10. 1.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FOR AERONAUTICS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 1254
SYSTEMATIC MODEL RESEARCHES ON THE STABILITY LIMITS
OF THE DVL SERIES OF FLOAT DESIGNS
By W. Sottorf
Translation of "Systematische Modelluntersuchungen liber
den tauchstampffreien Stabilitats bereich des DVLEinheitsschwimmers ."
Jahrbuch 1942 der Deutschen Luftfahrtforschung.
Was hington
December 1949
THIS DOCUi\;i:J., C1 LOt,;! f:iC:.: THE FILES DF
ADV''iORY COMMITTEE FOR A RONAUTICS
LAN':LEY
I,ANGLEY F . LiJ, .. ,'MPTOil, VIf\!lINIA
REwt; j f) T' : f'. J ' i:: ..
S,1OULD BE f IlORESSED
AS
NM'%AL IIDVISORY COMMITTEE FOR fI
17:1, STREET, ri.w.,
25, v.C.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS
TECHNICAL MEMQRANDUM 1254
SYSTEMATIC MODEL RESEARCHES ON THE STABILITY LIMITS
OF THE DVL SERIES OF FLOAT DESIGNs*"
By W. Sottorf
SUMMARY
To determine the trim range in which a seaplane can take off without
porpoising, stability tests were made of a plexiglas model, composed of
float, wing, and tailplane, which corresponded to a fullsize research
airplane. The model and fullsize stability limits are in good agree
ment. After all structural parts pertaining to the air frame were
removed gradually, the aerodynamic forces replaced by weight forces, and
the moment of inertia and position of the center of gravity changed, no
marked change of limits of the stable zone was noticeable. The latter,
therefore, is for practical purposes affected only by hydrodynamic
phenomena. The stability limits of the DVL family of floats were deter
mined by a systematic investigation independent of any particular sea
plane design, thus a seaplane may be designed to give a run free from
porpoising.
A
A*
G
SYMBOLS
aerodynamic lift, kilograms
hydrodynamic lift, kilograms
flying weight, kilograms
wing area, meters
2
F
J
y
pitching moment of inertia, meter kilograms second
2
fy
b
St
bnat
b
radius of gyration, meters
beam at step, meters
breadth of pressure surface, meters
wing span, meters
length of hull, meters
t rise of center of gravity, meters
*"Systematische Modelluntersuchungen uber den
Stabilitatsbereich des DVLEinheitsschwimmers."
Deutschen Luftfahrtforschung, pp. I 451  I 465.
tauchstampffreien
Jahrbucn 1942 der
2
v
F
f
0,*
p
NACA TM 1254
speed, meters per second
Froude number
fre<luency, liS
dynamic pressure (air or water), kilograms per meter2
aerodynamic lift coefficient (.&.. \
FgV
beam loading (A* ~
yb
St
Y
hydrodynamic lift coefficient (A* 2\
\gbSt/
trim or attitude of keel tangent at step to horizontal, degrees
wing angle of attack, degrees
keel angle, degrees
scale
elevator or flap deflection
density, kilograms seconds
2
per meter
4
specific weight, kilograms per meter
3
I . INTRODUCTION AND RANGE OF INVESTIGATION
By porpolslng is understood an oscillation occurring, even in
calm water, during the landing and take off of seaplanes, which
combines an angular oscillation in pitch with a vertical movement
of the center of gravity. The disturbance is sometimes so great that
the only possible preventative  damping control from the elevator 
is of no use. German seaplanes have suffered little from this
phenomenon  much less so than prewar English aircraft. In England
clarification of the nature of, and cure for, porpoising has been
attacked by using dynamically simi18r models. (See references 1 and 2. )
NACA TM 1254
Our researches confirm. those made in England which show that all
seaplanes have a definite zone of stable attitudes similar to that
shown in figure 1. The position of the upper and lower limits of
this stability region varies from aircraft to aircraft, but there
are several features common to all aircraft. The limits diverge
with increasing speed. The lower limit is highest near the hump 
where the stable zone is narrowest  and a seaplane having too
3
high or too l:lW an attitude there will be almost certain to porpoise.
Just before take  off, crossing the upper limit may lead to severe
porpoising causing the seaplane to bounce clear of the water. On the
other hand, the amplitude of porpoising may be limited by the influence
of the aterbody. The real danger point occurs at high speed in the
lower limit, where a porpoise, building up rapidly, may cause the bow
to dig in. This usually leads to total loss of the aircraft. Such
a case has been encountered on the latest English flying boat 
Short ''Empire.''
