft on an equal machinery basis. Fuel rate of
course cannot be unduly sacrificed in the search for
A great variety of foil sections have been utilized light machinery if reasonable range is to be kept.
for hydrofoil craft. Although most of them have
been standard aircraft sections there has been no Transmission and shafting design is unique in
indication of a universal preference. The thick- the hydrofoil case. Here, the power must be
ness ratio ranges from 4 to ISYO with the thin- transmitted from the prime mover in the hull
ner sections being necessary for higher speed down to a propeller a t about the deepest level of
craft. To delay the inception of cavitation, and to foil submergence, a distance in even a small boat
reduce drag, sections should be thin as possible of several feet. In addition, the propulsion sup-
consistent with strength. ports, gearing, bearings, and associated equipment
cannot present a bulky mass under the water or
Various standard aeronautical devices such as large drag penalties are incurred. Several solu-
sweep back, taper, dihedral, and careful inter- tions have been used, such as inclined shafting
section and ti;, design can be employed with equal from a point well forward in the boat, double
success in hydrofoils to improve the drag and right-angled gearing permitting a vertical shaft,
"flying" qualities of the configuration selected. and outboard motors in small sizes. The masi-
I t is, of course, important to keep all the immersed mum torque that can be transmitted through any
portions of the configuration hydrodynamically of these schemes is, to date, lower than that which
clean by the elimination of unnecessary intersec- can be carried on conventional shafting thus
tions, sharp corners, or unfaired protuberances. establishing the number of shafts required in larger
The primary requirement for strut design is hydrofoil plants greater than in a conventional
adequate strength with minimum drag but con- plant. For large sized hydrofoils, transmission
sideration must also be given to providing suffi- development beyond presently available com-
cient lateral area for turning. The maximum lift ponents is believed necessary.
coeilicient obtainable for a strut piercing the sur- I n estimating propeller performance and pro-
face a t 90' is about 0.3. The optimum strut shape pulsive coefficient, it is found that, unless the
varies from the submerged portion to the point propeller is placed quite near foil structure or
of surface penetration. However, most struts are other sources of flow disturbance, the hydrofoil
lcade unifonn in section and simple ogival (arc provides excellent flow conditions resulting in
form) sections have proved satisfactory in service. considerably higher values of propulsive coeffi-
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

cient than is normal for conventional craft of

similar size and speed.
To obtain a direct comparison with conven-
When considering very high speeds, the si~n- tional ships, a brief analysis of resistance by ship
plicity of air screw propulsion is most attractive standards seems in order. First, assuming identi-
and should be evaluated on an efficiency and cal weight, it may be found from a comparison of
weight basis against marine propulsion. To hydrofoils and planing boats in the higher speeds
achieve reasonable ideal efficiency of air propul- that the frictional resistance of the foil boat is
sion either very large diameters or speeds of approximately one-half that of a planing hull and
advance that are exceptionally high in terms of the residual resistance is about one-half that of a
marine practice are required. Thus, unless planing hull. l o
speeds well over 50 knots are desired, air propul- A typical example is as follows:
sion is not desirable. In addition, the effects of
wind on advance speed could be troublesome with
air propulsion. Good Compara-
planing ble hydro-
boat foil boat

The tasks of locating machinery, shafting, and Speed (knots) 44

other components in the hull, and the determina- Length, over-all (feet) 45
tion of arrangements are generally controlled by Displacement (pounds) 33,000
the foil configuration and propulsion means se- Wetted surface (square feet) 238
lected, and by weight and moment considerations. Frictional effective horsepower 367
However, good protection against spray for the Residual effective horsepower 402
pilot and excellent visibility should receive prime Total effective horsepower 769
consideration in these high-speed vessels. Also, Lift/drag ratio 6.1
if passengers are to be carried, suitable means Propulsive coefficient 0.5
should be provided to prevent injury from high Total shaft horsepower 1 ,53S
accelerations in the event of inadvertent high-
speed landing. Likewise cargo-securing provisions I t should be noted that in addition to a saving
should receive particular attention. in frictional resistance and in residual resistance,
The ultimate use of the craft and the means the hydrofoil has a slightly better propulsive
for handling it in harbors or a t piers should dictate coefficient since its propeller is operating in nearly
the amount of complication and weight that can open water unaffected by the proximity of hull and
be afforded for retraction of foils and propulsion. unequal flows. Thus the total shaft horsepower
Where size permits, some means of retracting foils required is less than half of that required for the
is desirable on any hydrofoil craft for maintenance planing hull.
of foils without drydocking. In craft which may The above calculation could be refined by tak-
be required to operate alongside piers or other ing into account the net difference in weight be-
ships, a means of retracting the foils to positions tween these boats due to inclusion of hydrofoils on
within the over-all dimensions of the hull is nearly one, and larger engine and fuel weights on the
~ssential. other. However, this weight balance can be
varied by the designer by his power plant selec-
tion, type of transmission, endurance require-
Having examined the design problems of hydro- ments, and materials used. With equal endurance
foils, it is apparent that the initial cost of such and comparable power plants for the two boats
craft will undoubtedly be greater than that of in question, the following approximate weight
conventional boats or ships of similar size. There- comparison shows them to be equal. However,
fore, i t is important to compare hydrofoils with the foil boat would have about one-half the operat-
other surface craft to determine where this cost ing cost for smooth water operation, and in most
can be justified in terms of operating advantages. sea conditions this margin would improve for the
foil boat.
Comparisons are first made of characteristics of
specific types for the purpose of establishing the
relationships of size and speed to power required. '0 This breakdown of resistance, admittedly somewhat artificial
for hydrofoil craft, can be made by first determining frictionalresist-
Following this, a study based upon suitable di- ance by the Schoenherr formulation appl~edto the wetted area of
immersed foils and appendages. The frictional resistance is then
mensionless parameters is presented to indicate to extracted from the computed or trial full scale resistance, leaving a
residual resistance composed of wave, induced, windage and inter-
the limits of possible hydrofoil design. ference drags as well as a form component of profile drag.
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 259

Weight Comparison (in pounds) Compara-

Displace- ble hydro-
Good Comparable
ment ship foil ship
planing hydrofoil
Component boat boat Speed (knots) 35 35
Length over-all (feet) 400 400
Hulln 13,350 13,350 Displacement (tons) 3,000 3,000
Pay load 6,500 6,500 Wetted surface (square
Foil system 0 7,600 feet) 18,500 8 , .500
Power plant 12,300 5,950 Frictional effective horse-
Fuel 3,320 1 ,600 power 12,000 7,000
TOTAL 35,470 35,000 Residual effective horse-
a Hull weights are assumed equal. although a 10YO variation in power 25,500 31,300
either is reasonable.
Total effective horsepower 37,500 41,300
Lift/drag ratio 19.2 17 . 5
This so-called "typical" comparison was de- Propulsive coefficientn 0.625 0.625
liberately taken a t an operating size-speed Total shaft horsepower 60,000 66,000
range that was reasonable for both the hydrofoil a No improvement in propulsive coefficient for the hydrofoil ship
and its nearest high speed competitor, the planing is given in this example. I t is assumed that greater transmission
losses will at least compensate for any improvement in propeller
boat. What happens to this comparison if it is performance over that of the displacement ship.
extended to larger and smaller sizes and to much Here we see the hydrofoil slightly worse than
higher and lower speeds? the conventional ship on a speed-power basis.
First, in the case of a large-sized, slow speed Assuming nearly equal power plants, the extra
craft, consider these characteristics of a small weight required for foils and struts, transmission,
merchant ship : and control would come out of pay load or range,
leaving the hydrofoil inferior to the displacement
Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 knots ship on a smooth water basis. Rough water sus-
Length over-all. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 f t tained operation might make the two nearly equal.
Displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,200 tons One must note, however, that this size and speed
Payload and fuel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,000 tons for the displacement ship is not one that could be
Wetted surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,250 sq ft considered economical in the normal concept of a
Frictional effective horsepower. . . 1,260 ship and must be justified for other reasons such
Residual effective horsepower. . . . 1,965 as military requirements.
Total effective horsepower. . . . . . . 3,025 If speed were held constant and size reduced,
Propulsive coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 say by 50%, the above comparison would swing
Total shaft horsepower. . . . . . . . . . 4,200 sharply to the favor of the hydrofoil ship. Thus a
possible future for this type is indicated where
there is need to retain speed on smaller size. A
A4nattempt to determine the characteristics of general discussion of the feasibility of foil boats
a comparable hydrofoil ship leads t o immediate in these sizes is contained in a following section of
absurdities. Assuming a lift coefficient of 0.8 this paper.
(which is well above a desirable value), one finds At the other extreme of the size-speed range, it
that about 27,000 sq f t of projected wing area can be shown that the advantage for hydrofoils
would be required to lift the hull clear a t 15 knots. for very high speeds on small size is an increasing
Roughly, two hydrofoils of 30-ft chord and 450-ft one. Although cavitation will undoubtedly affect
span would be needed-and i t would be utterly the performance adversely, inspection of lift-drag
impractical to place them under anything re- ratios attainable for sections under full cavitation
sembling a reasonable hull. Moreover, the fric- indicates that, even here, the hydrofoil should be
tional resistance would be more than doubled, able to surpass the ratios attainable with planing
while the residual resistance would be increased boats [ l l ] . -4lthough practical experience with
fivefold over that of the conventional craft, with fully cavitating foils is lacking, intuitively, i t
a resulting requirement in excess of 20,000 shp. would seem that a hydrofoil under full cavitation
Clearly, to get any possible hydrofoil either speed would have a lift per unit area roughly equal to
must increase, or size reduce, or both. the difference between dynamic pressure on the
To make a more reasonable conlparison, one bottom of the foil and vapor pressure on top,
may consider a displacement of 3,000 tons and a while a planing surface has dynamic pressure on
speed of 35 knots as a design point: the bottom and atmospheric pressure on top, thus
260 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

giving the hydrofoil an advantage. However, standpoint of speed, power, size, and load capa-
many unknowns nlay affect this simplified picture. bilities, the hydrofoil is superior to other forms of
The possibility of stabilization difficulty has water transportation above Froude numbers of
already been mentioned. Thus to stay within the 0.6 to 0.7, and that below this limit, if con-
bounds of reasonable experience, conlpare a dis- sidered a t all, a hydrofoil l~iustbe considered
placement planing boat with a hydrofoil a t 50 011 other specialized grounds.

