Energy Efficiency of Sea and Air Vehicles

10 - Helicopter and Wing-in-Surface-Effect.. .... .-... s 50 11 - Seaplane and Light Airplane ....o..............o........ . 51 12- Transport, Patrol, and Bomber.......eoo*.oo....... 52 13 - Fighter and Research............. -e e s. ...... oe 53 - 14 - Sae..... ....... . . . . .54 15 - Sunua ry................o..6 o6oo*aoo 66666o.. . . .o .o 55 16- Summary with Space Vehicles. .......... o...........o..........56 LIST OF TABLES I - List of Group. .. .. .. .. 15 2 - Trend Line Equationse. . .oo ..... ........ . . . . . .. 30 Al - Group Designatorso.. . .ooo..... o......*.. . . .. A-1 .................................................... NOMENCLATURE A Aspect ratio of a wing, foil or lifting surface;'s 2 /S. B Breadth of vehicle c Chord length; distance from the leading edge to trailing edge of a foil C Coefficient, normally used with subscripts 2 CD Drag coefficient; D/(1/2) PfV S CDo Profile drag coefficient 2 CDi Induced drag coefficient; CL /T ae 2 CL Lift coefficient; W/(1/2) pfV S C v Total volumecric coefficient; V/LBT D Drag e Aerodynamic efficiency; specific resistance E Transport efficiency; WV/P F Froude number; V/ /gL g Acceleration of gravity G Specific energy L Length, overall, of vehicle P Power installed and available continuously; shaft horsepower a Span length of a lifting surface; distance from wing tip to wing tip. For a single-sided appendage like a rudder, the span is the distance from wing root to wing tip S Lifting surface area (planform) t Time T Thrust (static) available; depth of vehicle V Speed, maximum, of vehicle W Weight, maximum vi T) Overall propulsive efficiency; EHP/(P+TV) P Density; Pf - fluid, PV - vehicle V Total enclosed volume of a vehicle; (NOT displacement) vii ABSTRACT A reassessment of naval vehicle performance leads to the definition of specific energy as a significant measure of vehicle performance. Specific energy is an energy efficiency equal to the product of transport efficiency and Froude number. In terms of specific energy, the empirical performance data for fluidborne vehicles collapse revealing systematic trends with Froude number for fully-immersed buoyant vehicles, surface ships, and dynamic-lift vehicles. Specific energy appears to be a new consistent basis for comparing the overall technical performance of past, present and future naval vehicles. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION It would be very helpful if we had a measure for evaluating the re- lative worth of vehicles. The measure of worth would be all the more valuable if it was related to the efficient use of energy, to the first principles of physical mechanics, to the various technologies for the primary vehicle subsystems and to the costs of the vehicle. Such a measure would be easy to use if it could be expressed in terms of a simple number which applies to all powered vehicles. Such a lofty goal sounds somewhat like a pipedream. Perhaps we are closer to realizing some of these aims than we have been aware. Simple comparative evaluations of the engineering merits of water- and air-craft could be quite helpful in selecting those vehicles which are needed to carry out Coast Guard missions. It could help us get more productive capability for the energy expended and put our money to best use. It could help us decide what subsystem technology developments to pursue with scarce development dollars and thus gain the most improvements in performance of future ships, boats, and aircraft. This work is but a first step in the attainment of a few of those elusive goals. The approach used is rather fundamental and is based on empirical data. An original paper from 1950 forms the basis for the proposed work. In this section that original paper and the subsequent development of its ideas are described. The expansion of lift-drag-ratio is traced, via specific power, to transport efficiency as a promising measure of overall vehicle performance. Attention is paid here to both the promise and its limitations of the original work. The inconsistencies 2 are given to show what must be overcome to gain our objectives. In the second section, the approach to the problem is presented. Specific energy is evolved and described. This provides a new basis for analyzing the technical data. In the third section, the data are presented. The way in which the data were collected, grouped and treated is given in brief. In the fourth section, the plotted data are discussed. The trends are described and the implications are addressed. The main text ends with the conclusions. It is not intended to answer all the questions posed or to resolve the conundrums in one fell swoop. It is intended to gain a new basis for answering many of those questions and to resolve many of the inconsistencies by gathering current vehicle data, by replotting them and reanalyzing them. The complete details of the data are given in the appendix. BACKGROUND The growth in kinds of vehicles since the turn of the century makes it sometimes difficult to select the best craft to buy from the wide variety of available craft. For future operations, with expanding Coast Guard missions, it can be particularly difficult to choose, for instance, between a cutter-based helicopter, an air cushion vehicle, or a hydrofoil. Perhaps the future cutter should be a small-waterplane-area-twin-hull (SWATH) ship. Will an airship be needed to supplement the other air-surface craft of the future? On an intuitive basis, one might feel sure that one or more of these, or a follow-on surface-effect vehicle of some sort, will have a valuable role in the Coast Guard. But how does one tell? Without getting into questions of mission effectiveness, let us review those aspects of the history of engineering measures which led to the present work. LIFT DRAG RATIO In this century, the dimensionless lift-drag ratio has been used as a simple measure of vehicle performance. This simple force ratio has served developers well for a long time. It was sometimes called the "drift"or "gliding" ratio and indeed still relates directly to vehicular performance. WHAT PRICE SPEED? It appears that a good basic approach to the vehicle evaluation problem was put forth by Gabrielli and von Karman at the end of World War II. They collected and analyzed data on all kinds of vehicles and present- ed their work in a paper entitled "What Price Speed?"* They stated, "the problem of comparative merits of various means of locomotion is considered merely from an engineering point of view." Their work covered submarines, railway vehicles, trucks, cars, airships, helicopters and several classes of ships and airplanes. They plotted values of the installed power (P) divided by vehicle gross weight (W) as a function of maximum speed (V) for each type of vehicle. Gabrielli and von Karman also used a dimension- less quantity, e - P/WV, which was called "specific resistance". From these data they found an envelope which represented the minimum value of specific resistance for each group of vehicles. These envelopes are called "group curves". The group curves were then transferred to one * A complete listing of references is given on page 37 in a alphabetical order by author's name. If any author has more than one reference, the year of the report is given in the text. 4 diagram as shown in Figure 1. That figure does not show all of the Gabrielli von Karman data. That figure was taken from a report by Mandel (1969) who removed all of the land vehicles. The present author added the curve for hydrofoils as of 1973. LIMIT LINE An overall limit line was found for the minimum value of specific resistance, considering all vehicles. Along this line, which will be called the GvK line or the limit line herein, the specific resistance is proportional to the maximum speed. The equation for this line was expressed: e = 0.000175 V (where V is in miles per hour). Their diagram reveals a surprisingly consistent trend. It is re- markable that such dissimilar vehicles as merchant ships, railway cars and high-speed airplanes, when considered together, should be the vehicles which require the least installed power per unit vehicle momentum (P/WV)*. The position of the limit line changes slowly with time. As new vehicles are developed, the limit line moves so that its position can be identified at, say, the end of each decade,i.e., 1950, 1960, 1970, etc. On an empirical basis, this limit line represents the "best" vehicles which humans had put together with the technology available at the time. TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY Most people now use the inverse of specific resistance (E I/e WV/P) which is called "transport efficiency". An equivalent expression *It has become usual practice, in this connection, to speak of weight momentum (WV) rather than mass momentum. 5 for this parameter is the product of overall propulsive efficiency (J) and lift-drag ratio (W/D)*. Propulsive efficiency can be defined as the ratio of effective horsepower to shaft horsepower (I- EHP/SHP). Because EHP is just drag times speed (DV) and installed power (P) is the shaft power, it follows that WV/P -jW/D. This shows how simply transport efficiency is related to lift-drag ratio. Both parameters are non-dimensional. Something about "What Price Speed? can capture the imagination. Soon after that paper appeared, several investigators tried to develop the original ideas of Gabrielli and von Karman. Davidson (1951A, 1951B, 1954, 1957), Lewis, Crewe, 4andel (1962), Gouse and Swarden, and Silverleaf and Cook, tried to evaluate or compare various craft, at least in part, on the basis of such data. The scope of those studies is extremely broad. It encompasses virtually every kind of vehicle known and involves a very wide variety of vehicle performance factors and characteristics. Transport efficiency has the advantage of wide applic- ability. Considerable effort was put into finding useful specific equations relating transport efficiency and other technical parameters, although connections with economic factors were sometimes sought. Davidson (1951) made perhaps the most detailed study. One difficulty was that there were too many variables. In a sense, part of the problem was, and still is, to identify the most pertinent parameters. The fact that different nomenclatures are traditional in the fields of Naval Architecture and *W is used as the symbol for lift because, in equilibrium, the vehicle weight and lift must be equal. The notation L is reserved for use as overall vehicle length. 6 Aeronautical Engineering complicates the problem. Other unusual observations were made of the Gabrielli-von Karman work. The original diagram shows apparently continuous coverage of vehicles near the limit line through the entire speed range. When land vehicles are removed from the diagram, as shown in Figure 1, a large vacant space appears between the limit line and the "best" available air-sea vehicles at medium speeds, roughly from 40 mph to 200 mph. Within this triangular-shaped area, there is a single fluidborne vehicle: the airship. Its transport efficiency is quite a bit higher in its speed range than that of any other group of airborne or waterborne vehicles. For this reason, airships have been considered an unexplained exception, although airship advocates may simply say this indicates an airship advantage. Marine Engineers became more aware of the triangular gap. The pro- ponents of many kinds of marine vehicles seized upon "filling the gap" as a rationale for acquiring development funds. It appears that, at one time or another, the following vehicles were so promoted: planing boats, hydrofoils, hovercraft and wing-in-ground-effect vehicles, either as general classes or in more specific configurations. None of these has demonstrated values of transport efficiency of the airship group and certainly none has even come close to achieving a value close to that of railway vehicles. It is surely pertinent to ask "Why not?" In most cases, the promoters simply over-estimate the potential value of transport efficiency. We shall see that serious over-estimates can be avoided in the future. First it is instructive to discuss the various interpretations of transport efficiency data. INTERPRETATIONS There are several ways of interpreting plots of transport efficiency as a function of vehicle speed. These interpretations generally conform to the notion that least power per unit vehicle momentum is "best": 1. The maximum value of transport efficiency is "best". 