As stated above, German seaplanes in general are in no danger
from porpoising provided they d6 not encounter a large disturbance.
This' stability is dependent on
(a) The position of the stability limits
(b) Any factors which may affect the attitude
Of particular significance is the determination of stability
limi ts for the DVL family of floats giving the most sui table
dimensions for any hull, that is, length, deadrise, and beam loading
(reference 3). The primary purpose of this investigation, however,
is, by systematic stability tests, to enable the stability of any
run to be forecast with accuracy.
In addition it is necessary to find if the influence on stability
of the aerodynamic components of a seaplane combined with center of
gravity shift and change of moment of inertia is sufficiently small
to be neglected.
The groundwork for the foregoing tests was established by a series
of tests on a model consisting of float plus wing and tail surfaces.
This model was similar to a Vought v85 fitted with a DVLfamily
float (reference 4). By altering the moment of inertia, replacing
the aerodynamic forces by weights, and by moving the center of gravity
the influence of these factors on stability was investigated in the
tank.
In a further research the influence of deadrise angle was
determined by testing a series of unwarped planing surfaces having
different deadrise angles. In addition, tests ",ere made on six models
4
NACA TM 1254
of two float families with keel angles of 130
0
and 140
0
to determine
the stabili ty limits over the attainable atti tude range. Finally an
examination was made of the effect of the afterbody by tests on a
series of forebodies alone.
II . RESEARCH PROCEDURE
The apparatus used in the tests is illustrated in figure 2. The
model is carried forward and under the carriage in order to eliminate
as far as possible the effects of airflow interference from the
carriage (reference 5).
The model is constructed of plexiglas throughout. Wing and tail
surfaces for the float under test are attached to a framework on the
float. Movable wei_ghts are used to change the total weight and moment
of inertia. The float is diviotble into two parts at the step, thus
allowing variation of the forebodyafterbody combination and step
height. Plexiglass construction offers the following advantages:
(a) Being transparent it allows observation of the flow over the
bottom.
(b) It compares favorably with balsa construction for weight and
strength.
(c) It is not subject to distortion and is water resisting.
This last quality in particular' has facilitated lengthy tank
researches. The model (fig. 2) is towed at the center of gravity s by
way of a rod fl which is free to move in a vertical direction. In
addition the model is free to ~ i t c h . A second guide f2 limits
directional rotation to ''lo and provides a stop for excessive pitch
oscillation which otherwise might damage the model. The rise t and
the attitude 0,* of the float can be read during a test from Beales
mounted above the model. For grea.ter accuracy the results are also
recorded on the carriage by way of two wires in tension zl and z2'
A third wire z3 transmits the relieving load when this is used in
place of aerodynamic lift.
III. PRELOONARY RESEARCH
The preliminary tests were made under similar conditions to
thoSe described in reference 4 with the sing18float Vought v85 aircraft
NACA TM 1
2
54
5
which is used as a test bed for the DVL float family. The beam of the
models is b
St
= 0.2 meters and the model scale = 5.5.
Figure 3 shows the results from these preliminary tests. The
models were tested at four different speeds, the lowest speed being
slightly above hump speed and the hiBhest near takeoff speed.
Three symbols are used:
+
stable, no tendency to oscillate, positive damping
o borderline, slight oscillation, no damping
unstable, undamped oscillation
To prevent the model propoising by entering the unstable region
before it reaches the test speed, it is held in the carriage during
the run up and then released with elevators set to give the attitude
By this means the model in falling onto the water is given
a disturbance of 2
0
or 3
0
within the stable region and this,
combined with the slight residual wave motion in the tank, is considered
to give sufficient disturbance.
Figure 4 gives a number of individual records and photographs from
these tests. The angle given is the angle at which the oscillation
is initiated. This does not, in general, agree with the mean attitude of
pOrp01Slng It has been shown that within the stable
region is smaller in the upper stability region and larger in the lower
stability region than . It can be seen that attitude and rise oscil
lations are in phase (and of similar and that the maximum rise
coincides with the maximum attitude. This corresponds to the
position on the water provided that the inertia forces
are small. The introduction of a positive increase in attitude
increases the hydrodynamic impulse; the of forces is
maintained by a vertical centerofgravity rise resulting in a
reduction of the effective pressure area. A periodic repetition of
this process leads to porpoising.