knots which is believed to be practically attain- No very definite data were available to the
able by both. The characteristics are as follows: authors on the design particulars of foil boats a t
supercavitating speeds. Therefore, the extreme
Displacement Planing hull Hydrofoil end of the hydrofoil band and its slope a t very
Weight (pounds) 50,000 50,000 high Froude nun~bersis questionable. However,
Speed (knots) 50 50 i t would appear that other considerations, such
Shaft horsepower 3, GOO+ 1,200 as stability, control, or structural integrity set the
probable limits on the attainable Froude nui~lber
Thus, even with a liberal allowance for foils and with hydrofoils.
struts, a three-to-one advantage for the hydrofoil
boat in power would result in a substantial in- SIZELIMITATIONS
crease in range or pay load. From the previous discussion of speed and
This set of colllparisons while bracketing the power, it is found that hydrofoil boats are un-
areas of advantage and disadvantage for hydro- economical in comparison to other types below a
foils, leaves considerable gaps to be filled to place Froude number of about 0.G to 0.7. This fact
thc hydrofoil in a definite relation to other forms indicates a nlini~nunlspeed for each size of hydro-
of water transportation. As an aid in this problem, foil boat. By reference to Fig. 14 it inay be seen
an attempt has been made to compare ships, that this relation indicates a inininluiri speed of
boats, planing boats, and hydrofoils on a fair non- about 40 knots for a 400-ft ship bearing in mind
dimensional basis. A "transport efficiency" ex- that length, as used herein, is merely a measure of
pressed as maximunl speed times pay load size or bulk, assuming a hull of normal coefficients
divided by shaft horsepower was selected as one and weight loading for fast ships as shown in Fig.
parameter, and the ordinary Froude nuinber 1.5.
based on maxirnunl speed and over-all length was When discussing the rnaximuin sizes and mini-
selected as the other. Plotting these values for munl speeds for successful large hydrofoil craft,
various specific types caused these types to group low resistance or high lift to drag ratio is nlost
thenlselves into definite patterns, Fig. 13. AS important, since this feature controls the propor-
would be expected, at very low Froude numbers tion of pay load and fuel that can be carried.
characterized by slow ships or very large ships, These factors not only contribute to the economics
extremely large values of "transport efficiency" of che craft but also determine whether it will have
appear. -111 the limit, of course, a non-propelled sufficient capability to be useful a t all.
barge would have an infinite value on this plot. Even with high lift to drag ratios in the order of
As speeds illcrease and sizes nloderate in the 13 to 20 in nlind, other limitations appcar. First,
vicinity of Froude nurnbers between 0.6 and 0.7, while cavitation can be tolerated in high-speed
the band for displacelnent ships has dropped s~liallcraft, it would reducc the lift to drag ratio
sharply to relatively low values. Continuing this to unacceptable amounts in a larger cargo type
process the band for displacement types drops to craft. Therefore, assunling low lift coefficients
near zero which indicates an upper limit of feasible for the foils a t top speed, an approximate speed
Froude nunlber since the useful load is calculated liniit of about 45 to 50 knots can be established
including fuel. for these larger craft. The intersection of this
A second band originating around a Froude speed lirnit with the zone of minimum speed for
number of 0.6 is discovered for planing forms. hydrofoil craft on Fig. 14 indicates a rnaximum
This band drops a t a slightly lesser slope indicating size in the order of 5,000 tons. Whether even this
higher possible Froude numbers for this type of limit can be reached in practice, or would be de-
craft. sirable if found practicable, is open to question.
Further to the right (higher Froude number and A typical ship of 500 f t will displace 15,000 to
higher efficiency) the family of hydrofoils appears, 19,000 tons while a lighter, slinlmer design might
showing considerably less droop and much higher go as low as 8,000 tons. Using 8,000 tons as an
efficiency than other types in the higher Froude example, and choosing optimistic values for hy-
numbers. Thus from this form of linlited analy- drofoil resistance and propulsive coefficient, the
sis, the conclusion is indicated that from the shaft horsepower required f o r 50 knots, on foils,
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 26 1

FROUDE NUMBER
3
262 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

would be over 300,000 hp. By very rough esti- for maximum wave drag recovery is dependent
mating, this would leave no allowance within only on speed, and since in large cargo type hydro-
8,000 tons displacement for any fuel, let alone pay foils a savings in the order of 20 to in resist-
load. Thus, the percentage of weight which must ance is involved, wave drag recovery controls,
be allocated to machinery places an additional within limits, the relation of physical size to speed,
limit on maximum craft size, unless very radical calling for longer hydrofoil ships as speed in-
future developments make available large capac- creases. As may be seen from Fig. 14, the curve
ity power plants with specific weights (Ib per hp) of maximum wave drag recovery falls slightly be-
in the order of 25y0 of those of present units. low the zone of minimum speed of economical
Still another factor in the speed-size problem hydrofoil craft, emphasizing the wisdom of de-
is the possibility of wave drag recovery by use of signing to the minimum profitable speed for a
tandem foils. Since the spacing between foils cargo type hydrofoil ship.

190 rpo a00 400 4p o APPROX. LLnof H PT. -

0
1000 ZOO0 3000 4000 =OoO DISPLACEMENT TONS -
FIG.14.-POSSIBLECHARACTERISTICS
FOR LARGE HYDROFOILS
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 263

If the best existing weight per horsepower ratios duce hydrofoils outside this range. For the
are used for plants in the 10,000 to 100,000 hp present, it is believed that these sizes may be con-
range, if the effects of wave drag recovery on sidered a t least qualitative limits--ones which
attainable lift to drag ratios are considered, and if may actually be dil%cult to obtain in practice.
propulsive coefficients including shaft and gear Some of the dificulties in obtaining even these
losses in the order of 0.5 to 0.6 depending on speed sizes are: (a) limitations on maximum torque
are assumed, it is possible to estimate the power that can be absorbed in a single transmission of
required and hence the machinery weight required the right-angled or V type; (b) the large foil size
for the larger sizes of foil craft a t various speeds. co-npared to hull size brought about by the fact
Fig. 14 also shows, in approximate terms, the that foil lift increases as the square of a linear di-
relation of size to speed and to the percentage of rilension while weight increases as the cube of a
total weight required for propulsion power. By dimension; and (c) the fact that strut thickness
reference to data on displacenlent ships a t com- (or the number of struts) must increase with size
parable speed--length ratios, about 30y0 allow- out of proportion to other dimensions, even when
ance for machinery is the maximulii that could be Froude scaling can otherwise be maintained.
considered useful in a cargo type if any range is to
be obtained. If this is so, Fig. 14 would indicate In favor of increased size are the opportunities
that the maximum size of useful hydrofoil ships for making foil configurations and propulsion
would fall in the range of about 1,500 to 3,500 devices relatively cleaner, the possibilities for the
tons a t a speed of about 40 knots, depending upon use of wave drag recovery to increase efficiency a t
which portion of the minimum speed band is higher speed, and the fact that as long as geometri-
selected. Of course, special requirements that cal sinlilarity of foil configuration can be main-
overshadow reasonable efficiency, or new develop- tained with constant speed and foil loading, the
ments resulting in lower plant weights, may pro- stresses in the foils themselves are independent
of size, although this relation does not exist for
the struts.
I t should be noted, however, that in all of this
appraisal of larger sizes of hydrofoil ships, further
development of a reliable control device for sub-
merged foils is a prerequisite since a t large sizes
(over about 100 tons) it does not appear feasible
to provide sufficient lifting area or high enough
lift-drag ratios with surface-piercing foils.
Special cargo handling, docking, and launching
facilities would probably be required for large hy-
drofoil ships since a t these sizes retraction of the
foils would be most unattractive. Thus these
ships would have an increased draft over conven-
tional craft of the same size when not on the foils.
Also, the foil span with relation to hull beam
grows with size to the point that handling along-
side would become infeasible. Other difficulties
that appear with size increase include the need
for the protection of the foils against fouling and
the need for provisions to inspect and repair
minor foil or strut damage without the opportu-
nity to bring them out of the water except by a
complicated docking procedure.

I t may be concluded that hydrofoil supported

craft are feasible and, within certain limitations of
maximum size and minimum speed, are superior to
DISPLACEMENT - TONS
displacement or planing craft on the basis of
speed and power. While further development of
stability and control features can improve the
264 HYDROFOIL

seakeeping qualities of hydrofoils, they generally as a commuter's ferry would provide could be
provide a smoother ride and maintain speed in a operated a t lower cost with hydrofoils; pleasure
seaway better than conventional craft. craft of high speed could be placed within the
What the future brings depends on the contin- reach of the average sportsman if and when mass-
ued effort t h a t is put on this problem. Certainly produced foil systems are made available; and
niany applications present themselves. Fast, military applications for relatively snlall stable
comfortable, point-to-point passenger service such high-speed craft undoubtedly exist.