2. The vehicle group which has the greatest value of transport efficiency, at given speed, is "best" at the speed. 3. Vehicles which lie closest to the limit line are the "best" vehicles, for a given state of technology. The first interpretation leads to consideration of large tankers (super- tankers) as the "best" vehicle and to the further conclusion that they are "best" when their speed is least. Thus the "best" vehicle would be a ship at zero maximum speed where its transport efficiency is limitless. This interpretation would apply to any displacement vehicle as well. The second interpretation is better, but leaves us seeking an explanation for the continued use of vehicles whose transport efficiencies are significantly less than airships. The reasons must lie elsewhere. This leads to the third interpretation. The difficulty with this last interpretation is that we need a convenient way of applying this criteria. What is needed is a direct quantitative way of expressing the distance that any vehicle group curve lies from the limit line. Peter Crewe published a way of overcoming this difficulty in 1958. He undertook an evaluation of the future prospects of hydrofoil craft. This work included a most well-considered (and extended) use of transport efficiency as a measure of vehicle performance. He pointed out that when the data were plotted in terms of WVX/P a as function of V, the limit line appears 8 as a constant maximum value*. He expressed the value as 750 ton-knots/ horsepower, which is equivalent to 5160 knots. Crewe's figure, reproduced here as Figure 2, shows that the hydrofoil group curve crosses the destroyer group curve at 35 knots and both groups have significantly lower transport efficiencies than large tankers or airplanes. The airship group curve is not shown in Figure 2, but would lie near the middle of the triangular area. A way of using Crewe's parameter will be described in the next section. Transport efficiency can be used in many other connections. It can be extended to indicate the comparative performance of marine vehicles in rough water as well as in calm water (Silverleaf and Cook). It is directly proportional to range (Jewell). Specific power** is the primary determinant of vehicle first costs and vehicular cost growth with time (Dix and Riddell). Thus it seems certain that some form of transport efficiency is a significant measure of vehicle worth. In a sense, the GvK line covers much more than technical factors. In a broad sense, it is influenced by all of the factors considered by those who built and paid for every vehicle ever made. In this sense, the limit line is representative of the economic, political, legalistic and militaristic considerations as well as the technical limits of vehicle performance. It is an empirical definition of vehicle limits. But what of the limitations of the previous interpretations and applications. How can these limitations be removed? *The equation e- 0.000175 V leads to this constant as P/WV -0.000 175/mph or WV 2/P 5 710 mph . **Specific power is the power-to-weight (P/W) ratio. 9 4. APPROACH A critical examination of the works cited show that Gabrielli and von Karman were on the right track; that the limit line represents the "best" vehicles in an empirical and significant way. What is lacking is a simple numerical way of making that information useful: that is, "What quantitative measure can be'used to find the distance that the any vehicle "Group Curve" lies from the GvK line. Crewe's work leads to a simple answer to this question, however, Crewe's parameters WV 2/P (and V) are boch dimensional rather than nondimensional (as is WV/P). Also, the size and exceptional position of airships with respect to all other air-sea vehicles indicates that the size of vehicles needs to be taken further into account. Taken together, these two facts led the author to use a non-dimensional form of vehicle velocity. Many of the works already cited express speed in a dimensionless way. There appears to be no simple "right" way, but there were several choices. Two of the choices were the Froude number (F) used mostly in Naval Engineering and the inverse square root of lift coefficent (CL) of Aeronautical Engineering. Froude number and lift coefficient are defined as: F - V,/j1 CL - W/(1/2)p fV2S where L - length of vehicle S - lifting area Pf - fluid density g - acceleration of gravity 10 I ~ 2. By definition CL - VI S/2W. The two parameters F and CL can be directly related. To show this, let the vehicle weight be expressed as the product of the total volume and average density; W - C V , and let a volumetric coefficient be defined as C v -V/LBT where B and T are vehicle breadth and depth. L can be any characteristic vehicle length and S can be any representative vehicle area. With these concepts the lift coefficient can be rewritten: C - FgV /(1/2)V2S - 2C V (rCV/) (BT/S) F " . So the lift coefficient is proportional to the inverse square of the vehicle Froude number, and the two characteristics parameters F anc CL will apply to any vehicle whatsoever. Davidson's (1951) work indicated that Froude number based on cube root of vehicle volume is an appropriate way to combine speed and vehicle size in a single dimensionless parameter." It appears that this was a most appropriate parameter to use in place of vehicle speed as the independent parameter (along the absicissa) in any updated version of the Gabrielli von Karman data plots. The trouble with this notion is that the total volumes of vehicles are very hard to find for many vehicles. It is quite easy to use a Froude number based on overall vehicle length. Now, it is a simple matter to convert Crewe's parameter WV/P to a dimensionless parameter. Simply replace one power of V in W/P by F to get WVF/P (equals a constant along the limit line). This quantity, denoted by G, (G-WVF/P)can be calculated for any vehicle and any group of vehicles and plotted as a function of Froude number. In this way, any vehicle or group of vehicles can be compared with any other vehicle or group of vehicles in a direct way. The value of P includes all 11 installed power, especially for powered-lift vehicles such as air cushion vehicles and helicopters. For jetpowered craft, static thrust (T) is given rather than installed power. In keeping with Gouse and others, the weight-thrust (W/T) ratio is used instead of WV/P. This notion is extended here to those vehicles which have both reciprocating and jet engines. We use G-WVF/(P+TV) as the dependent variable. This is a completely general form. The next observation somewhat reinforces the notion that this approach leads to very significant and useful information. The quantity G represents a specific form of energy efficiency. This parameter can be rewritten in the form: G = (1/2)(W/g) V l(1I2)(P+TV) L/g The numerator is just the maximum vehicle kinetic energy (1/2)(W/g) V and the denominator is the driving energy (that is, the total power times time) expended during a time representative of the vehicle size, t = (1/2X/i 7 g(a specific time)*. We can regard the kinetic energy as output and driving energy as input. So the quantity G is called "specific energy" representing overall energy efficiency. * The time t - (1/2) 1 (-L/g) is just one half of the time it would take a vehicle of length (L/2) to move its own length if it were accelerated from rest at the acceleration of gravity. 12 DATA Data on over 500 classes of vehicles are listed in the Appendix. The "data" are the values of the vehicle overall length (L); maximum, fully-loaded or gross weight (W); maximum speed (V); maximum continuous rated power (P), installed and available; and static thrust (T). Clearly there are wide variations in the ways the values of these quantities are determined for the wide variety of vehicles covered here. Even for a given vehicle, one finds wide variations in the values in the literature. In many cases, the author had to choose among different values and often the data listed for a single vehicle represent a composite of data obtained from several sources. In general, the largest value published by a reputable source was used as the value of each parameter. It would be impossible, however, for most vehicles to make the stated maximum speed at the maximum weight with the maximum power available, even on a good day, let alone in poor weather. The justification for using data in such a way is just the same as that of Gabrielli and von Karman. When all of the data are put together, they show remarkable consistency and trends, which means that the inaccuracies in the data are generally smaller than would inter- fere with the overall trends and comparisons. Most of the data were obtained from readily available library sources such as JANE'S ALL THE WORLD AIRCRAFT, and various summary papers such as those by Mantle and Hoerner. In a few cases, confidential data were used to compute the values of E, F and G. In order not to reveal any classified information, only the values of E, F and G are retained herein, (along with the references for those cases). The original data and vehicle identification were changed and fictitious information was put into the 13 the computer to keep the results together. In those cases, a note was put in the remark. In keeping with current practice, the values are given in both engi- neering units and metric units. Futhermore, weight is given in both long tons and in pounds for all vehicles. Velocity is given in both knots and feet per second. The name of each vehicle class is given along with remarks in the appendix. Remarks generally include: 1. alternative designations of the vehicle class; 2. the name of the builder, designer, operator, or owner; 3. the references from which data was obtained, in abbreviated form; 4. other remarks, such as classification (or other limitations on data). A vehicle class is a vehicle and all other vehicles which are essen- tially like it. The word class is used in the sense of naval usage where DD963 class destroyer means any of several destroyers of the same design with various hull numbers. There may be hundreds of aircraft, which were mass-produced, in a class. On the other hand, a class may be a unique vehicle, such as the hydrofoil HIGH POINT (PCH-I). In collecting the data, a distinction has been made between vehicles which have been built and vehicles which have been designed. A star (*) at the end of a vehicle class name (and in the plotted data) indicates that the vehicle exists only as a design or in conceptual form. For ease of handling the voluminous data, the vehicles were grouped 14 in somewhat narrower subdivisions than were used by Gabrielli and von Karman. The kinds (types) of vehicles have increased since then. For instance, hydrofoils were separated into fully submerged, surface-effect