The boundary zone between stable and unstable regions proved to
be very small indeed and the accuracy of the limits given is reckoned
to be
4
6 NACA TM 1254
IV . EFFECT OF ALTERATIONS TO THE MODEL
(a) Alteration of Moment of Inertia
By displacing the trim weights on the model balance arm, the
moment of inertia J
y
was increased in two steps by 42 percent and
97 percent to find the influence of an excessive moment of inertia
on stability.
In figure 5 the nondimensional coefficient
iy
=
has been plotted as a function of weight G for a number of aircraft,
and it can be seen that the moment of inertia of the fullscale V85 is
representative of moCiern practice and that an increase of 97 percent
brings the moment of inertia well above normal.
Comparison with the preliminary tests shows that the stable
conditions are unaffected by these changes in moment of inertia. In
the unstable region the amplitude of oscillation increases with increase
in moment of inertia, and points which are on the borderline (zero
damping) at low and intermediate moments of inertia become unstable at
high moments of inertia. For this reason, the limits were plotted so
that the border points (0) fell wi thin the unstable region. Extrapolat ing
the frequency for a model moment of inertia corresponding to complete
dynamical similarity by using the formula obtained for the physical
c (c
J
0.638 average)
in conjunction with the three measured frequencies gives a model scale
frequency fM of 2.05 Lechner estimated. that under similar conditions
ffull scale = 0.85 = fH
Then scaling down dynamically
235 fH 2.00
which agrees with the measured value.
NACA TM 1254 7
(b) Change of Mass and Damping
Replacement of wing lift by weights.  The lifting surface was
removed and the original weight and moment of inertia restored. In
conjunction with the elevator positions obtained from the basic research,
the float positions corresponding to various wing lifts were obtained
by suitable adjustment of relieving weights (through the wire z3 shown
in figure 2). This replacement of wing lift by weight did not influence
the stability limits. In the unstable region the porpoising amplitude
was increased as a result of the absence of wing aerodynamic damping.
Doubling the tailsurface area.  At low water speed the elevator
has insufficient power to trim the aircraft such that the unstable
points can be determined, and weights are used instead. With twice
the tail area these points can be reached without resort to weight
movement. The stability limits are not affected, but there is a
proportionately small decrease in the porpoising amplitude owing to
the greater damping effect.
Replacement of the elevator moments by weights.  The tail was
also removed and replaced by weights; no effect on the limits was
noted apart from a slightly increased amplitude of oscillation because
of the decrease in aerodynamic damping (fig. 6).
(c) Movement
A centerofgravity range from behind the step to in
front of the step was tested over the whole speed range. This center 
of  gravity movement covers the centerof gravity limits of most
existing seaplanes.
The curves of figure 7 show that the centerofgravity movement
also has no effect on the stability limits.
An effect of vertical movement of the center of gravity is hardly
to be expected from these results, and was therefore not investigated.
(d) Effect of Loading
The foregoing alterations to the model indicate that the stability
limits are independent of any changes in the superstructure and are
only influenced by hydrodynamic effects on the float. Renee the effect
of loading can be investigated on the model without lifting surface
and at a constant load. The loading can then be varied to cover the
whole weight range
In figure 8 the stability limits for loadings ca* = 0. 37 to 1.85 are
given. The tailplane was retained and the attitude varied by altering the
8
NACA TM 1254
elevator deflection. The above loads are influenced by the tailplane
lift; a correction has been made for this and the limits reduced to
constant c
a
*.
Figure 8 shows that with increasing load both upper and lower
limits move towards higher attitudes by approximately eClual amolUlts.
If, as in figure 9,
A*
coefficient cB = 2'
Clb
St
a* is plotted against the hydrodynamic lift
determined in reference 6, it is apparent that
the highspe2d lowerstability curves, where the stern is not wetted and
at which the influence of Froude number is negligible, coincide. The
spreading of the stable zone below the hump appears in figure 9 as a
branch curve deviating from the direction of the mean line.
The limits for the preliminary research have been interpolated
from figure 8 and they agree with the limits obtained by direct
measurement, figure 10.
V. COMPARISON BEIWEEN MJDEL A.Nl) FULL SCALE
Comparison between model and full scale is given in figure 11.
Since, as has been shown already, the limits are sensitive to load on
the water, the model scale results were corrected for increase in lift
due to propeller thrust component and slipstream.