REFERENCES
[ I ] Guidoni, A., "Seaplanes, Fifteen Years of 1937; English translation by A.I.(T) Air Ministry,
Naval Aviation," Journal of the Royal -4eronauti- R.T.P. No. 666, March, 1938, 'I'echnical and
cal Society, Volume 32, No. 205, January, 1928. Research Bulletin, No. 1-8, August, 19.5 1 , T h e
[2] Nutting, iV. W., "The HD-4, a 70-hliler Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engi-
with Remarkable Possibilities," reprinted Smith- neers.
sonian Report for 1919, Publication 2595, Govern- 181 Vladirnirov, A., "Approximate Hydro-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1921. dynamic Calculation of a Hydrofoil of Finite
[3] Coombes, L. P., and Davies, E. T. J., Span," ZAHI Report No. 311, Moscow, 1937;
"Note on the Possibility of Fitting Hydrofoils t o English translation, Admiralty Document, PG/-
a Flying Boat Hull," Royal Aircraft Establish- 33280/NID, May, 1946.
ment, Farnborough, Report No. B.A. 1440 [9] von Schertel, H . F., "Tragflacherlboote,"
November, 193'7. Handbuch der Werften, Band IT, Schiffahrts-
[4] Sottorf, W., "Experimental Examination Verlag, Hansa, Hamburg, 1952.
of the Question of Hydrofoils," Report No. 181!2, [ l o ] Sachsenberg, G., "About the Econol~lyof
German Research Establishment for Aircraft, the Traffic with Hydrofoil Speed Boats," Hansa,
Institute for Seaplane Development, Hamburg, No. 30/31, 1932.
December, 1940. [ I l l Benson, J. M., and Land, N. S., "-In In-
[5] Grunberg, V., "La Sustentation hydro- vestigation of Hydrofoils in the N.4CA Tank;
dynamique par ailettes immerges: Essais d'un I-Effect of Dihedral and Depth of Submersion,"
systeme sustentateur autostable," L'aerotech- NACA Wartime Report L-7.58.
nique, No. 174, 16th year, June, 1937. 112) Ward, L. E., and Land, N. S., "Prelinli-
[B] Keldysch, M. V., and Lavrentiev, M. A., nary Tests in the NACA Tank t o Investigate the
"On the Motion of an Aerofoil under the Surface Fundamental Characteristics of Hydrofoils,"
of a Heavy Fluid, i.e., a Liquid," paper to ZAHI, NACA Wartime Report 1,-'766.
Moscow, 1935; English translation by Science [13] Abbott, I. H., von Doenhoff, A. E., and
Translation Service, Cambridge, Mass., STS-7.5, Stivers, Jr., L. S., "Summary of Airfoil Data,"
November, 1919. NACA Report No. $24, 1945.
171 Kotchin, N. E., "On the Wave-Making [L4] Hoerner, S. F., "Aerodynan~ic Drag,"
Resistance and Lift of Bodies Submerged in 19.51.
Water," Transactions of the Conference on the [13] Uurand, iV. F., "Aerodynamic Theory,"
Theory of Wave Resistance, {J.S.S.R., Rloscow, Volume 2, Durand Reprinting Committee, 1943.
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 265

DISCUSSION

DR. K. S. h1. DAVIDSON, Illember: A boat that speed and airplanes combining small weight with
tries to sprout wings and become a hydrofoil high speed. Further, if we add lines to the chart
craft is evidently in something like the same fix as showing constant values of the speed-weight
a caterpillar that tries to sprout wings and become product, WIT, which may be called "vehicle
a moth. -4 long period of incubation seems to be momentum" (in ton-knots), we see also that in
needed for both. But, just as the butterfly does going from the ship to the airplane the loss of
eventually emerge from its cocoon, so, i t would weight is nothing like compensated for by the
appear, the hydrofoil craft is now emerging into gain of speed, and that in consequence the air-
the light of day. plane has much less monlentum than the ship.
I t is not t h a t there have been no successful Now, i t is an easy step from this picture t o
hydrofoil craft it1 past years. I t is rather that the the suggestion that a third type of vehicle with
main engineering aspects of the design of hydro- speeds and weights more or less midway between
foil craft have not been brought out for discussion those of ships and airplanes might have a useful
nor have the main difficulties that stand in the place in the scheme of things, and i t is natural
way of further development been made clear. enough to ask the question of whether hydrofoil
The present paper does much to remedy this state craft might some day fill this role.
of affairs. The question is a big one. The paper gives
I have been especially interested in trying to data for various hydrofoil craft. I have entered
get an idea of the long-range possibilities of hy- spots for these on the chart, and i t will be seen
drofoil craft in the broad picture of overseas that except for the hypothetical 3000 ton-35
transport vehicles. At this stage I suggest that knot combination, they fall far short of matching
one may allow himself a fair measure of latitude in the vehicle momentums even of existing airplanes,
thinking about this, and that it may be rather fun. let alone falling midway between ships and air-
As matters stand, we now have two types of planes. The authors' contention that there is
overseas transport vehicles in actual operation; room for further development in hydrofoil craft is
ships and airplanes. In Fig. 16 of this discussion, therefore, from the point of view I am discussing,
showing speed versus gross weight, we see a t putting the matter rather mildly.
once that spots for these types tend to form two I t is of interest t o note t h a t if means should be
islands which occupy very different regions of the found for increasing materially the sizes of pres-
chart, ships combining large weight with low ently existing hydrofoil-craft designs, a t the

GROSS WEIGHT (LOG SCALE)

FIG. ~~.-SPEED-U'EIGHT
CHARACTERISTICS
OF SHIPS,AIRPLANES,
A N D HYDROFOII.
CRAFT
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

sanle Froude number, craft eventually would be, crease of weight and/or increase of speed (raising
produced having characteristics about midway of Froude number) greatly simplifies the design
between those of ships and airplanes. Naval oE a hydrofoil craft.
architects arc accustomed t o the concept of Thus, we come to the Inore or less inevitable
si~nilarperformance for geometrically similar ship conclusion noted in the paper t h a t the "natural"
forms ~~lovirig a t the same Froude number, and t11e area for hydrofoil craft is that of moderate weights
same concept applies to hydrofoil craft if we let in combination with relatively high speeds on the
weight increase, as in ships, with the cube of the water. I think this must remain true unless we
linear dimension. For present purposes i t is suffi- are prepared to enter into a major research and
cient to write the Froude number as lr, TV1/"which development program embraci~lg hydrody-
is of course proportional to the British @ coeffi- namics, structurcs and power pla~its.
cient) and I have drawn several lines of constant The superior riding qualities of hydrofoil craft
Froude number on the chart. What I a m saying in head seas, although not yet very well docu-
is, then, that presently existing designs of hydrofoil mented in a technical sense, are nevertheless
craft have Froude numbers something like rriidway universally attested to b y all who have had actual
on a geometric scale between those of ships and air- experience of them.
planes. This trleans that they have something I n my opinion, the authors have done a ulasterly
like the correct geometric configurations to meet job in co-ordinating and summarizing a complex
the hypothetical requirement I am suggesting, subject. They have my congratulations.
because, again as in ships, the geometric configura-
tion for best performance is a function of the MR. J. C. NIEDERMAIR, Member: The authors
Froude number. deserve a lot of credit for developing su clearly
But having the correct geometric configuration the present status of the hydrofoil craft. Much
is a long way from being the whole story. Very speculation has gone on over the long years since
large increases of size of presently existing hydro- the early attempts were first made t o raise a
foil craft, a t constant Froude number, to bring boat above the surface of the sea. I believe that
them into general alignment between ships and much of the lack of practical success has been due
airplanes, would carry us far into unexplored to an overoptimistic approach to the problem.
territory. This is true with respect to all three of This paper should help in tempering down the
the major categories of hydrodynamics, structures, excessive predictions which have been customary
and power plants. Very little thought is needed by those deeply interested in promoting research
to convince oneself t h a t i t is certainly no easier, work on hydrofoil-supported craft.
and may well be more difficult, to effect large in- The problem is largely a practical one. I t
creases of size in hydrofoil craft than in any other simmers down to about three or four basic condi-
type of water-borne ship or boat. The combina- tions :
tion of large size and high speed is hard to get, (a) Hull design which is, as the authors state
and that's that. it, straightforward naval architecture.
The 3000 ton-% knot combination noted in (b) Hydrofoil design which is now principally
the paper, the point for which is spotted in Fig. a matter of selection for configuration and
l G , herewith, is a much more realistic goal a t the strength.
present time. Yet even this goal is far from (c) Propulsion machinery which currently is
simple to reach as matters stand today, particu- only suitable for the propulsion of relatively small
larly with respect to structures and powering. craft.
As a matter of fact. 3000 tons and 33 knots is (d) A due recognition of the fact that the
about the combination one finds in conventional principal problem is control of craft in level
destroyers (which, incidentally, have very short flight.
ranges a t full speed). The paper suggests that, Stems (c) and (d) are the real problems. Some
for this combination of weight and spced, roughly progress is indicated in the solutions of ( d ) , b u t in
the same characteristics may be expected for order to make any great strides with hydrofoil
either a displacement ship or a hydrofoil craft. craft some radical change must be made in the
I myself came t o this conclusio~la year or two ago, propulsion-machinery weight-and-space require-
a t which tirne it occurred to me t h a t one might ments, as well as in the fuel rate per horsepower.
su~nmarizein some such way as this : The present limitations in propulsion machinery
Starting with :3000 tons and 35 knots: (a) limit the hydrofoil craft strictly t o small sizes.
Any increase of weight and/or decrease of speed Hence I heartily agree with the authors' corlclu-
(lowering of Froude number) greatly simplifies sions wherein they limit the craft to ferry service,
the design of a displaceinent ship. (b) Any de- pleasure boats, and some sinall 111ilitaryvessels.
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