and surface-piercing groups. That is, separate files were set up in the computer for each group. When the plotted data are examined, one can see systematic trends for each group. Nevertheless, the differences afe relatively small, so a single envelope was drawn for all hydrofoil data, i.e., all hydrofoils are treated as a single group. This method helps keep the clutter down on the summary figure. As a result, there are 35 groups as listed in Table 1. TABLE I Submersible Planing Submarine Air cushion vehicle Airship Surface effect ship Torpedo Wing-in-surface-effect Large transport ship Helicopter Small transport ship Historical airplane Navy Auxiliary Seaplane Navy Amphibious Surveillance (observation) Coast Guard Cutter Light airplane Coast Guard Boat Patrol Aircraft carrier Cargo airplane Battleship Passenger airplane Cruiser Bomber Destroyer/frigate Fighter/Attack SWATH Research Ribrid concept Space Fully-submerged hydrofoil Surface-effect hydrofoil Surface-piercing hydrofoil Some thirteen figures were prepared in which the computed values of specific energy were plotted. Each figure. contains from one to six groups of vehicles. For each group, an envelope was drawn generally approximating the locus of the maximum values of specific energy for the vehicles in the group. Two groups (Battleship and SWATH) contain one vehicle, so that 15 value is indicated by a letter on the figure. All of the computerized data are in the appendix. After all of the group envelope curves were drawn, they were transferred to summary figures from which a few lower- included group curves were omitted for clarity. The figures are presented in the next section. RESULTS In this section, interpretations of the plotted data are given. The specific energy data for the 35 groups are plotted in Figures 3 through Figure 14. The data are summarized on Figures 15 and 16. SUBMERSIBLE AND SUBMARINE (Figure 3) Submersibles generally have the lowest Froude numbers. This is the only group with Froude numbers less than 0.1, although most submersibles fall between 0.1 and 0.4. They vary greatly in values of specific energy from a high of 57 (for ALUMINAUT) to a low of 0.75 (DENISE). Navy Submarines generally have greater Froude numbers (around 0.4) and greater specific energy than Submersibles. ALBACORE, now retired, had the greatest Froude number due to its combination of high speed and small size. The Submarine with the least value (9.5) of specific energy is the Soviet F, although the Soviet H and N classes have relatively large values of both Froude number (0.48 and 0.47) and specific energy (27 and 26). It is possible that the Soviet subs have classified speeds in excess of those found in the open literature, however. This would imply very good performance compared with U.S. submarines. 16 AIRSHIP AND TORPEDO (Figure 4) The Airship is a fairly old vehicle group, however, six new airship concepts have been included. The Goodyear ZPG-X concept appears to be a a reasonable improvement in the state of technology. The airship design with the greatest Froude number is being built in England by Aerospace Development, Ltd. It is a relatively short airship (164 feet). The airship class with the greatest value of specific energy (18 at F=0.8) is the AKRON-MACON. The lowest is the Navy ZPG-3W (G=6.8 at F=1.0). Torpedoes, because of the needed higher speeds and smaller sizes than submarines, have much greater Froude numbers (2 to 4). They also have relative low values of specific energy (3 to 6). These two vehicles show how specific energy typically decreases with increasing Froude number. TRANSPORT SHIPS (Figure 5) The group of Large Transports include two container ships of 59000 long tons and 26700 long tons and one medium tanker of 49660 long tons. The rest are large tankers, over 100,000 long tons. The tanker with the largest value of specific energy (183 at F=0.13) is the Esso Atlantic. The other transport ships range in gross weight from 8000 long tons to 22000 long tons. All except one are dry cargo ships. The Auxiliary group includes a variety of Navy ships, all of whose designations begin with the letter A. The group includes ammunition ships, store ships, oilers, destroyer tenders, two catamarans (ASR 21 PIGEON and AGOR 16 HAYES), an oceanographic research ship (AGOR 14 MELVILLE) and a survey ship (T-AGS 26 BENT). The last four of these have relatively low values of specific energy. The rest, because of 17 their necessary high speeds, exhibit the decreasing values of specific energy with increasing Froude number typical of surface ships. AMPHIBIOUS AND COAST GUARD (Figure 6) The group of Amphibious ships (Navy ships with designations beginning with the Letter L such as LKA, LPA, LSD, LST and LCU) illustrates the sharply declining values of specific energy with Froude number for surface ships. These fall off from Gi61 at F-0.23 to a low of G-1.2 at F-0.45 (for LCVP). The second lowest (G value) in this group is for Dandini's Hydro- sphere, a spherical vehicle which rolls across the water surface. Generally Coast Guard Cutters have slightly larger Froude numbers for the same values of specific energy. The "cutter" with the largest specific energy is the Barque EAGLE under power. Otherwise the cutter with the largest value of specific energy is the WMEC 230 STORIS (G-28 at F-0.27). The new WMEC 270 class falls right on the trend line at moderately high Froude number with a correspondingly moderate value of specific energy (G-11.7 at F=0.35). The Hamilton class ctitter (WHEC 378) has the largest Froude number of all cutters (F-0.44) and a moderate value of specific energy (10.4). At first glance, Coast Guard Boats have an almost random spread. Closer observation indicates that those with Froude numbers less than 0.5 show the continuing decline in specific energy values with increasing Froude number. Those with Froude numbers greater than 0.5 show that specific energy (of the most efficient boats) begin to increase with increasing Froude number. This behavior of the data indicates that the wavemaking hump speed has been exceeded and wave-making drag begins 18 wavemaking hump speed has been exceeded and wave-making drag begins to decrease. In fact, these boats have begun to plane. Below hump speeds, the WLI IOOC (BUCKTHORN) has the largest specific energy (at F-0.35) with the Dogwood 259 (WLR 114 class) and WYTM 110 Harbor Tug nearby. Near hump speed (F=0.48), the Motor Cargo Boat does about as well as any surface vessel could (G=3.2). Above hump speed, we find just what could be expected; the 82 foot and 95 foot Patrol Craft and the 44 foot Motor Lifeboat. NAVY COMBATANT (Figure 7) The Navy combatant groups with the lowest Froude numbers (about 0.31) are the large Aircraft Carrier and Battleship which have moderately high values (19 to 24) of specific energy. Cruisers, the next largest ship, have higher Froude numbers (from 0.37. to 0.44) and the next lowest specific energy. The best of these is the CGN-9 LONG BEACH with a value of 20 (at F-0.39). At the lower end of the Cruiser group are three DLG class (DLGN 35, DLG 26 and DLG 16) which were grouped with Cruisers because of their large displacement (over 7500 long tons). The Destroyers with the largest values of specific energy overlap the Cruiser group. These Destroyers have relatively low Froude numbers; 0.37 for DD 1033 CLAUDE JONES and 0.40 for DD 1037 BRONSTEIN. At the other end of the Destroyer group, we find DD 710 GEARING (F-0.51) and DD 692 SUMNER (F-0.52). Their specific energy values (7.0 and 6.7) are sub- stantially greater than those of the best boats at the same Froude number. On this same Figure is shown the datum for the SSP KAIMALINO, the only SWATH ship for which we have data. Just above this is found a loop 19 are hybird combinations of demi-SWATH, hydrofoil and air cushion vehicles with nominal 2000 long tons gross weights and with nominal maximum speeds of 45 knots. They have 60000 shaft horsepower. HYDROFOIL (Figure 8) This group of vehicles has values of specific energy from about 5 to 15. The three kinds of foil systems span a wide range of Froude numbers. The surface-piercing type cover the range, while the surface effect (Soviet) type have low values of Froude number and the fully-submerged foil systems fall in the middle range of Froude numbers with a relatively sharp peak in specific energy at F=1.8 (Navy/Coast Guard FLAGSTAFF, TUCUMCARI and WILSON ALBATROSS). AIR CUSHION AND PLANING (Figure 9) Air Cushion Vehicles (ACV) and Surface Effect Ships (SES) have about the same values of specific energy and Froude number as hydrofoils. The best ACV's are the Soviet SORMOVICH (G=14.1 at F=2.3) and the new SEDAM N500 (G=15 at F=1.7). The three SES data fall very close to the planing craft curve. Ordinary planing craft have about the same Froude numbers as hydro- foils and air cushion vehicles. The HMS BRAVE BORDERER is probably the fastest surface ship in commission in any navy today at 55 knots maximum speed. Larger values of Froude number are achieved by racing hydroplanes. The datum for the Boeing HTS is representative of such craft. The values of specific energy for these vehicles are moderate. Four Coast Guard boats were included because they have Froude numbers greater than one. 20 The one on the planing group curve has a specific energy value of 7.4 (UTM MK III Medium Utility Boat). The others ar the UTB MK IV Large Utility Boat, the UTL 16 foot Motor Launch and the TICWAN Aids-to- Navigation Boat. These last three have about the same values of specific energy as the boats listed in the boat group with Froude numbers just above the wave making hump. HELICOPTER AND WING-IN-SURFACE-EFFECT (Figure 10) Now we turn to airborne vehicles. These have slightly large Froude numbers (2 to 6. They illustrate a trend of continually increasing values of specific energy with increasing Froude number. This trend is typical of dynamic lift vehicles. The envelope curve for the Helicopter group has a very steep slope. The author suspects that the helo with the highest specific energy is atypical. It is the Rotor Craft RH-i Pinwheel, a one-man device which is strapped onto a man's back. The whole thing weighs about 400 pounds, including the man. It is powered by two jets at the blade tips. Each jet has a static thrust of 20 pounds. The blade diameter, which is also taken as the "vehicle" length, is 16 feet. The rig travels up to 61 knots. The other helos top out with a specific energy value of 23. The Wing-In-Surface-Effect (WISE) group includes what are usually call WIG (Wing-in-ground-effect vehicles) as well as "ram wing" vehicles and channel hull or tunnel hull vehicles. These are still in a very early stage of development even though over fourteen have been built. Two of these are open sea racing boats; KUDU I and KUDU II (G-10.4 at F-4.3). The two WISE vehicles with the highest specific energy value (G-25) are 21 the X-112 and X-113 designed by Lippisch. The two conceptual WISE indicate a reasonable improvement in the state of technology. SEAPLANE AND LIGHT AIRPLANE (Figure 11) The groups shown in this figure are what might be considered low- performance airplanes. Historical aircraft have very nearly the same Froude numbers and specific energy values as the WISE group. The first successful, manned and powered vehicle in sustained flight, the Wright (brothers) Flyer is shown next to the lower end of the envelope (with G-8.4 at F=1.7). Virtually all of the other very early airplanes, mostly European, have lower values of specific energy. The two historic airplanes with greater values of specific energy and Froude number are the NC-4 (G=15.9 at F=3) and the Ford/Stout "Tin Goose" trimotor airplane (G-19.3 at F=4.9), a couple of which are probably still flying. The "Megalifter" concept is shown here simply for convenience be- cause it lies almost on the Historical airplane curve. The Megalifter is a hybird of an airship and a large aircraft. The group, Light Airplane, includes many personnal airplanes, trainers and low-speed surveillance planes. The Mohawk OV-ID has the largest specific energy of these (G-101 at F-15.2). The Coast Guard HU 25A (Falcon 20) falls in this group with G-52 at F-13.9. As a group, the Light Airplane appears inferior to the Seaplane. The Seaplane group covers about the same Froude number range as Light Airplane, but has somewhat higher values of specific energy at the same Froude number. The seaplane with the highest value of specific energy is the Grumman HU 16E Albatross (amphibian) (G-98 at F-9.5). 