The agreement between the two is good. On the lower limit, the
1
0
difference is nowhere greater than 2 On the upper limit the corres
ponding curves diverge at low speed. It may be that at this point
premature porpoising has occurred as a r e s 1 h ~ t of wing stall on the
fullscale aircraft since cBroax occurs at a* = 10
0
full scale and
not until a* = 15
0
on the model. The agreement between freCluencies
has been noted in section rv(a).
VI. SysrEMATIC INVESTIGATIONS WITH PLANING SURFACES,
FOREBODIES, AND SIX DVL FLOATS
(a) Planing Surfaces
To investigate the effect
unwarped planing surfaces with
and 0
0
(fig. 12) were tested 
rise on the DVL float family.
of deadrise alone. four longitudinally
keel angles of 1300, 140
0
, 160
0
, and 180
0
the first two correspond to the angles of dead
The results from these planing surfaces are
NACA TM 1254
plotted in figure 15. The constant loadings chosen  uncorrected for
tail lift  correspond to those given in figure 22 for the floats;
the speed range covered was also similar.
9
At first glance it is obvious that the character of the lower
limits and their sensitivity to load confirm the results already
obtained. At low speed there exists  depending on the length of the
surface and provided a sufficiently great nosedown moment can be
achieved  a second limit below the primary one. The two limits meet
at a speed slightly below the hump speed. But, since at this speed the
limits are greatly dependent on the effect of the afterbody, this
secondary limit is of no practical significance.
There is no upper limit. The attitude of the planing surface at
various loads and speeds was increased to 20
0
 in which case the wetted
length vras 20 to 30 llIDl  without encountering porpoising. However, the
flat surface was very sensitive to a disturbed water surface and a pure
vertical oscillation occurred at attitudes from 3
0
to 9
0
 depending on
the loading  above the stable attitude. The amplitude of this oscil
lation increased with increase in attitude (fig . 17); at low weight and
high speed the trailing edge is thrown off the water. With perfectly
undisturbed water the oscillation does not appear. The surfaces with
deadrise showed no tendency to oscillate under similar conditions.
Figure 16 gives the limits interpolated for dimensionless speed
and load coefficients (corrected for tail lift).
The surfaces with deadrise gave similar results to the flat surface.
Figure 18 gives curves showing the variation of stability limits with
load for three Froude numbers with deadrise as a parameter. There is
little difference between the limits for the surfaces with deadrise but,
considering the accuracy with which the whole series of tests has been
performed, there is a tendency, somewhat ill defined it is true, towards
raising of the upper limit with increase in deadrise. Following this
trend, the limit for the flat surface is the lowest of the set. The
distinction here "is, however, much greater and varies between 0.5
0
and 2.0
0
, possibly a result of the sensitivity to water conditions noted
previously.
(b) Forebodies
The forebodies of the DVL float family B which have a keel angle
of 130
0
(fig. 13) "Tere subjected to the same program of tests as the
planing surfaces and complete floats (fig. 22). The results are given
in figures 19 and 20.
These forebodies differ from the planing surfaces in having
(1) increased deadrise towards the bow by reason of the warp on the
10
NACA TM 1254
hull and (2 ) flar e a t the chine . The influence of these factors on
stability is clearly shown in the comparison between planing surfaces
and forebodies .
As with the planing surfaces, there is no upper limit (attitude
r ange cover ed = 20
0
) (fig . 21). With the shortest for ebody  DVL 1 7 ~
fi gure 19  t he l m.;rer limits ar e from 0. 5
0
to 2
0
higher ' over the whol e
s peed r ange j the smaller the at t itude the longer is the ,.;retted s urface
and more of the strongly warped bow is subject to pressure . At low
loads and high water speed, the difference is accentuated. The warping
has obviously the greatest influence since, the change in deadrise has
already been shown to be of comparative unimportance and the chine
flare reducing as it does the pres sure area is an ameliorating f actor.
The forebody of intermediate length  DVL 18  which was tested
only over a limited speed r ange at high load shows that for c a ~ = 1.25
and F = 4 the limits are coinqident and that at higher load the
forebody is somewhat better than the corresponding planing surface.
This tendency was also apparent in the tests on DVL 17 where the
difference between forebody and planing surface limits is decreased
as the load increases .