I note that authors seem to feel that the propul- lower than that of a propeller blade. Any
sive coefficient probably will be more favorable in roughness resulting froni manufacture, anti-
the hydrofoil craft. I doubt this to be the case. fouling coatings, or fouling growths definitely
Another point which seems to be underrated, in will affect hydrodynamic efficiency, including
the dreams concerning the use of hydrofoil craft, likelihood of earlier cavitation and, therefore,
is the performance in high winds and confused will be an important problem.
seas which is the standard condition in the winter The authors state that the knowledge of the
North Atlantic. effect of surface roughness on resistance of con-
There appears to be a place for these craft but ventional ships is far from adequate. While I
a t the present time it is not in competition with agree it is not entirely satisfactory, a great deal is
large vessels such as the transatlantic liners. known about it and best of all we do know in
This is quite obvious if we take the results of the general what to do about it.
simple shaft-horsepower relationship for hydro- The authors rnentiori the maximum torque
foil craft that can be transmitted through the type of
drive system needed for a hydrofoil craft. I t is
11.3 X displt. in tons X speed in knots
Shp = - -- - not clear what is meant by this. Perhaps, the
lift over drag ratio authors can clarify this point.
From this it will be seen that it would take about a They also state that higher propulsive coelfi-
million horsepower to drive a ship having a dis- cients may be obtained with the hydrofoil boat as
placement of 50,000 tons arid speed of 35 knots. compared to conventional craft. This is not
This is roughly T, tiines the power required for a necessarily true; in fact the opposite is true in
well-designed displacement vessel. sorne cases. Higher hull efficiencies may obtain,
as much as 1.:3, where wake gain more than offsets
MR. R. B. COUCH,Member: This paper is thrust-deduction losses in certain single-screw
very timely in that it does much to dispel some of conventional ships whereas i n a hydrofoil craft,
the mystery that has surrounded the hydrofoil with a propeller operating in a comparatively
craft. I t is an excellent summary of the situa- free flow, the hull efficiency is likely to be about
tion as it now exists. I hope that the paper will 1.0.
interest some others who previously have not The authors point out the advantages of a
worked on this type of craft and, perhaps, bring submerged-foil system, especially for larger craft.
forth new ideas which will more rapidly advance Such a system, as they also state, requires de-
the development of hydrofoil boats. velopment of a suitable automatic control system.
The authors have discussed hull form in connec- High-speed craft, with whatever system is de-
tion with take-off and landing but have not veloped, operating into head seas will involve
stressed the importance of the hull form in rela- rapid and continuous reversals of motions of
tion to seaworthiness when hull borne. Since foils, linkages, and so on, so that wear and tear
the hydrofoil system is somewhat vulnerable to alone on equipment will impose extremely diffi-
damage, it is highly desirable that the basic hull cult engineering problems.
be seaworthy when circumstances prevent foil- I have been associated with the authors in
borne operation or when power is lost. Because sorne of the hydrofoil work discussed in the paper
of this consideratioti it appears necessary that the arid feel that they are to be complimented on their
hull be somewhat conventional even though a excellent presentation.
simplified hull inay be suitable for foil-borne
operation. MR. S. A. VINCENT, ,Ifemher: In the section,
The authors mention the probable loss of foil "Size Limitations," the authors delve into the
efficiency through fouling of the foils themselves. possibilities of vessels up to several thousand tons
This is certainly an important point especially displacement and speeds of 40 to 30 knots.
with regard to large craft with noruetractable Having observed the development of motor
foils. The performance of the foils may be com- transportation, planes, radar and television I no
pared to the performance of marine propeller longer believe in considering seemingly hopeless
blades. I t is well known that propellers suffer new ideas to be iinpossible of solution. llIy
appreciable loss in efficiency even with minor comments are not intended to he discouraging,
fouling in the form of slime accumulation. In but we should face the facts as we see them and
the case of high-speed vessels with a low per- endeavor to overcome the obstacles.
centage of in-port time nrost hard growths may be A great deal can be learned frorn model basin
washed from the propeller blades; however, the tests in waves, but not the whole story. 1Iany
water speed of a foil on a high-speed boat is much valuable ship-model tests in waves have been
268 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

made in our Newport News basin, but we do not and even large vessels tnust slow down in heavy
overlook the fact that urllike the usual model weather. We averaged (i knots in a "-knot
basin uniform trochoidal waves, the seas that a vessel during the hurricane that 1 mentioned.
ship encounters are neither regular in length or In other words weather occasionally limits the
height and confused cross seas occur, wave crests top operating speed of "surface" ships regardlcss
are frequently very abrupt as distinguished from of the horsepower available. The three alterna-
the mathematically smooth rounded crests of tives for high-speed transoceall tralisportation
model-basin waves, and the surface of each major seem to be :
ocean wave is usually composed of a number of ( a ) Nuclear-powered fast comlnercial service
local smaller waves. cargo-passenger submarines.
Seagoing vessels encounter waves of 10 to 20 (b) Aeroplanes-these are not entirely inde-
f t in height from hollow to crest during fine pendent of weather and depend upon seaborne
weather and 30 to 40 ft, or even higher, during shipping for return-passage fuel, and the like.
bad weather. By wave height I mean feet from (6) The hydrofoil-supported ship suggested
hollow to crest. While a t sea during a hurricane for study in this paper.
last winter my estimate of the wave heights was I have mentioned a few practical obstacles to
about double that of the experienced ship cap- be considered in the development of the latter
tain's estimate. I t developed that his basis was for unlimited international operation. Serious as
that wave height is based on the height of the they may seen1 now, these obstacles may not be
wave crest above mean sea level instead of above insurmountable. In nly opinion it is well worth
the wave hollow. This may explain partially the while occasionally to include such thought-
wide variance in estimated wave heights so often stiliiulating papers in the Society's proceedings.
reported. The authors deserve our congratulations for their
If a hydrofoil-supported ship followed the excellent paper.
ocean wave-surface profile, using the Grunberg
configuration shown in Figs. 1 and 7 of the paper, MR. ROBERTR. STEELE, Life Member: The
the vertical acceleration would be intolerably history of engineering indicates that dramatic
high even in fine weather. The passengers and developments like the hydrofoil are retarded not
crew would need stout seat belts and the structural a t all by our awareness that the devclopment will
stresses on both the ship and the hydrofoils would reduce our life expectancy and further enslave us
be enormous. This leads to the thought that a to the insurance companies. We prefer fun to
successful hydrofoil seagoing vessel should oper- sanity.
ate, as the authors indicate, with the hull con- That said, we are able to thank the authors for a
tinually above the highest wave crest and in my fascinating paper.
opinion with but little, if any, pitcliilig or heaving My comments concern submerged foils, only,
motion. To this end it seems necessary that the because surface-piercing foils do not appear to
supporting hydrofoils be continually below the hold promise of licking the classic problem of
lowest wave hollow. On such a basis the upper- keeping small craft moving a t speed in rough
most hydrofoil surface would have to be well over water.
50 f t below the keel for scheduled year-round Ignoring structural limitations for the moment,
ocean service. This may not be structurally let us assume a strut length equal to the height of
impossible. the highest wavc likely to be encourltered in a
-4 practical hydrofoil vessel involves several particular service plus the foot or two necessary
totally new conditions that require consideration. to maintain circulation about the foil when
Could such deeply submerged hydrofoils be re- it is below wave troughs. With this strut length
tracted to permit entering 30- to 40-it-depth the magic-carpet ideal could be realized if con-
harbors a t slow speed and to permit dry-docking? trol were related to horizon rather than to the
What would happet1 if a whale or substantial approaching water surface. The Grunberg and
submerged object seriously damaged the below Hook trimming planes and other surface-following
keel units? How would the propulsion be ar- devices-no matter how gloriously electronic-
ranged? Stability is involved, having in mind provide the antithesis of this ideal.
not only the wave effect but also the wind effect Now, acknowledging structural limitations and
on the vessel. the elusiveness of horizons, would not a com-
hfost normal seagoing ships can maintain their promise employment of a surface "averager"
top service speed in fine weather. The lighter dis- rather than a surface "follower" be an improve-
placement high-speed vessels such as destroyers ment? A partially immersed vertical strut-like
must reduce speed in only moderate head seas rnember suspended so as to respond to changes in
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

DAMPING WEIGHTS BALANCING WEIGHTS

BALANCE, &Xi'

I I
I I
I I
\ ',
+-%
Y N0.2 ~ ~ OR STRUT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
vAVERAGER \ (IF DESIRED)

RADIUS TO - FOR'D

PIVOT \

FIG. 17.-PARTIALLY
IMMERSED
TYPEOF SURFACE
"AVERAGE"