22 TRANSPORT, PATROL AND BOMBER (Figure 12) Transport airplanes include both Passenger and Cargo groups. It is not clear why the Cargo group should exceed the Passenger group by such a significant amount. Three Cargo planes, the Superconstellation, the Hercules C 130H (Coast Guard) and the C 130K (G-120 at F-lI) are higher in specific energy than any passenger plane for which we have data. The Vickers Viscount 700 has a specific energy value of 78 at a Froude number of 9.2. The Concorde has the largest Froude number (G=69 at F-26). The Patrol plane group lies midway in Froude numbers in Figure 12. The Orion PC-3 (G-98 at F-11) and the Mercator P4M-1 (G-87 at F-9.8) have very high values of specific energy. The Bomber group includes a wide variety of planes ranging from the World War II B-17 (G-88 at F-9.5) and B-24 (G93 at F-9.4) to the B-58 Hustler (G-97 at F-36) and B-70 Valkyrie (G-108 at F-35). The B-1 design datum is at G-86 and F-26. The Three Soviet bombers Beagle, Bison and Badger lie in the middle of the group. FIGHTER AND RESEARCH (Figure 13) These groups have even greater Froude numbers and specific energy values. There are several fighter planes with specific energy values greater than 100: P-39 (G-122 at F-19), P-47 (G-171 at F-19), P51H (0-157 at F-22), F84F (0-106 at F-27), Fill (0-108 at F-48). The F7U Cutlass appears to have a comparatively low value of G (17). The French Mirage and Soviet MIG-23 appear competitive with U.S. fighters 23 at high Froude numbers. The Research vehicle group is rather special. The Bell X-i of many years ago has a very high value of specific energy (G-157 at F-77) and the X-15A has an extremely large Froude numbr (F-164 and G-64). The vehicle in this group with the largest value of specific energy is the SR7iA plane (G=191 at F-52). SPACE (Figure 14) The last vehicle group is very special, in fact these vehicles are not always "fluidborne". These are the missiles, orbital and space vehicle rocket motors. They are natural continuations of the vehicles covered thus far (Gouse and Swarden). Their Froude numbers vary from 463 to 3710 (JUNO) with values of specific energy of from 126 (VANGUARD) to 2861 (JUNO). SUMMARY (Figure 15) When the envelopes are superimposed, there appears a very coherent picture of the relative positions of the various vehicles. At the top of the figure, the overall limit line appears as the line on which specific energy has its constant value (G=200). This is defined by the supertankers and research vehicles with the largest value of specific energy. This is the position of the overall limit line as of 1978. The value of specific energy for any vehicle, or group of vehicles, can be compared directly with this value (G-200) for overall technical performance. Perhaps the next most striking feature of the summary plot is the vacant triangle just below the limit line with one vertex with coordinates G-15, F-I.2; just above where the Airship curve intersects the curves for 24 Air Cushion Vehicle and Hydrofoil. What this shows is that the Airship is not an exceptional group. In these terms it does not fill an otherwise vacant space. In fact it forms an essential part of one of several im- portant trends. The foremost trend is formed by drawing a straight line across the upper left ends of the group curves for Submersible, Submarine, Airship and Torpedo. These four vehicles are all buoyantly-supported and fully-immersed in surrounding fluid. They are buoyed up totally by either water or air, and are not close to the air-water interface. The trend formed by these kinds of vehicles is delineated by the line of slope minus one. This line forms the lower left boundary of the vacant space. The line indicates that for buoyant vehicles without wavemaking, the values of specific energy will decrease proportionally with Froude -! number, i.e., G=KAF along this line. We will return to this equation after considering other trends. The next trend is that exhibited by wavemaking vessels. The trend is shown by a line of slope minus two which is nearly tangent to the "best" (on a specific energy basis) wavemaking vessels, Transport, Carrier, Cutter, Cruiser and Destroyer. These data imply that the Amphibions and Boat groups are relatively inefficient at Froude numbers from 0.3 to 0.5. On the other hand amphibious ships are relatively efficient at a Froude number of 0.25. The trend line for wavemaking vehicles has the equation of G=KF• Thus the values of specific energy for vehicles (which are relatively "best") decreases very rapidly as Froude number increases. The envelope for the Boat group shows that the trend ends at a Froude number of about 25 0.5,,the (highest) values of specific energy begin to increase. At Froude numbers above 0.5, boats begin to plane and their lift-drag character begins to change from that of a displacement vehicle to that of a dynamic lift vehicle. The collection of dynamic lift vehicles appear to define the next trend, which is bounded by a line of slope plus one. The equation of this line is G-K3 F. Thus as Froude number increases, the highest values of specific energy achieved increase proportionally with Froude number. This line is anchored at its lower left end by the Air Cushion Vehicles (ACV) and Hydrofoil groups and at its upper right by Cargo Aircraft. Let us consider the various vehicles distributed just below this line proceeding from lower left to upper right. At Froude number of about 0.75 are found the new SWATH ship and the family of conceptual hybird marine vehicles. These have values of specific energy about the same as high Froude number Destroyers. Next we find ACV's and Hydrofoils. These appear superior in specific energy to ordinary Boats above the "hump" wavemaking Froude number. The envelopes for these two groups reach a fairly flat maximum at Froude numbers between 1.5 and 3, where the specific energy values are about the same as those for high Froude number Cruisers. At Froude numbers of about 2, the values of specific energy are substantially less than those on the trend line. The Planing group is inferior to ACV - Hydrofoils in specific energy value until the Froude number exceeds 3.5. It appears as though the Planing group is not a smooth continuation of high Froude number boats. Historical Aircraft are shown to peak in specific energy at a Froude 26 number of about 4.5. The very first aircraft, the Wright Flyer, is found in the midst of Hydrofoils and ACV's, and about the same as low Froude number planing craft. The next group is the WISE group. Its specific energy values lie sub- stantially below the values on the trend line. The lower left end of this group also falls within the ACV-Hydrofoil-Planing Groups. The upper right end of this group curve falls between Historical Airplanes and Helicopters. All of the dynamic lift vehicles exhibit the group curves which are characteristic of the lift-drag ratio versus speed curves of dynamic lift vehicles. The Helicopter appears exceptional in this regard. The group curve for Helicopters rises quite steeply with Froude number changing from G-4.5 to G-45 as Froude number changes from 3.2 to 4.4. It appears that helicopters have not reached a peak in specific energy value. The Helicopter group line approaches the dynamic-lift vehicle trend line at Froude numbers above 4, but rapidly falls away from the trend line below F-4. Light Airplanes seem to be a fair continuation of Historic Airplanes. The group curve for Light Airplanes runs parallel to the trend line and has values of specific energy of about one half of those on the trend line. The group line for Seaplanes lies about midway between the trend line and the group line for Light Airplanes. The Passenger and Patrol Airplane groups have been omitted from this summary figure to avoid clutter. 27 The Cargo Airplane group has superior values of specific energy in the range of Froude numbers from 5.5 to 12. The Bomber group curve is relatively high in specific energy compared with most other airplanes, but is relatively low in specific energy compared to Fighters. The Fighter group curve lies near the intersection of the dynamic lift trend line and the overall limit line. Its values of specific energy are extremely high compared to the values for most other powered vehicles. These also decrease in specific energy values with increasing Froude number, however, falling off markedly above Froude numbers of 30 or so. At Froude numbers above 40, the Research group line is superior in specific energy values to virtually all powered vehicles. This group curve lies far to the right of the dynamic lift line. So this group, along with Fighters, appears to begin a new trend line (not shown). It appears that, for supersonic flight, a trend line with a fractional slope would apply. SUM4ARY WITH SPACE VEHICLES (Figure 16) In this figure, the group curve for Space vehicles was added to the summary. This helps identify the trend at Froude numbers above 100 or so. What we find is that the values of specific energy for such vehicles surpasses anything else. Its value lie far above the "overall limit line", and far below an extrapolation of the dynamic lift trend line. It appears that a supersonic trend line with a slope of about 1/2 is indicated, but this is not certain. Data for vehicles with Froude numbers between 100 to 1000 would be helpful in this regard. In any case, it 28 appears that the "overall limit line" can be exceeded at extremely great Froude numbers. Thus, the empirical limit line (G=200) appears to lose its significance as a limit line at very high Froude numbers. LIMIT LINES At this point is seems that the line (G=200) corresponding to the original limit line should be called a "standard" line. It appears from these results that the trend lines are more precise limit lines for fluidborne vehicles than is the overall limit line. At Froude numbers over 20, a new limit line needs to be established. For Froude numbers between one and 20, the limit line appears to be the trend line of slope plus one. For Froude numbers of about 0.25 to one the limit line is the trend line of slope minus one. For Froude numbers of less than 0.25, the limit line appears to be the trend line of slope minus two. It should be noted that the "standard" limit of G=200 can apparently be exceeded by installing less power in existing supertanker designs. At Froude numbers less than 0.2 or so it should be possible to thereby gain an extremely energy efficient ship. Of course, such a vehicle would take a very long time and distance to accelerate and decelerate. For each trend line an equation of the form G=KF can be written. If we use the relation: G = EF q (CL/C) F, the trend line equations can be expressed in terms of lift and drag coef- ficients or in terms of drag coefficients as a function of Froude number. These relations are listed in Toble 2. 