Planning Hull

PLANING POWERBOATS WITH
MIDSHIP INTERCEPTOR AND AFT STABILIZER
The purpose of this presentation is to show an alternative for a more efficient

powerboat than the commonly used V-bottom boat.
The result of the investigations shows that speed can be increased by 25% with
the same power or that the power can be decreased by 40%.
The solution is to put an interceptor amidships to create high lift on a small surface
and in that way to reduce the frictional drag.
An interceptor is a small vertical plate that is pushed down under the planing
surface. This creates a high lift pressure in front of the interceptor.
An interceptor at the trailing edge of a foil has been used since 1971 in another
context.
Vaxholm den 30 September 2008

Jrgen Sass
www.sassdesign.net
A planing powerboat has a great area of friction. At
low speeds, when there is only static lift, this hull also
has an unnecessarily great wave drag.
A normal V-bottom is efficient at just one speed with

one load and one centre of pressure. Also, it is
difficult to achieve the optimum centre of pressure
while maintaining longitudinal stability.
To reduce the frictional area and get control over the

centre of pressure the stepped boat can be chosen.
But this alternative has high drag at low speed due
the suction aft of the step. In the same way as the
normal V-bottom boat, the stepped boat has just one
load and one speed at which it is efficient.
A boat with a midship interceptor has the smallest

frictional area in the higher speed region. The aft body
can be designed in such way that the drag at low
speeds also is low.
At high speed the drag will be about the same as on a

boat with foils, but a boat with a midship interceptor is
much simpler and sturdier.
The distribution of pressure on a flat surface has a

pronounced peak behind the leading edge and
practically no pressure at the trailing edge. The centre
of pressure is normally located one fourth of the
wetted length from the leading edge.
The surface with an interceptor at the trailing edge

has the highest pressure at the trailing edge. The
centre of pressure is located aft of the middle of the
(short) wetted length.
The lifting force from the planing surface and from the
interceptor are additive. Together they produce about
80% more lift than usual.
The lift force on a bottom with an adjustable midship

interceptor and an aft trim surface, also with an
interceptor, can be controlled by trimming the hull so
that a minimum of drag is created over a great range
of load and speed.
During the winter 2006 and spring 2007 some simple
tests was accomplished. These tests confirmed the
presumptions presented above.
Only two of the best models are shown here. The

boats are double chined and have an optimised beam
over the lower chine to create a minimum drag and a
soft ride in waves. By making the planing surface as
narrow as possible the deadrise can be reduced to
increase the lifting power and retain the same soft
ride as that of the deep V-bottom.
The test results are here shown in dimensionless

figures. These figures can be recalculated into all
speeds and loads. Above that the results can be
compared with those of other investigations.
According to these tests a small boat with a total

weight of 300 kg will be most efficient at 20 knots and
a boat of five metric tons at 32 knots.
The calculated air drag is the same for both boats. As

shown in the figure, the air drag is a significant part of
the total drag on an easily driven boat.
The results from these tests were so convincing that

the next step was to carry out a full-scale test.
In October 2007 a reconstruction of a boat was

carried out. The original hull is a Whisper 55, an
efficient boat for rowing or for use with a small engine.
The bottom was lowered a few centimetres amidships

to create a marked knuckle at the adjustable
interceptor. Aft of that knuckle is a ventilation pipe
located to provide air under the aft body at low
speeds before the interceptor creates full lift.
As expected, the first trials showed that the speed
could be increased by about 25% with the same
engine power.
To get as fair a comparison as possible, an engine

with long shaft and only eight horsepower was
chosen. This is the maximum engine power that the
original Whisper 55 was designed for.
The first trim foil showed that it was hard to get proper
balance in all directions. This was an unexpected
drawback. In the same way it was hard to find a
proper propeller for this small engine suitable for the
new higher speeds.
Many different trim foils were tested during the spring

and summer of 2008. Some of them created great
disturbance over the propeller. Others had too small a
lift force as they came too close to the surface. Some
foils created instability in all directions.
At last the original idea was tested. This solution has

the same principle as the forward lifting surface. The
present alternative is a flat plate with an interceptor on
the trailing edge. This plate is mounted on the
anticavitating plate.
This solution proved to be the simplest and most

efficient. By this means an acceptable balance in all
conditions was achieved. Furthermore, this permitted
a clean flow through the propeller thus increasing the
efficiency of the interceptor.
This report is just a short description of very limited
tests on only one boat. The result shows that the
technology works as expected. It also shows that
small changes can have great consequences.
Future investigations ought to be done to clarify the

limits and possibilities of this technology and to
answer the following questions.
Which deadrise and beam are most effective and

efficient in different sea conditions?
Which is the optimum transverse and longitunal

pressure distribution at different interceptor depths
at keel and chine, and at different speeds and
loads?
Which is the best weight distribution between the

two planing surfaces?
Where should the propeller be located to be most

efficient?
Can this technology be expanded into a wider speed

regime?
I will always be open to more detailed information

about this and other developmental projects I am
working with.
Welcome
Jrgen Sass
Vaxholm
Sweden
www.sassdesign.net
[email protected]
08 541 324 00

Planning Hull

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Hull

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planning Hull

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLANING POWERBOATS WITH

MIDSHIP INTERCEPTOR AND AFT STABILIZER

The purpose of this presentation is to show an alternative for a more efficient

Vaxholm den 30 September 2008

A normal V-bottom is efficient at just one speed with

To reduce the frictional area and get control over the

A boat with a midship interceptor has the smallest

At high speed the drag will be about the same as on a

The distribution of pressure on a flat surface has a

The surface with an interceptor at the trailing edge

The lift force on a bottom with an adjustable midship

Only two of the best models are shown here. The

The test results are here shown in dimensionless

According to these tests a small boat with a total

The calculated air drag is the same for both boats. As

The results from these tests were so convincing that

In October 2007 a reconstruction of a boat was

The bottom was lowered a few centimetres amidships

To get as fair a comparison as possible, an engine

Many different trim foils were tested during the spring

At last the original idea was tested. This solution has

This solution proved to be the simplest and most

Future investigations ought to be done to clarify the

Which deadrise and beam are most effective and

Which is the optimum transverse and longitunal

Which is the best weight distribution between the

Where should the propeller be located to be most

Can this technology be expanded into a wider speed

I will always be open to more detailed information

You might also like