If two are used, one to port and one to starboard,

each actuating independent foils, or port and star-
board ailerons on a single foil, both trim and list
control are obtained. So much for the averager.
In the jockeying of ailerons or independent
port and starboard foils, to obtain transverse
stabilizing moment, it may be that we counte-
nance unnecessary drag. Can we not obtain
stabilizing moments by traversing the main foil
along its axis (Fig. lrij to port to counteract port
heeling moment, to starboard to counteract star-
board heeling moment?
The traversing foil need never trade lift for
buoyancy, when suitably dampened, could be control. There are no ailerons to disturb circula-
such an averager, Fig. 17. tion; no inefficient angles of attack required for
The "averager" is as small in section as satis- independent foils. Another advantage of the
factory stabilizing action will permit, in order to traversing foil is that the actuating force is not a
minimize drag. I t exerts no lift other than its -
function of the stabilizing moment. The ac-
buoyancy. When a system employing this de- tuating force is no more than that required to ac-
vice has been tuned for optimum inertia, the celerate the foil athwartship, whether the correc-
pitching of the craft will be no more than necessary tive moment is 10 lb-ft or 1,000,000 Ib-ft.
to keep the hull bottom clear of the crests and the Incidentally, the traversing foil offers interesting
foils immersed in the troughs. In short waves possibilities for sailboats, both hydrofoil-sup-
where the system would tend to oscillate un- ported and displacement types. In the latter the
necessarily, one or more additional "averagers" foil replaces ballast, permitting reduction in
can be employed, spaced so as to make their scantlings and easier lines, and consequently,
total lift remain almost constant. Thus, smooth higher speeds.
sailing. Regarding hulls for hydrofoils, it is surprising
Of the many schemes employing the "averager" to learn that the inverted vee-bottorti has not
that come to mind perhaps the simplest is pivoting been used. (A typical inverted-vee section is
the balance so that i t alters angle of attack of a indicated in Fig. 18.) Six advantages of the in-
stabilizer via a lift line. verted vee over the hulls shown in the paper are:
I t may be found desirable to put the stabilizer (a) The stresses a t the moment connection of
aft in order to gain a longer balance arm and con- strut to hull are distributed to the skin panels with
sequent smaller amplitude of oscillation. In any less concentration a t the fillet. (b) The conical
case the balance arm is adjustable in length to skin panels require less stiffening to absorb these
suit varying courses and surface conditions. stresses than do the warped skin of more usual
In slow-speed embodiments where the averaging hull types. (c) Struts may be shorter, thus re-
need not be done ahead of the elevator, the ducing the stresses a t the moment connections
averager can be the foil-shaped sheath of the still more. (dj The take-off power hump will be
strut itself, on which i t is slidably mounted. This lessened because the inverted-Gee hull. when well
eliminates one element of drag. If just one designed, rises to planing without change of
averager is used, trim control only is obtained. trim. I t does not have to clitnb over a wave of
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

D. JL

its ow11 t ~ ~ a k i n g .( e ) The take-off power hump aboard-although it is ad~nittcdthat if ally of

will be lessened further because of the obtuse those hypothetical saucers were still u~~soilecl, it
angle between strut and bottorn; no "wire-draw- was o ~ i l ybecause they were no longer occupied
ing" of the water between strut and hull. (f) by cups.
Untoward landings with an inverted-vee bottom I t would seem that the cushionii~gclynatnics of
are cushioned, when compared to those of rllore the inverted-vec are particularly worthy of the
usual hull types. scrutiny of hydrofoil clesigners, for a t high speeds
One I I I U S ~ have ridden an inverted-vee-bottom crash landings are sure to occur clue to collision
boat in rough weather to appreciate the validity of foils with obstructiolls, and it is doubtful that
of the last clairn. There were thirteen of us we can make effective use of parachutes.
aboard a 35footer, last October 2 b d , trying for The authors devote rnuch space to comparing
size the 4 to 6-ft waves of a typical 25-mile north- vee-bottom planing boats to potential hydrofoils.
easter. After having run down a quartering sea But they do not erl~phasizethat these colnparisons
a t better than 30 knots, without a trace of yaw, hold good only in picnic weather, the or~lyweather
and around a 180-deg turn with no more than a 3- in which vee-bottom boats can plane. Such
deg roll or list--call i t what you will-we decided colnpariso~~sare unfair to the hydrofoil. In-
to take her upwind as fast as we could go without verted vee-botto~liers,011 the other hand, put on a
throwing her clear: Waves two points off port better show. They can plane ill gale weather-
bow; average speecl for 1 nautical mile, 33 knots. reducing throttle, or tacking, o111ywhen necessary
I t would have been difficult to drink coffee on this to forestall being throw11 clear. .11id in smooth
run without soiling the saucer. water they can carry 60 lb per hp a t 35 niph, 4.5 lb
But i t was just after this run, while still a t per hp a t 40 niph, :36 a t 45, 31 a t 50, and 1'7 a t
speed, that we come to the main point of this 3.5-much rnore than their vee-botto111 rivals-
story. A windward island, a shoal, and some but not enough to preelnpt the hydrofoil.
thoughtless seamanship, collaborated to produce
two oversize waves, dead ahead; perhaps 10 i t DR. VANNEVAR BUSII,IIonoiary .lfe~aber: This
in height and steep. We-all 27 toms of us- paper is an exceedingly useful docun~ent. The
left the water twice before the throttles were authors are to be comme~icleclon many aspects of
backed off. the paper, but 1 find especially helpful the treat-
The few people who have had an analogous ex- ment of the range of speeds and weights within
perience in an orthodox planing boat know that which hydrofoil-supported craft offer interesting
the landing impact is an explosiol~,leg bones are econonlic possibilities.
fractured, and solid water comes aboarcl. In Yet the paper leaves out of cot~siderationthe
this instance, with an inverted-vee bottorn under most interesting form of such craft. This is not
us, no bones were broken and no water came surprisitlg; and no criticism of the authors is
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

implied, for rnuch information in this field is, or flight. The craft as shown is readily flown, in
has been, classified for security purposes. moderate weather and a t various moderate
In Fig. 19 is shown a craft built for the Navy by depths of submergence, with the altitude control
The Hydrofoil Corporation. I t is of tandem disconnected, in fact with no controls whatever
submerged-foil type, of 10 tons weight, 35 f t long, except those for lateral stability.
with 22 f t beam. I t utilizes about 200 hp from a The paper under discussion notes, but does not
Chrysler marine engine. I t is controlled by a emphasize, the fact that craft with submerged
Sperry autopilot. foils operating in undisturbed water should have a
An important feature of this craft is that it higher value of L I D than craft with surface-
embodies the constant-lift principle in its foils. piercing foils. The improvement may be sub-
This greatly modifies performance and calls for stantial. In discussing this point and also that of
elaboration of some of the statements in the paper. rising on foils, the paper points out the limitations
For constant lift the foils are pivoted ahead of as to what can be accomplished due to variation in
their center of lift. The control force, which angle of attack of a fixed foil resulting from vector
holds thein in position to exert lift, is applied addition of the orbital velocity to the velocity of
through a resilient ~nember. This member is the craft. This is further discussed in connection
made equivalent to a very long spring by a cam with head and following seas. With the con-
or lever arrangement. On a larger craft the same stant-lift principle applied to the foils these effects
procedure may be applied to a flap. The result is are substantially absent. A foil which is freely
a lift which is independent of a number of factors pivoted, and resiliently constrained, can follow
which otherwise wbuld affect it, and equal, under the changes in angle of the resultant water velocity
equilibrium conditions, to the load carried by the with respect to the foil. Such following is not
foil. The load rides on an elastic cushion in- perfect, for the foil has inertia; but it can be
stead of on a rigid support. made close except a t high frequencies of wave
A number of interesting results follow. A encounter, and a t these high frequencies orbital
very important one is that the foils adjust auto- velocities are small. The motion is highly
matically to the changes of angle of incidence due damped. Thus, within limits, one may neglect
to orbital motions, within limits set by inertia of the effects of orbital motion in connection with
course. The lift is thus substantially constant on such matters as maximum utilizable lift coefficient
passing through waves. Hence, there is very and the like, and performance in rough water is
little vertical acceleration, or departure from made to approximate closely that in smooth water.
level flight, in a seaway which otherwise would In a submerged-foil craft the active foil area is
produce a rough ride. The crest-to-trough height constant, whereas in a surface-piercing-foil craft
that can be negotiated depends of course upon the it varies with speed. The paper points out the
length of struts. effect of this on the hump a t takeoff, the necessity
There is little or no alteration of lift with change for ample power to override the hump, and the
of fore-and-aft trim. The old bugaboo of hydro- angle of attack a t cruising speed. This is all
foil craft, a tendency to porpoise, is overcome by sound comment. But there is no reason why a
removing the cause. This will be especially im- submerged-foil craft may not be supplied with
portant a t high speeds, when the angle of attack auxiliary foils for use on takeoff, which may be
of foils is very small, and when conditions are retractable or set so close to the hull that they are
thus present such that a sudden perturbation in the clear during flight. The submerged-foil
in trim is capable of initiating porpoising, or a craft then becomes a variable-area craft, and
violent impact with the surface. Independence of conditions regarding the hump are decidedly
lift from trim angle simplifies the control problem altered. Whether such addition is desirable de-
a t all speeds. pends upon the design ratio of takeoff to cruising
Now, even with fixed submerged foils, there is a speed. The craft, illustrated in Fig. 19, takes
small inherent stabilizing tendency. Such foils lose off a t about half of maximum cru:sing speed and
lift and also drag, as they approach the surface. does so in a few lengths. The process of taking
This becomes of importance only when the sub- off incidentally merely involves opening the
mergence is comparable to the chord as the paper throttle.
points out. But with constant-lift foils the effect There is not the slightest doubt that hydrofoil
is much enhanced, owing to a shift of center of craft will Fe used extensively in the future. The
lift as the surface is approached." There is general idea of having a hull above the waves,
thus a strong tendency to seek a fixed level of and supporting means beneath, eventually will
provide a new means of transport, intermediate
" T h i s effect has heen measured in the tank a t the University of
California in Berkeley b y J . S. Ausman. between air-lift and displacement carriage. The
272 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