As would be expected, the long forebody  DVL 19  shows an
even greater improvement at high load. At low load and high speed
the planing surface is still the more stable but the difference between
the two is much less than with the shortest forebody .
This variation with high and low load and with long and short
forebodies caused by bow war p should be corroborated by further
Tesearch .
( c) DVL Float Family
Family B, DVL 17, 18, and 19. S 130
0
Family A, DVL la, 8, and 7. S 140
0
The range of weights and speeds covered is given in figure 22.
In figures 23 to 25 the results of the measurements on Family B
(fig. 14) are plotted in the form of curves of a* as f ( v ) with load G
as a parameter. There is now an upper limit as a result of stern
wetting, which is initiated somewhat below the upper limit.
NACA TM 1254 11
For the short and long hulls the freQuency of the porpolsillg
oscillation at each experimental point has been plotted in addition
to the stability limits (figs. 23 and 25). It can be seen that on
the lower limit the at high speed is almost double that at
the hump. On the upper limit the difference is not so great . The
freQuency also increases with increase in weight and length, and is
greater at the upper limit than at the lower. These results confirm
the contention made earlier that the freQuency of porpoising once
it has started is greatly dependent on the moment of inertia. For
ease of interpolation the limits have been plotted nondimensionally
using aT as a function of c
a
* wi th F as par ameter and aT as
function of F with ca* as parameter (figs. 26  28) .
In figm"es 29 to 31 is given the relationship between the limits
and cB*. At high speed the curves of lower limit can be collapsed
with a scatter of less than 0.5
0
For the upper limits the scatter
is less than 10. This result indicates that at high Froude number
when the planing condition has been reached the transition from the
stable to the unstable state occurs at a given value of and
Q
b
st
2
wetted length and is independent of Froude number .
Although, as is already established, the afterbody initiates the
upper limit, it has a stabilizing effect, on the lower limit. In
figures 23 to 25 the limits for the forebodies can be compared with
the limits for the complete hulls. The afterbody lowers the limits
in the region of the first hump so long as it is wetted. After the
afterbody is clear, the limits coincide.
Float family A gave similJ.U' results to family B.
A comparative plot of the mean limits for these two families
(fig. 32) shows that for the lower limits at high speed  low cB
the DVL la ith less deadrise is better than DVL 17 At lower speeds
and high loads the DVL 17 shows up to best advantage. The differ ences
between DVL 8 and 18 and DVL 7 and 19 are very slight) with the sharper
keels somewhat better . On the upper limits the floats with the greater
deadrise have the higher limits . The effect of
2
ratio is not very
obvious in this plot except in the hump region where the shortest hulls
have a slightly higher, and lower limit . The ameliorating effect of
increasing the
2
ratio is more clearly defined in figure 33, which
shows the maximal attitudes of the lower limits for several loads
2
plotted against .
b
st
12 NACA TM 1254
VII. METHODS FOR WIDENING THE ST.A13ILITY RIDlON
The foregoing stability diagrams will give information for any
projects based on the DVL float family. Even for designs somewhat
different from this series the results will give sufficiently accurate
information; for example, the deadrise has little effect, and the
strength of the afterbody affects only the upper limit.
Widening the stability limits in cases where the attitude approaches
the limits and for various reasons cannot be altered may be accomplished
by the following means:
(a) Upper Limi t
To make a short take off the seaplane m ~ be pulled off sharply
thereby running into the upper limit. By using afterbody auxiliary
steps from 0.01 to 0.02b
St
deep (fig. 34), this limit can be raised as
much as 3
0
The optimum condition is reached when the tangential
flow from the forebody is deflected by the auxiliary steps producing
a stabilizing force (fig. 35). In addition there is a considerable
reduction in resistance confirmed by fullscale tests.
(b) Lower Limit
By lowering the afterbody at the rear step or by utilizing a hook,
the effect of the afterbody at the hump can be increased and the limit
thereby lowered. This measure will, of course, result in a simul
taneous lowering of the upper limit near takeoff.
The whole lower limit can be lowered without affecting the upper
limit by a slight concave keel camber innnediately forward of the
main step. Earlier experiments (reference 7) have shown that with a
concave keel the center of pressure is moved nearer to the rear of the
pressure area; hence the wetted area for a given weight ' is reduced and
the resistance and spray characteristics improved.
l
Since the resultant
lThis method was not pursued any further at the time because of
the instability that was found. The results of that investigation do
not, however, contradict the results obtained here as it was only
concerned with flat surfaces. Without deadrise such a planing surface
(see section VI(a)) particularly with longitudinal curvature, is very
sensitive to water surface conditions  the surface with deadrise is not.