29 ----------------------------- TABLE 2 Trend Froude G-F Drag Coefficient Line Range Equation Equations Wavemaking Very low G K F CDr kCL cF Fully-Immersed Low G - KF CZ - k1 V2. -1 Standard All G = 200 = k C. C %_ 34 S Supersonic Very high G - CF. kDC - c F (Postulated) #I Dynamic High G - K-F C= kS= c F Lift These results conform to engineering experience. The equation %- k, re- presents the minimum drag coefficient achieved by man in powered, fully- immersed vehicles; the equation %u- k$CL represents the line of maximum, and constant, lift-drag ratio achieved by dynamic lift vehicles. This author has not seen in the literature the equations of the form -I C1 cTF for the overall limit line (standard) which indicates that, for traditional vehicles (presumably including land vehicles) the drag coef- ficient is at least equal to a constant divided by the Froude number. The equation CD cj F for wavemaking vehicles indicates that the minimum achievable drag coefficient for surface ships will decrease (proportional to F) as F decreases below values of one quarter. This is as far as such engineering interpretations have been drawn at this writing. 30 MAXIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY OF DYNAMIC LIFT VEHICLES This section is written to show how differently certain dynamic lift vehicles would be designed and operated depending on whether one chooses to maximize the lift-drag ratio or specific energy. The method of cal- culation follows that given by Mandel (1969) in "Water, Air and Interface Vehicles". The derivations apply only to dynamic lift vehicles (airplanes and hydrofoils) which have lifting surfaces with constant surface areas. For this purpose, the total vehicle drag coefficient is taken as the sum of the profile drag coefficient, C.., and the induced drag coef- ficient, CD, (C-0 = Coa + CD). The induced drag coefficient is taken as CL /iTA e where A is the aspect ratio of the lifting surface and e is the airplane efficiency factor which accounts for the deviation of the actual foil load distribution from the optimum elliptical loading. The drag/lift ratio can be written: (D/W) = (Z /CL) = (C/CL)+ (CL/fAe). The minimum drag-lift ratio can be found by taking the derivative with respect to CL, equating to zero, and solving for the value of CL (denoted C ). One finds Cim = [Ae CD0 . If M denotes the value of a variable where the lift-drag ratio is maximum, then one finds: - 2W/ , SWAeCZ vh CZL, J. "D6 , CA = 2C%), and (D/W) 1 - CM/CM- 2 %a/T-Ae. Note for further reference, that the induced drag just equals the pro- file drag at the maximum lift-drag ratio. 31 One can also solve for the conditions under which specific energy will be maximized by use of the same expressions and by use of the equatio-. E f 7 W/D. Thus G = EF i WF/D =JCLF/CV. In this case, for ease of computation, one writes (I /G) = (CD/CL) F, then writes C in terms of F, takes the derivative of ? /G with respect to F, equates the dervative to zero and solves for the value of F (denoted F) for which G/Jis maximized. (I-ldoes not vary with F, then G will also be maximum). Here one finds, (using the subscripts G to indicate the value where G is maximized), V3- = 3~ W/FIS/WAeC , %&= Co/3, CC = 4 o/3, and (D/W)C= (4 3) /(Ae/C 0 O). Now the values of the various performance factors for maximum specific energy and for maximum lift-drag ratio can be compared. For instance, the ratio of the speed at which specific energy is a maximum (V&) to the speed at which lift-drag ratio is a maximum (V ) is VCJ/,= 3 t =1.32. Thus the speed at which specific energy is a maximum is 32 percent greater than the speed at which lift-drag ratio is a maximum. Likewise the ratio of induced drag coefficients is %,,,/% = 1/3. The induced drag coefficient (C C) is now just one third of the profile drag coefficient. The ratio of total drag coefficients is / - 2/3, but because the speed VC is greater than V8, the total drag (DG) is 15 percent greater than % (D,_/DM = 2/ -- 3 = 1.15). The effective power (DV) is 52 percent greater ((DV)C/(DV)M = 1.52) when specific energy is a maximum. On the surface, it would appear disadvantageous to maximize specific energy because it requires 52 percent more power to go 32 percent faster and against 15 percent nore drag, but the specific energy (G/7 = WF/D) is 32 14 percent greater ((WF/D)C/(WF/D - 35/2 - 1.14). This means that 14 percent more kinetic energy is gotten per unit of motive energy*. At this stage, it appears that we are one step closer to realizing a rational answer to the question, "What Price Speed"? *In this calculation, the variation in with speed is neglected. 33 CONCLUSION Specific energy can be used as a measure of relative overall mechanical performance of fluidborne vehicles. Empirical data indicates that the energy efficiency of many fluid- borne vehicles at sizes and speeds of great interest to humans is very low compared to the best achieved with traditional ships and planes. It appears rather doubtful that values of specific energy much above the trend lines will be achieved unless new forms of vehicle sustention are employed. The differences between the highest and lowest groups at critical Froude numbers are very significant. At F-3/4, the best boats have specific energy values (G=4) of only four percent of the best research vehicle at F-50. The results provide rational support for a number of commonly held beliefs. For instance, the data indicate why airplanes should be used as often as they are today compared with ships and boats (even though airplane transport efficiency values are relatively low). The data also indicate why airplanes should have become so much more popular than hydrofoils even though they both were first sucessfully demonstrated within a 6 year period. The data indicate that air and sea vehicles are neces- sarily inefficient on an energy basis at medium Froude numbers. The results indicate the ACV's and hydrofoils have about the same energy efficiency, both slightly better than planing craft, somewhat better than most destroyers and about the same as airships. The results show that, on an energy efficiency basis, it would be better to use vehicles above or below the sea surface at Froude numbers from about 0.3 to 1.0. 34 The results indicate that it is likely that vehicles could be im- proved in the Froude number range from 2 to 5. This is indicated by the vacant space between the trend line and nearest group curves. The results imply that energy could be conserved by using vehicles more at very low and very high Froude numbers. The approximate computation indicates that energy may be conserved by operating certain dynamic lift vehicles at speeds greater than would yield maximum lift-drag ratio. Lastly the results show distinctly different trends for fluidborne vehicles than for all terrestrial vehicles and that several of the limiting trends are of direct engineering significance. 35 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was begun some four years ago, and many people have contri- buted to this product during that period. Many of the first brain-storming sessions on the subject were held with Robert Taylor at the David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center. Bob guided the initial collection of data for over 125 vehicles. Others who gave generous help then included Ray Grady, Ed Hoyt and Elmer Burgin. Throughout this period, valuable support was provided by Dr. Robert Allen, both by encouragement and by financial support under the Independent Exploratory Development program. Beneficial discussions were also held with Prof. Philip Mandel of MIT and with Fred Riddell and Donald Dix of the Institute for Defense Analysis. During academic year 1976-1977, Midshipman (now Ensign) Harry Maugans helped organize and extend the data as part of a research project. Finally, many people in the U.S. Coast Guard provided support for which the author is very grateful. LCDR Kenneth Williams and John Milton of the Office Research and Development in Coast Guard Headquarters provided the necessary support there. At the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, CDR. Bruce Skinner and CDR. David Sandell provided the most important support. Grateful appreciation is extended to all of those. 36 REFERENCES American Bureau of Shipping Annual Report, New York (1977). American Bureau of Shipping Record, New York (1978). Airline Travel Guide, Aircraft Performance Statistics (15 Jun 1976). "Aircraft Characteristics", Aviation Branch, SAR Division, Office of Operations, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters (5 Aug 1977). Aviation Week and Space Technology New York. De Biasi, Victor., "Sunshine Navy Is No Match for Hydrofoils," Gas Turbine World, pp. 34-45 (Jun 1972). Boeing "Evaluation Study of Transport Vehicles," Boeing D6-2067, AD 452103 (17 Nov 1964). Chappelear, D.N., "The Boeing Hydrodynamic Test System for High Speed Underwater Research," Boeing Doc. No. D2-20438-1 (12 May 1964). Clements, E.W. and O'Hara, "The Navy Rigid Airship," Applied Mech. Br., Ocean Tech. Div., Naval Research Lab, NRL Memo Report 2463, AD 902-628 (Jul 1972). "Boats of the United States Coast Guard," CG-375, Commandant (OSR-4) U.S. Coast Guard, Dept. of Transportation, Washington, D.C. (9 Jul 1968). "U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Type and Class Designations," undated. Cook, P.M., Goelzer, H.F. and Ward, T.M., "Design and Performance of the RAM Wing Planing Craft KUDU II," AIAA/SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicles Conf., San Diego (17-19 Apr 1978). Crewe, P.R., "The Hydrofoil Boat; It History and Future Prospects," Quart. Trans., The Institution of Naval Architects, Vol. 100, No.4, pp. 329-373 (Oct 1958). Davidson, K.S.M., "Notes on the Power-Speed-Weight Relationship for Vehicles," Technical Memorandum 97, Experimental Tow Tank, Stevens Institute of Technology (Mar 1951). Davidson, K.S.M., "Further Analysis of The Data of Gabrielli and von Karman on the Power-Speed-Weight Relationship of Vehicles," Technial Note #154, Experimental Tow Tank, Stevens Institute of Technology (Oct 1951). 37 Davidson, K.S.M., "What Price Speed? - Long Range Trends in Overseas Transportation," SNAME Bulletin, pp. 16-23 (February 1955) (presented to the Chesapeake Section of SNAME (14 Oct 1954)). Davidson, Kenneth S.M., "Ships," Proceedings of IXe Congress Inter- national de Mecanique Appliquee (9th International Congress of Applied Mechanics), Universite de Bruxelles (1957). Dix, Donald M. and Riddell, Fred R., "Projecting Cost-Performance Trade-Offs for Military Vehicles," Astronautics and Aeronautics, p. 40 (Sep 1970). Eckener, Hugo, "My Zeppelins," Translated from the German by Douglas Robinson, Technical Chapter by Knut Eckener, London, Putnam, pp. 185-216 (1958). "Flight International," Flight Library Section (1974-1975). Gabrielli, G. and von Karman, Th., "What Price Speed? Specific Power Required for Propulsion of Vehicles," Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 72, p. 775 (Oct 1950). Garber, Paul E., "The National Aeronautical Collections," Tenth Edition Smithsonian Inst. National Air Museum Publ. 4255 (1965). Gouse, S. William, Jr. and Swarden, Michael, "Universal Drag Law," Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (6 Dec 1966). Grumann Corp., "Operational Testing and Evaluation of The Hydrofoil Sea-Craft Denison," (circa 1963). Hayward, Leslie., "The History of Hydrofoils," Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil Magazine, 14 parts in various issues (from May 1965 to March 1967). Heffner, James A., "U.S.S. Albacore (AGSS-569) Standardization Trial Results with Contra-rotating Propulsion System (U)," NSRDC Report C-2370 (Mar 1971) CONFIDENTIAL . Hobbs, Leonard S., "The Wright Brothers' Engines and Their Design", Smithsonian Annuals of Flight No. 5, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. (1961). Hoerner, S.F., "Consideration of Size-Speed-Power in the Design of Hydrofoil Craft," Society of Automotive Engineers, National Aero- nautic Meeting, New York, p. 522B (3-6 Apr 1962). Hollenberg, H.O., "Brief Historical Review of the Hydrofoil Boat," NavWeps Report No. RRSY-60-53 (Aug 1960). Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil, Ed. by Juanita Kalerghi, Kalerghi Publications, London. 38 Janes 100 Significant Aircraft (1909-1969). "Janes All the World's Aircraft," Ed. by John W.R. Taylor, McGraw Hill, N.Y. "Jane's Fighting Ships," Ed. By John Moore McGraw Hill, New York. "Jane's Surface Skimmers," Ed. by Roy McLeavy, Janes Yearbooks, London. "Jane's Weapons Systems," New York, McGraw Hill. Japan Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Magazine. Jewell, D.A., "Hydrofoil Performance in Rough Water," Jl of Hydronautics, Vol. 9, No.4, pp. 142-148 (Oct 1975). Krack, R.C. and Gross, J.G., "Experience with Hydrofoil Craft Denison," Paper 2-e, SNAME Hydrofoil Symposium, Seattle (13-14 May 1965). Lewis, Edward V., "The Comparative Capabilities of Vehicles for Overseas Cargo Transport, with Particular Reference to Ships," Experimental Tow Tank, Stevens Institute of Technology Report #525 (Jun 1954). Lippisch, A.M., "The "Aerodynamic Ground Effect," and the Development of the Aerofoil Boat;" Translation of an article from Luftfahrttechnik: Raumfahrttechnik, Vol. 10, Issue 10, pp. 261-269, Translation No. 1073, ONI (Oct 1964). Lippisch, A.M. and Colton, R.F., "Feasibility Study of a Wing in Ground Effect as a Viable, Multipurpose Platform," J-TEC Assoc. Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa (10 Jun 1975). Mandel, Philip, "A Comparative Evaluation of Novel Ship Types," SNAME Transaction, Vol. 70, pp. 128-191 (1962). Mandel, Philip, "Water, Air and Interface Vehicles," First Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1969). Mantle, P.J., "Cushions and Foils," Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Spring Meeting (2-5 Jun 1976). Marine Engineering Log Magazine, (Aug 1973). Maritime Reporter Magazine (15 Oct 1974; 15 Jan 1975, and I Feb 1975). Meyer, John R., Jr, " A Comparison of Several Hybird Surface Ship Concepts," Naval Engr. JI (Apr 1977). Moralevich, Yuri., "Soviet Hydrofoils," Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil, Vol. 1, Nos. 8&9, pp. 12-13 (May & Jun 1962). 39 Naval Ship R&D Center "The Odyssey of the NC-4," NSRDC Centerline, Vol. 3, No. 23 (May 1969). Nutting, William W., "The HD-4," Motor Boat, Vol. XVI, No. 20, (25 Oct 1919). Also Annual Report Smithsonian Inst., pp. 205-210, (1919). Navy "Missions and Characteristics of U.S. Navy Ships and Aircraft (U)," CONFIDENTIAL NWIP 11-20 (D), Vol I. Combatants (15 Apr 1974). "Missions and Characteristics of U.S. Navy Ships and Aircraft (U)," CONFIDENTIAL NWIP 11-20 (D), Vol. II. Auxiliaries and Support Components (Feb 1976). Oakes, Claudia M., "Aircraft of the National Air and Space Museum," Smithsonian Inst. (1976). Ocean Industry, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Feb 1968). "Hydroballistics Design Handbook," NAVORD Report No. 3533 (Mar 1955) DECLASSIFIED. Rowe, J. S. and Morison, S.L., "Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet," Naval Inst. Press, 9th. Edition, Annapolis (1972). Salisbury, V.H., "Hydrofoil Craft 901-003 (Little Squirt) Test Plans, Reports and Data," Boeing Co. D2-335043 (Oct 1962). Salisbury, V.H., "High Speed Operational Experience on the U.S. Navy Fresh-I," AIAA Paper 64-197, Wichita (26 May 1964). "Baron Hans von Schertel," Hovering Craft & Hydrofoil, Vol. 2, No. 6 p. 10 (Mar 1963). von Schertel, H., et al, "Military Hydrofoils," Jane's Surface Skimmers, pp. 301-309 (1972-1973). Shultz, Wm. M., "Boeing Jetfoil Model 929-100," AIAA/SNAME Advanced Marine Vehicles Conference, San Diego, AIAA Paper No. 74-308 (25-29 Feb 1974). Silverleaf, A. and Cook, F.R.G., "A Comparison of Some Features of High-Speed Marine Craft," Transactions, Royal Institute of Naval Architects, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 69-86 (Jan 1970). Smith, R.K., "The Airships AKRON and MACON", Naval Inst. Press, Annapolis (1965). Volga Specifications, (Undated). World Warship Forecast 1973-1982, Vol. 1 (m.p., DMS, Inc. 1973). 40 0.3 1 HE-ICOPTER JET IGH 0.2 PERSONAL AIRPLANE BM/ 0.10 0- DESTROYER *-'0 F " [ I COMMERCIAL I I I ~AIRPLANE SALN Z0.04 SUBMARINE k I_ z__ ON SURFACE AHI100 0.03 Uj SUBARI BATTLESHIP : 0.02 SUBMARINE o SUBMERGED uJ -0 " 1950 G. - V.K. LINE 0.01 IERCHAN1 ! / , SH IP 000 0.005 0.004 / 0.003 5 10 20 30 4050 100 200 300 500 1000 MAXIMUM SPEED / MILES PER HOUR Figure 1 - Specific Resistance of Single Vehicles (From Mandel, 1969) 41 LIMIT LINE WV 2 /p 750 TON KNOTS 2 /HP 700 60 500 -MERCHANT 400 SISBME 300 200 0 z 0 v 100 1 z 901 O 80 __ __ 6 0 DESTROYERS_____ N-60 40 30HYDROFOIL- %____ __ 20(Fo Crewe 1958)T(158 PLAN 42 t 187 IUIMEMIILE + + ++ 0 0+ + + 0 + + LU u. 0 C.)' U- A 0 FROUDE NUMBER Fgure 3 -Submersibleand Submarine 43 U]AIRSHIP DESIGN oTORPEDO 414 w -- + I 24 B ii2.8 4.6 6.6 6.6 is FROUDE NUMBER Figure 4 -Airship and Torpedo 44 +LARGE TRANSPORT - -- 0 TRANSPORT % AUXILIARY 41 - c CONTAINER ___ ---T CATAMARAN w 2" z + ++ + _ _ __ _ _ + WU 000 Cd, A T .2 .4 . . . 20 4 0 0 .0 is FROUDE NUMBER Figure 5 -Transport Ships A AWMHIIIO US _____~~ - ICUTEI A BOAT A + A >, A z w t 0 Oj+ A~ ____ ___ ___+ *0 .2 .4 .6 .8 15264 6 .1 e u FROUDE NUMBER Figure 6 -Amphibious and Coast Guard i2 A CARRIER __ _I B BATTLESHIP o CRUISER _ _+ FRIGATE/0 0 S SWATH - BIURID n 4 z LU wo - C,, ca .4 .6 .e I. 2.8 4.1 6.e 1.e if FROUDE NUMBER Figure 7 - Navy Combatant .47 s FULLY - SUBMERGED so + SURFACE - PIERCING o SURFACE- FFECT 4O z 00 ++ L) 10 • + + oA, + + , A4 + C.. A+ __0 W o A S.2 .4 1.0 2.6 4. 6.1 8.1 Is FROUDE NUMBER Figure 8 - Hydrofoil 48 aPLANING COAST GUARD _______ - - +AIR CUSHION (ACV) A~ SURFACE EFFECT (SES) __ w n z 0 . 2.4 .6 .1 1.1 2.6 4.6 6.6 6.6 Is FROUDE NUMBER Figure 9 -Air Cushion and Planing 49 I + HELO e- o WISE * WISE CONCEPT] 44 V >~+ 4+* z +4++ 40 I+ 2 4 n 48 a5 toU H FROUDE NUMBER Figure 10 - Helicopter and Wing-in-Surface-Effect [ 5Q + + __ _ _ A A z LU o HISTORICAL 2* CONCEPT A SEAPLANE A, COAST GUARD + LIGHT AIRPLANE #COAST GUARD FROUDE NUMBER Figure 11 - Seaplane and Light Airplane 52 m4 oPATROL IU - -A CARGO COAST GUARD (LU z LU. (.) A A 1 2 4 S INi 20 40 NO in FROUDE NUMBER Figure 12 - Transport, Patrol and Bomber 52 + FIGHTER ____- oRESEARCH___J z U10 U -+ 53 JIM i eow x- Ju S -.. I' z ,tLl I I U u aw - -40 ri o ,l l , UO l i FROUDEz NUMBE __ _ure 14 -_Sa m . I NK ..- -.- N . FACE RESEARC H ,, CRCAR I/ OW CUTTERER - a- P EAPLANE w - LIGHT AIRPLANE IL " CARE SO CYIhSTORIAL- -- . _ PYOROFOIL I DESTROYER /.OOC. OAT - _ _ SUBMERSIBLE - TORPEDO AMPHIIOUS FORCE .I . . - . . •A .0 311.1 2 4 E I1 in 40 1 F FROUDE NUMBER Figure 15 - Smary 55 WSPACE v.--I Ix 2"FIGHTER Z \\TAdT % CMARGO -RESEARCH - - - - HE -- SEAPLANE 11,1 CUT~R ~ 4.ULAULGH AIRPLANE - 26CRUIS&R ACV - - - -CIA RD -YROEGOIL- - I I I £US~USL BOAT TOR E0 ii L . .1I HIM S rn FROUDE NUMBER Figure 16 - Summnary with Space Vehicles 56 APPENDIX A File Designator Group Name Page No. JAI Submersible 2-4 JA2 Submarine 5-7 JA3 Airship 8-10 JA4 Torpedo 11 JBl Large Transport Ship 12-15 JB2 Small Transport Ship 16-17 JB3 Navy Auxiliary 18-20 JCl Navy Amphibious 21-23 JC2 Coast Guard Cutter 24-27 JC3 Coast Guard Boat 28-30 JFI Aircraft Carrier 31-32 JF2 Battleship 32 JF3 Cruiser 33-34 JF4 Destroyer/Frigate 35-36 JF5 Swath 37 JF6 Bibrid Concept 38 Jill Fully-Submerged Hydrofoil 39-40 JH2 Surface-Effect Hydrofoil 41-42 JH3 Surface-Piercing Hydrofoil 43-46 M ~ Planing 47-48 3L2 Air Cushion Vehicle 49-52 JL3 Surface Effect Ship 53 JNl Wing-In-Surface-Effect 54-55 3N2 Helicopter 56-59 JPl Historical Airplane 60-61 JP2 Seaplane 62-63 JP3 Surveilance/Observation 63 JP4 Light Airplane 64-67 JQl Patrol 68-69 JQ2 Cargo Airplane 70-71 JQ3 Passenger Airplane 72-73 JQ4 Bomber 74-75 JSl Fighter/Intercepter 76-78 3S2 Research 79 JYl Space 80 A-1 * .~,-w * - JA1 - SUBMERSIBLE ALUMINAUT OCEAN IND FEB 68 LENGTH 51 FT 15.5448 M WEIGHT 163520 LB 74172,7 KG 73 LT SPEED 3.5 KT 1.8018 M/S 5.9115 F/S POWER 15 HP 11.1855 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 117.17 F= 0.145876 G= 17.0923 ALVIN OCEAN IND LENGTH 22 FT 6.7056 N WEIGHT 36960 LB 16765.1 KG 16.5 LT SPEED 2.5 KT 1.287 N/S 4.2225 F/S POWER 10 HP 7.457 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 28.3752 F= 0.158646 G= 4.50162 ANERSUB 600 OCEAN IND LENGTH 13 FT 3.9624 N WEIGHT 3920 LB 1778.11 KG 1.75 LT SPEED 6 KT 3.0888 N/S 10.134 F/S POWER 3.5 HP 2.60995 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 20.6365 F= 0.495315 G= 10.2216 ARCHIMEDE OCEAN IND LENGTH 69 FT 21.0312 M WEIGHT 136640 LB 61979.9 KG 61 LT SPEED 2 KT 1.0296 M/S 3.378 F/S POWER 31 HP 23.1167 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 27.0715 F= 0.071665 G= 1.94008 ASHERAH OCEAN INDUSTRY LENGTH 17 FT 5.1816 M WEIGHT 9408 LB 4267.47 KG 4.2 LT SPEED 3 KT 1.5444 M/S 5.067 F/S POWER 4 HP 2.9828 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 21.6683 F= 0.21657 G= 4.69271 AUGUSTE PICCARD (PX-8) OCEAN IND LENGTH 93.5 FT 28.4988 N WEIGHT 367360 LB 166634. KG 164 LT SPEED 6 KT 3.0888 N/S 10.134 F/S POWER 80 HP 59.656 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 84.6097 F= 0.184692 G= 15.6267 BENTHOS V OCEAN IND LENGTH 11.3 FT 3.44424 M WEIGHT 47040 LB 21.337.3 KG 21 LT SPEED 3 KT 1.5444 N/S 5.067 F/S POWER 2 HP 1.4914 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E = 216.683 F= 0.265634 G= 57.5585 DEEP GUEST- OCEAN IND LENGTH 39.83 FT 12.1402 M WEIGHT 116480 LB 52835.3 KG 52 LT SPEED 4.5 KT 2.3166 M/S 7.6005 F/S POWER 30 HP 22.371 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN Es 53.6549 F= 0.212231 G= 11.3872 A-2 4 _-__________ DEEP STAR 4000 OCEAN IND LENGTH 18 FT 5.4864 M WEIGHT 21280 LB 9652.61 KG 9.5 LT SPEED 3 KT 1.5444 M/S 5.067 F/S POWER 9 HP 6.7113 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 21.783 F= 0.210468 G= 4.58463 DENISE OCEAN IND/DIVING SAUCER LENGTH 9.5 FT 2.8956 M WEIGHT 5040 LB 2286.14 KG 2.25 LT SPEED 1 KT 0.5148 M/S 1.689 F/S POWER 2 HP 1.4914 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 7.73869 F= 9.65695 E-2 G= 0.747321 DOWB OCEAN IND LENGTH 16 FT 4.8768 M WEIGHT 14273.3 LB 6474.36 KG 6.372 LT SPEED 5 KT 2.574 M/S 8.445 F/S POWER 8 HP 5.9656 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 27.395 F= 0.372059 G= 10.1925 PC-3X (3A) OCEAN IND LENGTH 18.5 FT 5.6388 M WEIGHT 4789.12 LB 2172.34 KG 2.138 LT SPEED 4.25 KT 2.1879 M/S 7.17825 F/S POWER 7 HP 5.2199 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 8.92922 F= 0.294107 G= 2.62614 PC-3B OCEAN IND/PERRY LENGTH 22 FT 6.7056 M WEIGHT 6160 LB 2794.18 KG 2.75 LT SPEED 4.5 KT 2.3166 M/S 7.6005 F/S POWER 7 HP 5.2199 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 12.1608 F= 0.285564 G= 3.47268 NAI'A (PC5C) OCEAN IND LENGTH 22 FT 6.7056 M WEIGHT 11480 LB 5207.33 KG 5.125 LT SPEED 3.5 KT 1.8018 M/S 5.9115 F/S POWER 7.5 HP 5.59275 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 16.4519 F= 0.222105 G= 3.65405 DEEP DIVER OCEAN IND/PERRY-LINK LENGTH 23 FT 7.0104 M WEIGHT 18480 LB 8382.53 KG 8.25 LT SPEED 3 KT 1.5444 M/S 5.067 F/S POWER 16 HP 11.9312 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 10.6407 F= 0.186191 G= 1.9812 AMERSUB 30 OCEAN IND LENGTH 30 FT 9.144 M WFITST 670o IV 3O4A.12 Ko 3 LT SPEED 6 