problen~of control, which has held up the a r t for a that cat1 proceed through rough water, a11t1ignore
long time, has beeti overcome; and we now have the waves, is on the way. I n a few years there
excellent theoretical treatlnents on which to will be hydrofoil craft of lilany types ; ~ l i c Idesigns
base design. flying about the coasts. \\'lien that occurs prog-
'The surface-piercing foil has an undoubted field, ress will beconie autoll~aticand irresistible, and
especially in small sizes, where simplicity is one will wotlder how there could ever ha\.c Ixen
paraniount. For larger sizes the submergetl-foil so Inany skeptics.
craft is definitely indicatetl on account of its
higher L/D ratio, and its greater f r e e d o l ~from
~ AIR. DAVIDD. BE.\CII, A.~,~o(:in/e .llen~her:
wave action. I n this corlnectiotl the paper seerns This well-prepared paper no tloubt Ilos been
to ine to be somewhat preoccupied with the need receivecl gratefully by the slnall ilu~llberof naval
of a hydrofoil craft to follow the surface. I would architects who tlabble in the dcsigli of high-sj,ecd
prefer to reverse the emphasis for in the roughest pleasure craft. For those who eventually will
ocean trade routes the maximum waves 8.5 per be confronted with a hydrofoil-design co~nrllission,
cent oi the time are only 20 f t or less. Craft the paper will be cagerly stutlied as a colnplete
~incloul~tecllywill be built for relatively fast sea expos6 of the basic proble~nsof the subject.
tnuisport, which will handle any seas to be en- Speaking from persolla1 experience, \vl~ichgoes
countered and proceed a t full speed with a sub- back only 2 years to the time I includetl some
stantially level platform. As this occurs the pictures of a German three-poilit hytlrol)la~~e
principle of constat~tlift will be utilized, for it fittecl with hydrofoils in all article on racing craft
silnplifies control and cancels out nearly the last in the Rudder, I have fount1 a widesprcntl in-
vestige of the effect of wave action. -1 craft terest it1 hydrofoil craft in this country. 'I'his
 FIYDROFOIL CRAFT 273

Chrysler 16.5-111) Iioyal ~iiarine c ~ l g i ~ i etlriviiig

,
direct.
Figs. 2l and 22 show the selltie bont a t speed.
I n waves of about ;iIn, or about 222 ft, a sus-
taincd cruisiilg speetl of .5(i km per hr is reportetl.
T h a t is about i3.5 niph. 'Top speed in less rough
seas is given as 6.5 k ~ i per
i Iir; about 30 nipli.
4 Fig. 23 shows a protluction r u ~ i a b o u tnrhicli
. bears a strong family rese~iiblance to the two
I boats previously ~nentioncd. This boat is of the
type which was to be i~itroducedt o the American
- - boating public a t the 10.54 National )lotorboat
Show. This boat is a 20-iooter arid the forward
-- -
r - - _ -
--
surface-piercing foil is about S ft ill bean1 in the
forni of ;L flattened oval, ~ i o tvcc'd. T h e craft
I-
shown attains L: speetl of :32 mph with o ~ i l y:;0 111),
1:1c. 22.---Tor SPEEI) CRUISER40
01.. ~IPH with a n "all-up" weight of about 1600 Ib.

iriterest has evolved into two design jobs urhich T h e .American cousins of this craft, owere red
curreiitly arc co~itinuiliga s tlevelol,~iiental proj- with Ford V-S co~ivcrsiorisof the standard type,
ects with the ultimate intelltion of prod~lctio~i b u t given the "full house" t r e a t ~ i i e of ~ ~hoppi~ig-
t
~~iodels. up ruli ill the high forties wit11 a n ":111 up" weight
I t is of inil)ortunce to note t h a t there are a t of just under 2100 lb.
least three bont huiltlers in this country who are T h e writer wishes to concur wholehcartctlly
engaged in serious ant1 advanced work with hy- with the co~iclusions rcachcd by the authors,
tlrofoils i11del)endent of governtne~it subsidy. especially t h a t as to sea-keeping- yualities of
'l'liis does not i~iclutlethe \I-cst Coast c a t a m a r a ~ i hytlrofoil boats. Tlie real thrill that comes rro1i1
builder who has fitted hydrofoils to his 30-ft ruilnir~ga t 40 ~ n p hthrough the waves froin a lake
sailing catanlaran with 110 s ~ n a l success.
l freighter without the sla~iiming and pouritli~ig
T h e writer recently receivetl from Fritz Vertcns ~ l s u a lin a co~i\;e~itio~iully ~ ~ l a ~ icraft
i ~ i g~ i i u s thc
a packet of photographs, prints, and tcchnic:ll cx~eriericedt o bc believetl. X slow b u t steady
information on the current ~)roductsof the Vertens ad\lance and acceptance of hydrofoils b y t l ~ c
Yachtwerk, ~ i i c ~ i t i o ~ i ei ltll the paper. C e r l a i ~ i boatiiig public in the next sc\?eral years may I2e
of the pliotograplis call bc shown. expected.
Fig. 20 shows a c o ~ i \ ~ c ~ i t i oappeari~lg
nal scda~i-
type cruiser of XQ ft 9 ill. l c ~ i g t hover-all. I t has a. ~ I RFRITZ
. V E R T R N SI, ?'.\itor:
~~ 111 311 i ~ n l ) o r t a ~ i t
bean1 of S f t 2 in. on deck ant1 displaces a bit over respects, the writer is in a g r e e ~ i ~ ewith ~ i t the re-
"j metric toris or about 5100 lb. This is a light-
clisplaccment craft. I t is powered with one
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

sults and explanations given in the paper. The The general shape of the wave-resistance curve
writer's company has built hydrofoil boats since of a displacement craft is similar to that shown in
1942. The experimental VS-7, Fig. 5 of the Fig. I1 of the paper, except that the rnaximunl
paper, was the first craft of this type which left occurs earlier. Beyond a Froude number, of say
our plant. The hydrofoils for these first boats 0.5, the wave-resistance increase with the speed is
were designed by Professor Tietjens himself. less than quadratic. I t is agreed that the wave
A number of boats also have been built according resistance is a stumbling block, but at extrenle
to our own plans, but in all cases we have held to speeds it is rather the high frictional resistance
the system of one forward main surface-piercing due to the great density of water which precludes
foil combined with an aft elevator with which we any reasonable progress i11 ships following ortho-
have had good results as regards speed and sea- dox lines.
worthiness. D. W. Taylor has introduced the useful concept
During the war, two smaller jet-powered hydro- of resistance per unit displacement which is
foil boats of 2 tons' displacement were built and identical with the gliding Inember; i.e., the in-
reached 120 kill Per hr (75 m ~ h ) . These were verse of the lift drag ratio. 111 the writer's
remote-controlled. opinion naval architects should stick to the
The writer agrees with the opinion expressed in slightly modified ~~~l~~ concept.
the paller, that probably boats with vee-foils
The authors will forgive for expressing the
(to which we should like to add those of semi- that the second part-the evaluation of
circular shape) will be used in either main foil or the hydrofoil conceptp-is llot quite on the sallle
'ystenls u p to about j0 tons' level as the first part of the This is due
merit. Above this size, boats with submerged
to an inherent dicculty of the problelll as to
foils and electric autopilot foil control will prove
how to appraise vessels of different classes and
more advantageous. Beginning with this 30-ton the lack of basic information on ilnportant
size, the price per boat will warrant inclusion of
elements, especially in so far as hydrofoils are
autopilot foil control concerned.
In sizes between 10 and GO tons it is expected
that there will be transitional types too; the A ship has to comply with many mechanical and
hydrofoils of which will also pierce the surface, economical fundar~ientalconditions of which the
but will not extend thwartships. powering is only one though perhaps the most
interesting item. Of necessity the authors have
DR. G. wEINBLUM, hlember: oneof the very based their analysis on the latter; neglecting
few revolutionary ideas in our old profession is cavitation (a very serious omission!) it can be
the hydrofoil principle. The first part of the reduced to some extent to the simple resistance
preseIlt paper is academic in the best problem. A discussioll of the limiting size of
E~~~~~~~~~ should be mentioned the lucid ex- hydrofoils based on resistance or gliding number
position of the stability and seaworthiness prob- performed by Graff whose paper as
lelns and the appraisal of their importance on the as by and Tietjens be
development of craft. To the writer's knowledge added to the list of references.
the reasonii~gon the behavior of hydrofoil sys- Within the limitations of the present assump-
stems in a seaway is well supported by theory tions the lowest gliding number which can be
and experiments. The expository nature of the attained by a hydrofoil craft fixes i~nn~ediately
paper by no means impairs its high level and its maximum economical size by coinparison with
scientific value. Except for neglecting problems the performance of good orthodox ships. The
of steering and cavitation it is the best synopsis so concept of transport eficiency used by the authors
far presented on the subject. is clearly a better figure of inerit than the gliding
There is a minor statement with which the number when suficient data are available, but
writer does not quite agree; that in ships and in the present state of knowledge its advantage
boats at higher speeds the power is proportional may be treacherous. Therefore it seems to be
to about the fifth power of the speed. Probably perferable for the time being not to attach too
this remark is caused by an old resistance formula much importance to the problem of ~naximunl
proposed by Taylor, but later discarded by him. size of hydrofoil craft before some basic problems
Of course, one can find limited regions where the have been solved. This applies also to the maxi-
statement is approximately correct but, since in mum size of craft with surface-piercing foils
the present case we are interested in extremely estimated by the authors a t about 100 tons-a
high speeds, conditions also are actually quite value which represents fairly well present practice
different. but which can be outdated very soon.
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 275