NACA TM 1
2
54
13
hydrodynamic lift is moved nearer the step, the running attitude is
reduced. Hence, by a supplementary investigation a suitable combination
of camber, step position, and center ofgravity position must be found.
In figure 36 the limits from three cambered hulls (as shown)
are compared with the corresponding results for an uncambered hull
(keel angle 1300, ca* = 1.5 and 2). It can be seen that limits are
moved in proportion to the angle at the step (50 441 and 2
0
521
investigated) while the radius and length of the hook (R = 10, 20
and 40b
St
and 2 = I and 2b
St
) affect the limits only insofar as
they change the angle at the step. As the, load is reduced or the
dynamic pressure increased, the change in attitude approaches the
value of the step angle. Further research is required on this
subject to determine a suitable camber.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
Porpoising is an oscillation which occurs during the landing and
takeoff of a seaplane and which may lead to total loss of the aircraft.
An initial investigation was made with a plexiglas model, comprised
of a float, wing, and tail, which was dynamically similar to the
Vought v85 fitted a DVLfamily float. The model and fullscale
give similar results for the stable regions. The limits of thi s r e gion
diverge with increasing speed.
The following alterations were found to have no noticeable effect
on the position of the limits: alteration of moment of inertia, center
ofgravity position, replacement of the aerodynamic lift from the wing
and tail surfaces by weights. These alterations have some effect on
the behavior within the unstable regions.
Load on the water has, however, a considerable influence on the
position of the limits. Both limits are moved to higher attitudes with
increase in load. The limits determined for a series of weights can
be used to interpolate the limits corresponding to any given wing lift.
There followed an investigation into the effect of deadrise angle
with unwarped planing surfaces. Comparison with tests made on a series
2
of forebodies of varying  b ratio shows the effect of warp, and
St
further compari s on with t ests on two families of complete hulls gives
the afterbody effect.
14
NACA TM 1254
A seaplane with forebody alone has no upperlimit instability up
to the maximum practicable attitude. If a flying boat shows instability
at the upper limi t , this can be cured by altering the afterbody only 
increasing the afterbody keel angle. For the lower limit the afte rbody
is stabilizing near the hump, that is, so long as it is wetted, and
as a result the lower limit, which rises sharply with decrease in speed
till it reaches the hump, falls away again.
When no other means are available the limits can be widened if
necessary by
. (a) The addition of small auxiliary steps on the afterbody which
will raise the upper limit
(b) Lowering the afterbody or hooking the rear step which will
lower the lower limit at the hump
(c) Making a slight concavity in the keel immediately forward of
the step thereby lowering the complete lower limit
This last alteration affects the running attitude so that a
suitable compromise must be made between step pOSition, centerofgravity
position, and degree of concavity. .
With the working diagrams of the DVL float families presented
herein at hand the designer can now design a seaplane with a takeoff
or landing run free from porpoising.
Translated by
J. A. Hamilton
Marine Aircraft Experimental Establishment, Felixstowe.
NACA TM 1254
15
REFERENCES
1. Perring, W. G. A., and. Hutchinson, J. L.: Full Scale and Model
Porpoising 'I'ests of the Singapore IIC.
A R C " 1936.
R & M No. 1712, British
2. Coombes , L. P., Perring, W. G. A., and Johnston, L.: The Use of
Dynamically Similar Models for Determining the Porpoising
Characteristics of Seaplanes. R & M No. 1718, Brit ish A.R.C., 1936.
3. Sottorf: Gestaltung von Sphwimmwerken. Jahrbuch 1937 der Deutschen
Luftfahrtforschung, p. I 309. (Available as NACA TM 860.)
4. Lechner: Untersuchungen uber die dynami s che Stabilitat von
Seeflugzeugen auf dem Wasser. Flugbaumeisterarbeit.
5. Sottorf: Start und Landung im Modellversuch. Jahrbuch 1938
der Deutschen Luftfahrtforschung, Erganzungsband p. 396.
(Available as British R.T.P. Translation No. 966.)
6. Sottorf: Analyse experimenteller Untersuchungen uber den Gle itvorgang
an der Wasseroberflache. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Luftfahrt
forschung, Erganzungsband p. I 320. (Available as NACA TM 1061.)