KT 3.0888 M/S 10.134 F/S POWER 11 HP 8.2027 KV THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 11.2563 F= 0.326056 0= 3.67018 A-3 STAR I OCEAN IND/GD LENGTH 10.1 FT 3.07848 M WEIGHT 2750.72 LB 1247.73 KG 1.228 LT SPEED I KT 0.5148 M/S 1.689 F/S POWER 0.5 HP 0.37285 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 16.8944 F= 9.36572 E-2 G= 1.58228 STAR II OCEAN IND/GD LENGTH 17.75 FT 5.4102 M WEIGHT 10528 LB 4775.5 KG 4.7 LT SPEED 4.5 KT 2.3166 M/S 7.6005 F/S POWER 4 HP 2.9828 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 36.3718 F= 0.317918 G: 11.5633 STAR III OCEAN IND/GD LENGTH 24.5 FT 7.4676 M WEIGHT 10528 LB 4774.5 KG 4.7 LT SPEED 4.5 KT 2.3166 M/S 7.6005 F/S POWER 4 HP 2.9828 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 36.3718 F= 0.270602 G= 9.8423 SUBMARAY OCEAN IND LENGTH 13 FT 3.9624 M WEIGHT 3200.96 LB 1451.96 KG 1.429 LT SPEED 2.5 KT 1.287 M/S 4.2225 F/S POWER 4 HP 2.9828 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 6.14366 F= 0.206381 G= 1,26794 TRIEST II OCEAN IND LENGTH 76 FT 23.1648 M WEIGHT 163520 LB 74172.7 KG 73 LT SPEED 2 KT 1.0296 M/S 3.378 F/S POWER 18 HP 13.4226 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 55.795 F= 6.82849 E-2 G= 3.80996 PX-15 OCEAN IND/GRUMMAN LENGTH 48.5 FT 14.7828 M WEIGHT 291200 LB 132088. KG 130 LT SPEED 4.5 KT 2,3166 M/S 7.6005 F/S POWER 100 HP 74.57 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E:= 40.2412 Fz- 0.192328 6= 7.73952 AUTEC I OCEAN IND LENGTH 26 FT 7.9248 M WEIGHT 47040 .8 21337.3 K 21 LT SPEED 2 KT 1.0296 M/S 3.378 F/S POWER 9.5 HP 7.00415 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN 1-' 30.4117 F: 0.116747 G= 3.55047 A-4 JA2 - SUBMARINE ALBACORE (AGSS-569) HEFFNER LENGTH 210.5 FT 64.1604 M WEIGHT 4114880 LB 1.86651 E+6 KG 1837 LT SPEED 32.7 KT 16.834 M/S 55.2303 F/S POWER 14470 HP 10790.3 KW 'THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 28.5564 F= 0.670847 G= 19.157 SUB 103 CLASSIFIED/IGNORE INPUT DATA LENGTH 8459 FT 2578.3 M WEIGHT 2352000 LB 1.06687 E+6 KG 1050 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 71.5127 F = 0.28479 G= 20.3661 SUB 121 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 8165 FT 2488.69 M WEIGHT 3814720 LB 1730357 KG 1703 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 115.987 F= 0.289872 G= 33.6213 SUB 137 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 7630 FT 2325.62 M WEIGHT 2602880 LB 1.111067 E+6 KG 1162 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 MIS 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 79.1407 F= 0.299862 G= 23.7313 SUB 135 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 7145 FT 2177.8 M WEIGHT 2497600 LB 1.13291 E+6 KG 1115 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUSTr 0 LB 0 KN E= 75.9396 F= 0.309873 G= 23.5316 SUB 105 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA L-ENGTH 7145 FT 2177.8 M WEIGHT 3321920 LB 1.50682 E+6 KG 1483 LT SFEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E = 101.003 F= 0,309873 G= 31.2981 SUB 106 NWIF I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 6706 FT 2043.99 M WEIGHT 23811.20 LB 1.08008 E+6 KG 1063 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 L B 0 KN F 72.3981 F=: 0.319855 G= 23.1568 SU1B 133 NWTP T/(LASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 6306 FT 1922.07 M WEIGHT 2219840 LB 1.00692 E+6 KG 991 LT SPFEfD 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 0888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LD 0 KN E 67. 4943 F- 0.329843 G= 22. 2625 A-5 SUB 117 NWIP I/ClASSIFrED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 6306 FT 1922.07 M WEIGHT 2914240 L-B 1.3219 E+6 KO 1301 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 88.6076 F 0.329843 G= 29.2266 SUB 127 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 5940 FT 1810.51Nm WEIGHT 2688000 LB 1.21928 E+6 NO 1200 LT SPEED as KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 81.7287 F= 0.339853 G= 27.7758 SUB 109 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 5606 FT 1708.71 M WEIGHT 1299200 LB 5893t7. NO 580 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148,632 F/S POWER 8988 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 39.5022 F= 0.349831 G= 13.8191 SUB III NWIP I/CLASSIFIEII IGNORE DATA LENGTH 5606 FT 1709.71 M WEIGHT 1391040 LB 630976. KG 621 LT SPEED SS KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 42.2946 F= 0.349831 G= 14.796 SUB 125 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 5606 FT 1709.71 M WEIGHT 1496320 LB 678731. KO 66B LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148,632 F/S POWER 8988 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 45.4957 F= 0.349831 G= 15.9158 SUB 113 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 5016 FT 1529.88 M WEIGHT 2009280 LB 911409. KO e97 LT SPEED SS Kr 45.3024 M/S 149.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E = 61.0922 F= 0.369833 G= 22.5939 SUB 123 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 3391 FT 1033.58 m WEIGHT 1910720 LB 866703. NO 853 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 149.632 F/S POWER 8898 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E = 58.0955 F= 0.449801 G = 26.1314 SUB 107 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 3245 FT 989.076 M WEIGHT 2291520 LB 1.03943 E+6 KO 1023 LT SPEED 86 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 88 HP 6627.79 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E, 69.6738 F= 0.459809 On 32.0366 A-6 SUB 115 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 2980 FT 908.304 M WEIGHT 1352960 LB 613703. KG 604 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 41.1368 F= 0.479818 G= 19.7382 SUB 129 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 2980 FT 908.304 M WEIGHT 1612800 LB 731566. KG 720 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 49.0372 F= 0.479818 G= 23.5289 SUB 119 NWIP I/CLASSIFIED IGNORE DATA LENGTH 2747 FT 837.286 M WEIGHT 2078720 LB 942907. KG 928 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 8888 HP 6627.78 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 63.2036 F= 0.499753 G= 31.5861 SOVIET VICTOR JFS 73-74 LENGTH 285.4 FT 86.9899 M WEIGHT 8064000 LB 3.65783 E+6 KG 3600 LT SPEED 32 KT 16.4736 M/S 54.048 F/S POWER 24000 HP 17896.8 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 33.0184 F= 0.5638 G= 18.6158 SOVIET H JFS 68-69/FBM LENGTH 344 FT 104.851 H WEIGHT 9184000 LB 4.16586 E+6 KG 4100 LT SPEED 30 KT 15.444 M/S 50.67 F/S POWER 15000 HP 11185.5 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 56.4065 F= 0.481442 G= 27.1564 SOVIET N JFS 68-69/ANT-SUB LENGTH 360 FT 109.728 H WEIGHT 8960000 LB 4064256 KG 4000 LT SPEED 30 KT 15.444 H/S 50.67 F/S POWER 15000 HP 11185.5 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 55.0307 F= 0.470621 G= 25.8986 SOVIET G JFS 68-69/FBM LENGTH 320 FT 97.536 M WEIGHT 5264000 LB 2.38775 E+6 KG 2350 LT SPEED 17.6 KT 9.06048 M/S 29.7264 F/S POWER 6000 HP 4474.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 47.4181 F= 0.292846 G= 13.8862 SOVIET Z JFS 68-69/FBM/SURFACED LENGTH 295.2 FT 89.977 H WEIGHT 4704000 LB 2,13373 E+6 KG 2100 LT SPEED 22 KT 11.3256 M/S 37.158 F/S POWER 10000 HP 7457 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 31,7802 F= 0.381124 G= 12.1122 SOVIET F JFS 68-69/ATTACK/SURFACED LENGTH 300 FT 91.44 M WEIGHT 4480000 LB 2032128 KG 2000 LT SPEED 20 KT 10.296 M/S 33.78 F/S POWER 10000 HP 7457 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 27.5153 F= 0.343693 G= 9.45684 A-7 JA3 - AIRSHIP LZ-10 ZEPPELIN/FLT INTL 31 OCT 74 LENGTH 459 FT 139.903 N WEIGHT 45530 LB 20652.4 KG 20.3259 LT SPEED 40.8 KT 21.0038 M/S 68.9112 F/S POWER 450 HP 335.565 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 12.6769 F= 0.566834 G= 7.18568 SL-1 SCHUTTE-LANZ/FLT INTL 5 DEC 74 LENGTH 426 FT 129.845 M WEIGHT 52500 LB 23814 KG 23.4375 LT SPEED 38.3 KT 19.7168 N/S 64.6887 F/S POWER 480 HP 357.936 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 12.8642 F= 0.552326 G= 7.10525 SL-2 SCHUTTE-LANZ/FLr INTL 2 JAN 75 LENGTH 472 FT 143.866 M WEIGHT 63900 LB. 28985. KG 28.5268 LT SPEED 47.6 KT 24,5045 N/S 80.3964 F/S POWER 720 HP 536.904 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 12.9731 F: 0.652135 G- 8.46019 LZ-24 Z.IX ZEPPELIN/FLT INTL 6 FEB 75 LENGTH 518 FT 157.886 M WEIGHT 57540 LB 26100.1 KG 25.6875 LT SPEED 45.5 KT 23.4234 M/S 76.8495 F/S POWER 630 HP 469.791 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 12.7617 F= 0.595043 G= 7.59374 LZ-38 ZEPPELIN/FLT INTL 6 MAR 75 LENGTH 536 FT 163.373 M WEIGHT 81570 LB 37000.2 KG 36.4152 LT SPEED 51.9 KT 26.7181 N/S 87.6591 F/S POWER 840 HP 626.388 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 15.477 F= 0.667247 G= 10.327 L 62 ZEPPELIN/FLT INTL 27 MAR 75 LENGTH 650 FT 198.12 N WEIGHT 140873 LB 63900. KG 62.8897 LT SPEED 55.7 KT 28.6744 M/S i.0773 F/S POWER 1440 HP 1073.81 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 16.7335 F*:::0.65028 G0 10.8815 LZ 59 ZEPPELIN/FLT INTL 17 APR 75 LENGTH 743 FT 226.466 N WEIGHT 175265 LB 79500.2 KG 78.2433 LT SPEED 55.5 KT 28.5714 M/S 93.7395 F/S POWER 1200 HP 894.84 NW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E 24.8928 F: 0.606039 G= 15.086 A-8 R 34 BEARDMORE/FLT INTL 15 MAY 75 LENGTH 643 FT 195,986 M WEIGHT 141980 LB 64402.1 KG 63.3839 LT SPEED 52.1 KT 26.8211 M/S 87.9969 F/S POWER 1250 HP 932.125 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 18.1728 F= 0.611553 G= 11.1136 LZ 127 GRAF ZEPPELIN/FLT INTL 12 JUN 75 LENGTH 776 FT 236.525 M WEIGHT 229890 LB 104278. KG 102.629 LT SPEED 69.1 KT 35.5727 M/S 116.71 F/S POWER 2650 HP 1976.11 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 18.4085 F= 0.738327 G= 13.5915 ZSG-2/-3/-4 NAVY/JAWAC 60-61 LENGTH 267 FT 81.3816 M WEIGHT 34413 LB 15609.7 KG 15.3629 LT SPEED 70 KT 36.036 N/S 118.23 F/S POWER 1100 HP 820.27 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 6.72504 F= 1.2751 G= 8.5751 ZS2G -i NAVY/JAWAC LENGTH 285 FT 86.868 M WEIGHT 42445 LB 19253.1 KG 18.9487 LT SPEED 74 KT 38.0952 M/S 124.986 F/S POWER 1600 HP 1193.12 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 6.02844 F= 1.3047 G= 7.86532 ZPG-1 NAVY LENGTH 324.4 FT 98.8771 M WEIGHT 57137 LB 25917.3 KG 25.5076 LT SPEED 74 KT 38.0952 M/S 124.986 F/S POWER 1600 HP 1193.12 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 8.11514 F= 1.22291 G= 9.92405 ZPG-2/-2W NAVY/JAWAC LENGTH 343 FT 104.546 M WEIGHT 63667 LB 28879.4 KG 28.4228 LT SPEED 74 KT 38.0952 M/S 124.986 F/S POWER 1600 HP 1193.12 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 9.0426 F= 1.18929 G= 10.7542 ZPG-3W NAVYAVWK 30 SEP 74 LENGTH 433 FT 131.978 N WEIGHT 97950 LB 44430.1 KG 43.7277 LT SPEED 69.5 KT 35.7786 M/S 117.385 F/S POWER 3050 HP 2274.39 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 6.85419 F= 0.994129 G= 6.81395 AKRON-MACON NAVY ZRS-4/-5/SMITH LENGTH 785 FT 239.268 M WEIGHT 447300 LB 202895. KG 199.687 LT SPEED 75.6 KT 38.9189 M/S 127.688 F/S POWER 4480 HP 3340.74 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 23.1798 F= 0.803135 G= 18.6165 A-9 LZ 129/LZ 130 HINDENBERG/GRAF Z. II/CONSENSUS OF DATA LENGTH 803.8 FT 244.998 H WEIGHT 461667 LB 209412. KG 206.101 LT SPEED 67 KT 34.4916 M/S 113.163 F/S POWER 4600 HP 3430.22 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 20.6497 F= 0.7034 G= 14.525 LZ 126 LOS ANGELES/ZR 3/CONSENSUS LENGTH 658.3 FT 200.65 M WEIGHT 161291 LB 73161.6 KG 72.0049 LT SPEED 63.5 KT 32.6898 H/S 107.252 F/S POWER 2000 HP 1491.4 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 15.7261 F= 0.736654 G= 11.5847 R 100 CONSENSUS LENGTH 709 FT 216.103 H WEIGHT 326500 LB 148100. KG 145,759 LT SPEED 69.5 KT 35.7786 H/S 117.385 F/S POWER 3600 HP 2684.52 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 19.3568 F= 0.776897 G= 15.0382 R101 FLT INTL 10 JUL 74 LENGTH 724 FT 220.675 M WEIGHT 326500 LB 148100. KG 145.759 LT SPEED 65 KT 33.462 M/S 109.785 F/S POWER 3250 HP 2423.52 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 20.053 F= 0.719028 G= 14.4187 ZRN* NAVY DIESEL CONCEPT/CLEMENTS LENGTH 650 FT 198.12 M WEIGHT 192000 LB 87091.2 KG 85.7143 LT SPEED 65.1 KT 33,5135 M/S 109.954 F/S POWER 3000 HP 2237.1 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 12.7946 F= 0.760022 G= 9.7242 ZRCV* AIRCR CARRIER CONCEPT/CLEHENTS LENGTH 897 FT 273.406 M WEIGHT 592000 LB 268531. KG 264.286 LT SPEED 65.1 KT 33.5135 M/S 109.954 F/S POWER 6000 HP 4474.