M R . F. W. S. LOCKE,J~.,'"'isitor: The authors Parts of this phase are somewhat obscure and
are to be congratulated on a thorough and useful could be elaborated.
summary and evaluation of the state of The engineers who design ships instead of air-
knowledge regarding hydrofoil craft. Since the planes would be assisted by definitions of terms
beginnings of recorded history, increased speed of such as "circulation" and "vortex." The ques-
transportation has been connected intimately tion of drag is outlined, and unknown factors
with the rise of civilization. Alan will pay al- such as surface roughness are mentioned. How-
most any price to produce faster interchange of ever, the seriousness of air drag on the hull
commerce and ideas with his neighbors. 111 should receive further discussion. .4s the speeds
slightly over a century the average speed of involved are high and with the relatively low
ocean transportation has increased from something power, head winds could become an important
like 2 knots to about 20 knots. Further increases factor on whether the craft will fly. I t is not
in speed can come about slowly through refinement clear what the equation D = CDp;2SV" represents
of design details or be brought about rapidly as the total drag of the hydrofoil craft includes
through a fresh approach. different densities for air drag on the hull and
In the aeronautical field, the inaxi~numspeed water drag on the foils. Perhaps a sumn~ation
in level flight has been increased about 12 knots a symbol in front of Cis desirable.
year since 1903. This has been achieved by a In the discussion of miscellaneous design con-
willingness to try the fresh approach and not to siderations, the statement is made: "Foil area
be hampered by what has been done in the past. contributes greatly to parasite drag and should be
The authors are holding out a firm foundation kept to reasonable proportions." Parasitic drag
for a fresh approach in ocean transportation. such as surface interference is given as a functioii
The only barrier to be seen to acceptance of the of thickness, not area, in another section of the
broad ideas expressed in this paper lies in the paper.
minds of men. With a bold and unfettered im- For speeds between maxiinurn and takeoff, the
agination, these ideas can be applied to produce increased area improves the foil efficiency. In-
remarkable increases in performance. The re- duced drag is a function of the lift coefficient
sulting craft will not look like present-day ships, squared so that the decrease of this coefficient by
or will they be operated in the same manner. increased area improves the performance of the
Now i t is quite true in the case of hydrofoil foil. Increasing area through increased span will
craft that inventors have put forward what seemed increase the aspect ratio and tend to cancel the
to be preposterous claims in order to have their drag for area increase as induced drag is
case examined by the more conservative author-
ities. Moreover, this situation has been equally D .- Ci2 area
1-
true with a nunlber of other notable inventions aspect ratio
such as the airplane, the automobile, and perhaps
even steam-propelled ships. The limitation would be the strength of the ma-
I t has been the writer's pleasure and privilege terial used for the foils.
to work with the authors on this project in a very While the hull design is a straightforward naval
minor capacity. The authors have tackled the architectural problem as stated, it is also adifficult
sweeping problems brought about by the fresh problem. The hull has to be of unusual shape t o
approach by the basically sound method of avoid bad trim for water-borne operation for some
building a number of prototype craft, so that the configurations. As the flying stability is de-
advantages and deficiencies can be seen clearly. pendent on the location of the fore-and-aft center
I t is believed, therefore, that we are on the thresh- of gravity its location cannot be shifted for various
old of notable improvements in performance in cargo loads. This restriction can become a serious
ocean transportation with the aid of hydrofoils. arrangement problem. As also stated, longi-
tudinal strength for small boats is not a problem;
however as size increases, the two-point support
MR. JOIIN BADER,Menrber: The authors of while flying coupled with dynamic factors will
this highly interesting discussion of hydrofoil magnify the structural problems.
craft are to be congratulated for bringing together A logical sequel to this fine paper would be one
information on this subject. The authors state in which the engineer's viewpoint is presented.
as their third purpose, "to outline the problems The structural problems of foils, methods of
inherent in the development of these vessels." calculating turning and stability, and design
charts for drag could be presented for design
'3 Hydrodynamics Cont~lltant,Research Division, Bureau of Aero-
nautics. United States Navy, Washington, D . C. use.
276 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

RZR. J O H N G. BAKER,'^ Visitor: The authors vancement of hydrofoils than any treatise pub-
were careful to give the basis for their statements lished to date.
about scale effects in most cases, but in two in- While dealing with a highly technical subject,
stances they did not. The following statement is the authors have presented the subject in a manner
quoted from the paper: that any one interested in ships can understand.
"For large hydrofoil craft--where foil retrac- One of the most interesting problems in connec-
tion becomes clearly impractical-. . ." tion with hydrofoil craft is the selection of the
The authors' basis for this statement would be means of powering them. We have had some ex-
interesting. Offhand it appears that there is no perience with air propellers and believe that the
scale effect detrimental to large retraction gears speed of 50 knots tnentioned in the paper, as
more severe than structural scale effects in general. being the speed a t which one should consider
The retraction problem in hydrofoil boats seems to the use of air propulsion, is perhaps 10 knots too
be comparable to the retraction problem in aircraft fast and the air propeller a t least should be con-
landing gear, and the design of the latter is prac- sidered in most cases. The advantages and
ticed throughout a large range in size without disadvantages of air propulsion versus water
notable difficulty. propulsion are too involved to discuss a t length.
After outlining various propulsion schemes the However, i t might be of interest to mention that
following statement occurs: one of the most serious problems of air propul-
"The maximum torque that can be transmitted sion is the erosion of the leading edges of the pro-
through any of these schemes is, to date, lower pellers by the spray hitting them during the take-
than that which can be carried on conventional off period. In test our propellers, which are
shafting thus establishing the number of shafts made of aluminum, lost about 1 4 in. per 20 take-
required in larger hydrofoil plants greater than in offs. This has long been a problem with sea-
a conventional plant." planes and is being worked on by propeller
I t would be interesting to know why this is so. manufacturers constantly. The ability to solve
The writer understands that there would be a this problem may well decide the questioll as to
limitation on size if bevel gears are used, but the practicability of air propulsion.
since bevel gears are not necessary why should We should like to compliment the authors of
there be a limitation in general? this paper in delnonstrating for the first tinie the
possibilities of hydrofoil-supported craft on a
sound basis.
AIR. I<. H . MILLER.Associate AIember: The
authors are to be congratulated on an excellent
MR. E. P. CLEMENT, Assori(lte .Ifember: The
presentation.
authors have capably discharged the responsibil-
In the Suniiner of 19.53, the writer built and
ities which they assumed when they undertook the
tested a model hydrofoil boat 4 f t long and about 3
preparation of the first paper on hydrofoil boats
f t wide. I t consisted of three surface-piercing
to be presented to the Society. A good case has
hydrofoils inounted on a catainaran type of hull.
been made in this paper for the hydrofoil boat.
The iriodel had a lift over drag ratio of approxi-
This has been accomplished, however, largely a t
mately 535, which was fairly good considering
the expense of the planing-type boat, and there-
that there were seven supporting struts adding to
fore i t seems proper to make a few remarks in de-
the drag of the hydrofoils.
fense of the planing boat.
This model is mentioned because the cata-
Several comparisons of perforiiiance between
lnaran or twin-hull type of boat or a modification
planing and hydrofoil boats are made in the paper,
thereof would seem to be particularly well suited
all indicating a considerable superiority for the
for hydrofoil craft. I t provides a wide platform
hydrofoil boat. For example, a planing boat and
which eliminates foils ptojecting beyond the hull
a hydrofoil boat are compared on the basis of
and protects the foils when docking or maneu-
equal displacement and speed, and the shaft
vering in close quarters, and a t the same time
horsepower indicated for the planing boat is
Dresents a small.. ilarrow surface should the hull
three times that for the hydrofoil boat. An im-
strike a wave crest while under way.
portant point here is that whereas the figures for
the plat& boat are representative of d a t a for
W. P. CARL,JR.,'' Irisitor: Given the proper practical, operational planing craft of the con-
distribution, this paper will do more for the ad- ventional type, the context seems to indicate that
-- the corresponding data for the hydrofoil boat
I * President, Raker Manuiacturing Company, Evansville, Wis. represent predicted performance for a hypothetical
3 s Engineer in Charge, John H. Carl & Sons, Inc., Rockville
Centre, N. Y. boat, based on tank tests of individual hydrofoil
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT 277

components. Therefore it seems only fair to fornis, and so on. The work utilized the prin-
interject, that if the planing boat is examined on ciples set forth in "Extrapolation, Interpolation
the same basis, i.e., if hypothetical optimurn and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series" by
performance is calculated from towing-tank data, Norbert Weiner. I t was thus possible to de-
then the performance figures for the planing boat termine, within engineering tolerances, expres-
will be much better than indicated by the com- sions for power spectral density of atmospheric
~ ~ d r i s odata
n in the paper. turbulence. Further information on this work
A specific way of attaining such improved plan- will be found in a thesis by Clementson for the
ing-boat performance would beby meansof a design Sc.D. degree a t the lfassachusetts Institute of
utilizing two planing surfaces in tandem. Tank Technology.
tests of sirnple platling surfaces show t h a t a large I t is noted t h a t a somewhat similar effort is now
iinprovenler~t in performance over the conven- underway by the Woods Hole Oceanographic
tional planing boat can be achieved in this wa--. Institution, using a relatively small boat as one
Problen~sof stability and control would have to sensing means. I t is surmised t h a t i t is possible
be solved in order to realize a practical boat of to predict with reasonable accuracy the response
this type, which seems t o the writer to make the of such a craft t o a train of uniform waves ap-
situation very closely analogous t o that of the proaching from the bow. On the other hand, it is
hypothetical 30-knot hydrofoil boat of the present considered that it is difficult reliably t o predict
paper. .I tandem-surface planing boat would the exect of such wave train coming from any
probably not have as high a liftldrag ratio a s a point other than the bow, or in confused seas since
corresponding hydrofoil boat. However, the in a displacement craft the coupling between
hydrofoil boat, because of its foils, would have the rsll, pitch, and heave is difficult to consider in
disadvantages of increased weight, greater com- view of the highly nonlinear dynamic eTects of
plexity, greater vulnerability and higher cost. the bilge keels, flare, and the like, and last but not
least, the dynamical effects of the displacetnent of
AIR. L. E. S U T T O N 17isitor:
,'~ T h e juxtapositiorl the water itself. All these limitations in the
of the papers entitled, "An Appraisal of Hydrofoil consideration of the motion of a shin in a confused
Supported Craft," and "On the Motions of sea are noted in the St. Denis-Pierson paper, and
Ships in Confused Seas," is indeed fortuitous, for, these limitations in the opinion of the writer are of
in fact, there are ties between them. I t happens considerable moment.
that the design of autopilots for certain types of Consider now a subnlerged foil hydrofoil,
hydrofoils now requires data of the form and whose dynamics have been demonstrated to be
mathenlatical discipline included in the latter calculable in very much the same mTa.sias those of
paper. --\lso, there is a possibility t h a t a hydro- an aeroplane (which are now determined with
foil could be used to obtain information concerning consirlerable accuracy), but with the s i ~ ~ ~ p l i f i c a -
the energy spectrum of confused seas. In sup- tion t h a t the nonlinear body dfects of the aero-
port of such a hypothesis, attention is invited to plane are now absent. T h e thought is therefore
an analogous situation in aircraft work. proffered that such a hydrofoil could be used to
The aircraft people, as the a r t of automatic con- obtain reliable data more readily, leading to more
trol of high-speed aircraft became more and more intensive determination of the energy spectrum of
important in the latter years of World War I1 confused seas.
and increasingly so to the present day, determined
that considerably more knowledge was needed
concerning attnospheric turbulence encountered in COMMODORE HENRYA. SCHADE,USN (Ret.),
flight, in order that automatic controls might be llfember: I want only to call attention to the ef-
designed properly to minimize the effects of fects of some research work recently completed a t
"gusts." the University of California, which Paul Scherer
Since it was not possible to use "magic car- also has mentioned, upon some of the implications
pets" for data gathering and since data other in statements in the paper. This work is reported
than those a t ground level were desired, the next in the Ph.D. dissertation of John Stanley Austnan,
best thing was undertaken; i.e., to use the aero- entitled, "Pressure Limitation on the Upper Sur-
plane as the test probe. This was done by locking face of a Hydrofoil," dated August, 1953.
the airplane control surfaces, measuring pitch The important result really is the analytical and
rates in flight in "gusty" weather, autocorrelating experimental determination t h a t there exists an
the indicated rate of pitch, taking Fourier trans- upper limit of the pressure coefficient, on the
upper surface of a hydrofoil, which is directly pro-
16 C i h h s and C o x . Inr., N e w York, N. Y . portional t o the submergence, and inversely pro-
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

portional to the square of the velocity. I n ef- tion, making i t more difficult for a control system
fect, this places a very definitc limitation on the to provide the necessary response.
lift-drag ratio that can be obtained by a hydrofoil In extending this thought t o the subject of con-
when the submergence is low, which is not taken trol in general, we have among the discussers a
in account in the two-dimensional theory of wide band of ideas as to where the foil should oper-
Keldysch a ~ i dLavrentiev referred to in the paper. ate with respect to the surface of the water, par-
Consequently, the statement in the paper that ticularly considering operation in rough water.
the effect of submergence upon lift may be neg- At one end of the scale, it is claimed In the discus-
lected if the value of the submergence ratio is in sions that the foil should follow a level path and
the neighborhood of unity, seerns to me not quite that the struts should be made so long that the
defensible. The two-dimensional theory which entire wave will pass between the foil and the hull.
involves neglecting the surface effect upon lift A t the other extreme, we are asked to consider
which is used by the authors, will give an errone- following the surface contours, and accepti~igthe
ous result, I believe, if this effect which I mentioned surface eBects on lift and drag of the foils.
is not taken into account. The authors take a illiddle course in this con-
This reallv means that the flow of surface of troversy. From purely practical considerations
water of the hydrofoil not very deeply submerged i t is felt t h a t a foil craft cannot afford the weight,
is in effect weir flow, and the upper limit of lift can added strut drag, and general cornplexity of sup-
be determined in exactly the same way. Physi- port required to carry long tenuous struts neces-
cally this means in the extreme limit that the sary to permit level flight through any sea. On
pressure upon the upper surface cannot Le less the other hand, i t is not intended in the paper to
than that which results from atnlospheric pres- convey the idea, frorn surface sensing, that the
sure. craft must follow the contour of the wave exactly.
Rather, a middle course should be achieved in
which the craft tends to average the two extremes
MR. BUERMANN, Lieut. COMDR.LEEHEY,AND and come out with reasonable accelerations with-
COMDRSTILWELL: The authors feel a warm and out unreasonably long struts.
humb!e ?low a t the number and high caliber of the In concluding the discussion on this point i t
conlmen s on this paper. The paper is general in should be emphasized that the subjcct of flight
nature and attempts to cover the whole field of path and control systems is as important as it is
hydrofoils. The comments cover a field as broad controversial. I t is hoped that investigations
as the paper. The authors, therefore, decided to presently being conducted will provide the neces-
answer the more general comments, particularly sary answers.
those not well covered in the paper. There is no It is natural to proceed from control to a dis-
attempt to ignore certain specific comments, but cussion of theories that indicate a condition which
some of these are primarily in the category where gives the foil a downward tendency when it nears
opinion is predominant and actual test data are the surface. This is in ezect an aid to hydrofoil
still lacking. control.
As mentioned in the comnients of Dr. Bush the With regard to the comments of Commodore
paper does not 11rake mention, specifically, of the Schade and the recent unpublished work of J. S.
principle of constant lift. I t also was stated very Ausman (also referred to b y Dr. Bush) there is no
fairly that a t the time the paper was written, this doubt a s to the existence of effects which tend to
particular item was denied because of security reduce the lift produced by a foil as it approaches
classification, which has since been lifted. The the surface. With only the deqree in question,
constant-lift system described in the comment N h C h data [I 1 ] on hydrofoils of finite aspect
represents a novel method of tninimizing the ratio, as well as Ausman's own work for two-
effects of orbital motion. I t does not, however, dimensional flow, show that the lift coefficient does
simplify the hydrofoil-control problem, as stated, not vary greatly for submergence of one chord or
since balancing the forces on the foil has a desta- greater. From a practical design puint of view, as
bilizing effect, and constant lift in itself does not noted in the paper, lift coefficients are restricted
control foil submergence. This principle, there- to relatively low values for other reasons, and
fore, does not obviate the need in a submerged- submergences of one chord or greater are recom-
foil craft for a reliable, well-developed control sys- iiiended.
tem which maintains the foil depth. Further- As t o foil submergence for maxirnurn lift-drag
more, the introduction of a constant-lift system ratio, data taken from a hydrofoil craft with sub-
between the servo and foil must increase the fric- merged foils showed highest lift-drag ratios a t
tion and inertia effects in any practical applica- about one-half chord submergence. This is
 HYDROFOIL CRAFT

because reducing the submergence (where pos- with larger sizes. The main factor which sets
sible) produces a beneficial reduction in parasite the limit of total size which can be achieved, is the
strut drag which outweighs the adverse surface ability to pack enough power in the craft to reach
effects on the foil. the correspondi~~g Froude speed and still have
Considerable discussion has arisen concerning enough weight and space left for crew, pay load
the question of hydrofoils and their comparisor~ and fuel.
with planing boats. The authors have apparently To conclude this closure, the authors would like
been reasonably fair in this regard, since one dis- to restate their position that they are neither hy-
cusser says we are unfair to hydrofoils, while drofoil enthusiasts nor hydrofoil critics. The
another discusser says we are unfair to planing paper attempts to set forth the problem as it
boats. exists. We do not advocate rushing haphazardly
I t is necessary to discuss this subject further, into a large-sized ocean-going craft capable of un-
since one of the comments indicates that the com- limited all-weather transoceanic service a t this
parison inatle was based on a calculated hypo- time. 111 the small-boat sizes, as qualified by
thetical hydrofoil. We wish to correct any such some of the comments, the hydrofoil concept is
im!~ression a t this time. In the paper, it was the considerably beyond the infant stages accepted
earnest endeavor of the authors to use proved popularly. Further, by a painstaking develop-
data, or where proved data were not available, to ment through a progression of sizes (in which the
make reasonable design estimates based on actual practical aspects of the development of such things
operation of test craft. There was no attempt to as power plants, propulsion, control, and special-
assemble theoretical tank test data and present ized structures are achieved) eventually large
them as a design. The only place that this is craft may be developed.
approached is in the analysis of large-sized hydro-
foils where data are not available, and one must go PRESIDENT BLEWETT:011behalf of the Society
into the blue a certain amount. I wish to thank the authors of this paper and you
The question of the limitation on size is one gentlemen who have discussed the paper. I t has
which can merit considerable discussion. Suffice been exceedingly enlightening, and perhaps to
to say, as in the opening comment by Dr. David- many of us in the Society it has taken out some
son, the foil boat, to be in its natural environment, of the speculation that we have had with respect
must proceed on Froude scaling to higher speeds to these hydrofoil crafts.