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 19.7251 F= 0.646973 G= 12.7616 ZRCC(N)* TRANSPORT CONCEPT/CLEMENTS LENGTH 1000 FT 304.8 M WEIGHT 1360000 LB 616896 KG 607.143 LT SPEED 86.8 KT 44.6846 M/S 146.605 F/S POWER 20000 HP 14914 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 18.1257 F= 0.816999 G= 14.8087 ZRCVN* AIRCR CARRIER CONCEPT/CLEMENTS LENGTH 1000 FT 304.8 M WEIGHT 3910000 LB 1773576 KG 1745.54 LT SPEED 86.8 KT 44.6846 H/S 146.605 F/S POWER 85000 HP 63384.5 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 12.2615 F= 0.816999 G= 10.0177 ZPG-X * GOODYEAR DES CONCEPT/GDTR LENGTH 405 FT 123.444 M WEIGHT 109500 LB 49669.2 KG 48.8839 LT SPEED 89 KT 45,3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 3432 HP 2559.24 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 8.62217 F= 1.30154 G= 11.2221 AD-500 * AIRSP DEV LTD/CONSTRN/BROCHURE LENGTH 164 FT 49.9872 M WEIGHT 10360 LB 4699.3 KG 4.625 LT SPEED 62 KT 31.9176 H/S 104.718 F/S POWER 400 HP 298.28 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 4.93127 F= 1.44102 G= 7.10608 A-10 JA4 - TORPEDO MARK 1 NWIP I/ORDHAC/IGNORE INPUT DATA-CLASSIFIED LENGTH 49.09 FT 14.9626 M WEIGHT 613.536 LB 278.3 KG 0.2739 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 0 HP 0 KW THRUST 800 LB 3.55872 KN E= 0.76692 F= 3.73842 G= 2.86707 MARK 2 NWIP I/ORDHAC/IGNORE INPUT DATA LENGTH 75.29 FT 22.9484 M WEIGHT 984.032 LB 446.357 KG 0.4393 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 0 HP 0 KW THRUST 800 LB 3.55872 KN E= 1.23004 F= 3.01867 G= 3.71309 MARK 3 NWIP I/ORDHAC/IGNORE INPUT DATA LENGTH 176.9 FT 53.9191 M WEIGHT 1936.03 LB 878.184 KG 0.8643 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 0 HP 0 KW THRUST 800 LB 3.55872 KN E= 2.42004 F= 1.96934 G= 4.76588 MARK 4 NWIP I/ORDHAC/IGNORE INPUT DATA LENGTH 85.14 FT 25.9507 M WEIGHT 1359.9 LB 616.852 KG 0.6071 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 0 HP 0 KW THRUST 800 LB 3.55872 KN E= 1.69988 F= 2.83869 G= 4.82543 MARK 5 NWIP I/ORDHAC/IGNORE INPUT DATA LENGTH 99.28 FT 30.2605 M WEIGHT 1031.97 LB 468.101 KG 0.4607 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 0 HP 0 KW THRUST 800 LB 3.55872 KN E= 1.28996 F= 2.62978 G= 3.39102 MARK 6 NWIP I/ORDHAC/IGNORE INPUT DATA LENGTH 119.2 FT 36.3322 M WEIGHT 2072 LB 939.859 KG 0.925 LT SPEED 88 KT 45.3024 M/S 148.632 F/S POWER 0 HP 0 KW THRUST 0.0 LB 3.55872 KN Ef 2.59 F= 2.39909 G= 6.21364 A-11 JB1 - LARGE TRANSPORT SHIP CEDROS TANKER/JAP SHPB LENGTH 978.9 FT 298.369 N WEIGHT 3.9424 E+8 LB 1.78827 E+8 KG 176000 LT SPEED 16.2 KT 8.33976 M/S 27.3618 F/S POWER 27190 HP 20275.6 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 721.329 F= 0.154116 G= 111.168 ENERGY ENTERPRISE TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 1312.5 FT 400.05 M WEIGHT 1.1153 E+9 LB 5.05898 E+8 KG 497900 LT SPEED 21.2 KT 10.9138 N/S 35.8068 F/S POWER 120000 HP 89484 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 605.078 F= 0.174176 G= 105.39 ANN'S TANKER/M E LUG LENGTH 1218 FT 371.246 N WEIGHT 1.04608 E+9 LB 4.74502 E+8 KG 467000 LT SPEED 16 KT 8.2368 N/S 27.024 F/S POWER 45000 HP 33556.5 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 1142.19 F= 0.136458 G= 155.861 SEA SAINT TANKER/N E LOG LENGTH 1196 FT 364.541 M WEIGHT 9.50387 E+8 LB 4.31096 E+8 KG 424280 LT SPEED 15.5 KT 7.9794 M/S 26.1795 F/S POWER 40000 HP 29828 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 1130.94 F= 0.133404 G= 150.871 CORONADO TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 687.5 FT 209.55 N WEIGHT 105862400 LB 4.80192 E+7 KG 47260 LT SPEED 16 KT 8.2368 N/S 27.024 F/S POWER 15000 HP 11185.5 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 346.767 F= 0.181629 G= 62.9829 GOLDEN DOLPHIN TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 891 FT 271.577 N WEIGHT 2.3921 E+8 LB 108505475 KG 106790 LT SPEED 16.5 KT 8.4942 N/S 27.8685 F/S POWER 24500 HP 18269.7 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 494.725 F= 0.164531 G= 81.3973 SEIKO NARU TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 888 FT 270.662 M WEIGHT 3.69443 E+8 LB 1.67579 E+8 KG 164930 LT SPEED 16.8 KT 8.64864 N/S 28.3752 F/S POWER 28000 HP 20879.6 KW ' Jl& 1 Lt. e) k E= 680.716 F= 0.167805 G= 114.227 KEIYO NARU TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 1025 FT 312.42 M WEIGHT 5.61635 E+8 LB 2.54758 E+E KG 250730 LT SPEED 15.6 KT 8.03088 M/S 26.3484 F/S POWER 36000 HP 26845.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN F= 747.383 F= 0.145032 G=: 108.395 A-12 ARCO ANCHORAGE TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 920 FT 280.416 M WEIGHT 2.9712 E+8 LB 1.34774 E+8 KG 132643 LT SPEED 15.9 KT 8.18532 M/S 26.8551 F/S POWER 26000 HP 19388.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 557.986 F= 0.156029 G= 87.0619 ARTEAGA TANKER/H E LOG LENGTH 1186 FT 361.493 M WEIGHT 7.96051 E+8 LB 3.61089 E+8 KG 355380 LT SPEED 15 KT 7.722 H/S 25.335 F/S POWER 37400 HP 27889.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 980.455 F= 0.129643 G= 127.11 GLOBTIK TOKYO TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 1295 FT 394.716 M WEIGHT 1.19175 E+9 LB 5.40577 E+8 KG 532030 LT SPEED 14.7 KT 7.56756 M/S 24.8283 F/S POWER 45000 HP 33556.5 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 1195,52 F= 0.121586 G= 145.358 RAS MAERSK TANKER/H E LOG LENGTH 1186 FT 361.493 M WEIGHT 7.03472 E+8 LB 3.19095 E+8 KG 314050 LT SPEED 16 KT 8.2368 M/S 27.024 F/S POWER 32000 HP 23862.4 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 1080.15 F= 0.138286 G= 149.37 TEXACO SWEDEN TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 1164 FT 354.787 M WEIGHT 6.29888 E+8 LB 2.85717 E+8 KG 281200 LT SPEED 16.1 KT 8.28828 M/S 27.1929 F/S POWER 32000 HP 23862.4 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 973.209 F= 0.140459 G= 136.696 ALVA BAY TANKER/M E LOG LENGTH 1139 FT 347.167 M WEIGHT 5.65488 E+8 LB 2.56505 E+8 KG 252450 LT SPEED 16 KT 8.2368 M/S 27.024 F/S POWER 32450 HP 24198. KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 856.24 F= 0.141111 G= 120.825 ATLANTIC BARON TANKER/MAR REP LENGTH 1146 FT 349.301 M WEIGHT 6.26976 E+8 LB 2.84396 E+8 KG 279900 LT SPEED 15.6 KT 8.03088 M/S 26.3484 F/S POWER 32000 HP 23862.4 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 938.626 F= 0.137162 G= 128.744 A-13 ..... ...... MEDIUM TANKER (1955)/BOEING LENGTH 677 FT 206.35 M WEIGHT 111238400 LB 5.04577 E+7 KG 49660 LT SPEED 18 KT 9.2664 M/S 30.402 F/S POWER 20000 HP 14914 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 307.443 F= 0.205911 G= 63.3059 ESSO ATLANTIC TANKER/ABS 78/MAR REP 1 EqfLk 1231 *FT 4AlAOAA M WEIGHT 1.30038 E+9 LB 5.89852 E+8 KG 580526 LT SPEED 15.9 KT 8.18532 M/S 26.8551 F/S POWER 45000 HP 33556.5 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 1410.98 F= 0.129575 G= 182.828 CONT ELBE MARU CONTAINER SHIP/JAP SHPB LENGTH 882 FT 268.834 M WEIGHT 132764800 LB 6.02221 E+7 KG 59270 LT SPEED 31 KT 15.9588 M/S 52.359 F/S POWER 84600 HP 63086.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 149.397 F= 0.310691 G= 46.4163 CONT ATLANTIC CROWN CONTAINER/JAP SHPB LENGTH 697 FT 212.446 M WEIGHT 59808000 LB 2.71289 E+7 KG 26700 LT SPEED 24 KT 12.3552 M/S 40.536 F/S POWER 29590 HP 22065.3 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 148.968 F= 0.270581 G= 40.3078 A-14 NISSEI MARU TANKER/MAR REP LENGTH 1295 FT 394.716 M WEIGHT 1.17533 E+9 LB 5.33129 E+8 KG 524700 LT SPEED 14.3 KT 7.36164 M/S 24.1527 F/S POWER 45000 HP 33556.5 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 1146.96 F= 0.118278 G= 135.66 ESSO KAWASAKI TANKER/MAR REP LENGTH 1163 FT 354,482 M WEIGHT 7.392 E+8 LB 3.35301 E+8 KG 330000 LT SPEED 15.9 KT 8.18532 M/S 26.8551 F/S POWER 36000 HP 26845.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 1002.59 F= 0.138774 G= 139.134 UNIVERSE MARINER TANKER/MAR REP LENGTH 1154 FT 351.739 M WEIGHT 6.62592 E+8 LB 3,00552 E+8 KG 295800 LT SPEED 16 KT 8.2368 M/S 27.024 F/S POWER 40000 HP 29828 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 813.904 F= 0.140191 G= 114.102 BRITISH RESPECT TANKER/MAR REP LENGTH 1148 FT 349.91 M WEIGHT 6.6528 E+8 LB 3.01771 E+8 KG 297000 LT SPEED 16.2 KT 8.33976 M/S 27.3618 F/S POWER 36000 HP 26845.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 919.356 F= 0.142313 G= 130.837 WORLD ADMIRAL TANKER/MAR REP LENGTH 1059 FT 322.783 M WEIGHT 5.8464 E+8 LB 2.65193 E+8 KG 261000 LT SPEED 16.5 KT 8.4942 M/S 27.8685 F/S POWER 36000 HP 26845.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 822.881 F= 0.150917 G= 124.187 TEXACO ITALIA TANKER/MAR REP LENGTH 1152 FT 351.13 M WEIGHT 6.496 E+8 LB 2.94659 E+8 KG 290000 LT SPEED 15.8 KT 8.13384 M/S 26.6862 F/S POWER 33530 HP 25003.3 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 940.019 F= 0.138558 G= 130.247 MANHATTAN TANKER/ N62/BOEING LENGTH 892 FT 271.882 M WEIGHT 3.07032 E+8 LB 1.3927 E+8 KG 137068 LT SPEED 17.7 KT 9.11196 M/S 29.8953 F/S POWER 39000 HP 29082.3 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 427.917 F= 0.176398 G= 75.4835 A-15 JB2 - SHALL TRANSPORT SHIP C3-S-A2 DRY CARGO/BOEING/1942 LENGTH 462 FT 140.818 M WEIGHT 39457600 LB 1.7898 E+7 KG 17615 LT SPEED 16.5 KT 8.4942 M/S 27.8685 F/S POWER 8500 HP 6338.45 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 235.214 F= 0.228489 G= 53.7437 CIA BOEING/DRY CARGO/1942 LENGTH 390 FT 118.872 M WEIGHT 24830400 LB 1.12631 E+7 KG 11085 LT SPEED 14 KT 7.2072 M/S 23.646 F/S POWER 4000 HP 2982.8 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 266.882 F= 0.211007 G= 56.314 C2-S-AJl BOEING/DRY CARGO/1943 LENGTH 435 FT 132.588 M WEIGHT 33476800 LB 1.51851 E+7 KG 14945 LT SPEED 15.5 KT 7.9794 M/S 26.1795 F/S POWER 6000 HP 4474.2 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E = 265.578 F= 0.221202 G= 58.7462 VC-2-S-AP3 BOEING/DRY CARGO/1944 LENGTH 437 FT 133.198 M WEIGHT 34070400 LB 1.54543 E+7 KG 15210 LT SPEED 16.5 KT 8.4942 M/S 27.8685 F/S POWER 8500 HP 6338.45 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 203.1 F= 0.234933 G= 47.7149 C1-M-AV1 BOEING/DRY CARGO/1944 LENGTH 324 FT 98.7552 M WEIGHT 18513600 LB 8397769 KG 8265 LT SPEED 10.5 KT 5.4054 M/S 17.7345 F/S POWER 1700 HP 1267.69 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN E= 351.154 F 0.1,73627 G= 60.9701 A-16 C4--S--lA BOEING/DRY CARG/1952 LENGTH 528 FT 160.934 M WEIGHT 47259520 LB 2.14369 E+7 K 21098 LT SPEED 20.3 KT 10.4504 M/S 34.2867 F/S POWER 17500 HP 13049.7 KW THRUST 0 L.B 0 KN E:= 168,35 F= 0.262955 G= 44.2685 C3-ST--14A BOEING/DRY CARG0/1958 LENGTH 465 FT 141.732 M WEIGHT 40960640 LB 1.85797 E+7 KG 13286 LT SPEED 18 NT 9.2664 M/S 30.402 F/S POWER 11220 HP 8366.75 KW E= 201.796 F= 0.248455 G= 50.1373 C4-S-57A BOEING/DRY CARGO/1963 LENGTH 529 FT 161.239 M WEIGHT 47158720 LB 2.13912 E+7 KG 21053 LT SPEED 20.5 KT 10.5534 M/S 34.6245 F/S POWER 16500 HP 12304.1 KW THRUST 0 LB 0 KN Ft 179.928 F= 0.265294 G = 47.7339 C4--ST-67A BOEING/DRY CARGO/1964 LENGTH 499.5 FT 152,248 M WEIGHT 48608000 LB 2.20486 E+7 KG