7. Sottorf: Versuche mit Gleitflachen, III. Teil. Reederei,
Hafen (1933), Nr. 4/5. (Available as NACA TM 739.)
16 NACA TM 1254
Figure 1.  Schematic representation of the position of the range free
from porpoising ..
Scheme of a measuring sheet r ecording
"<j Aftifl/de ot:K=O
 T . . ..    ..  ..
Aff/tvde a'"
Rise o f r eST
,keel in cont act with wutf'r SVrTace
I
i_DOD
Ton i. sill
'I
.:.:.:.:::.:. ;i:"' =.:
, Zz
W. l
! "
Model l:
l Tanff boi/om i __ .J
9 "Xt, X(WX(lJ. > )?Xh ') ( ".c ; Jl ( (( "
OJ,
", , ., ,' ",, " , ," " " ' / ." ' ... ,, . ,, 
Figure 2.  Measuring apparatus for porpoising tests.
()
:
f'
I\)
\Jl
+"
f'
..:J
14
/2
10
8
*
ex
6
4
2
~
+
0
~ .
0
+0
+ I
I
~
(3')
......
~
Unsfable region
"
+
...............
~
~
@
r I
: ~
~
I
r
(5)
~

...,
.,

+
+
~
+
r... +
~
I
~
~
(J)
~
..sfoble reg/on
~
+
'.....
~
;r
~ +
Sfahle cOI7e/diol7
.
...............
Limdinq cOl7difiol7

+
Ul7sfob/e C'OndifiO/7

I
o of recording in FiCj. 4

.

Unsfable reqion
10
I I I
6 7 8 9 /0 II 12
V in 'o/s
Figure 3.  Basic test. Float design DVL 18 with wing and tail plane.
(The numbers in the circles referring to parts of figure 4 were incorrect in the original
version of this paper and have been corrected by the. NACA reviewer.)
~
II>
~
~
\)
Q;
~
J.;:: _
,
13
f'
OJ
s;
~
~
f'
f\)
\Jl
+"
NACA 1M 1254
.J ao l(Keel in contocf with wader
svrFace)
 +A tTifucie
It''
T
0V=6.16mp, a.:#=11I.2 jsfable
s//qhf PO/"flo/sing dlle 10
I ......

trol/Med i#cder
 ;; t 
! to In contacT w/lh sur(. tYce
(a) Photograph figure 4(a) shows a stable
pur
run for a* = 14.2
0
A larger part of the
afterbody still participate s in the lift. The
corresponding recording is No.1 from figure 4.
The mostly irregular surface waves remaining 1n
the tank after several test runs in spite of
wave damping the height of which has been
registered with 2 mm at rest cause a corre
sponding porpolsing. The attitude 15 not
influenced thereby. The upper unstable
range is not included at this speed .
..t aD
_______ ____ __ 
t
". (0
(b) 8"/s: Photograph figure 4(b) shows a stable
run for ao = 12.4
0
The afterbody is still
suppo rting. Recording No.2 shows the strong
at touch of the Recording
No.3 shows the oscillation occurring if the
attitude is increased by only 0.3
0
The
porpoising amplitude has, after only 4
oscillations, 59 much that the
s tep takes off frOM the water. The after 
body remains 1n contact with the water;
thus a rotation about an instantaneous
point of rotation shifted far to the rear
takes place.
Figure 4.  Recordings of rise
t and attitude c(, *
19
Figure 4 (a)
Figure 4(b)
for preliminary test.
Page intentionally left blank
NACA 'I'M 1254
I I f2. 22
I I I
o v=/Om/s, I Lim/!
I I I I
05ClllofiO/lS 01' 9"tlllielC>'rJn I
(c) 10m/s: Photograpg figure 4 (c) shows a stable
run for al',l = 10.4. The step 1s no longer
loaded to its full width (b
nat
< b
st
)' the
afterbody is therefore under spray effect. The
recording No.4, a(.c. = 10.90 t 1s an example for
a limiting condition. The of
porpoising and pitching oscillation remain
constant. The frequencies of both oscillations
are the ror all tests; largest attitude
and highest position of the center of gravit.y
always coincide.
(d) 12 a /s: Photograph figure 4 (d) shows a stable
run before taking off for a
O
= 8.7. After
body under strong splash effect. The recording
No. 5 shOWS an unstable condition in which the
. odel bounces heavily. Due to the limiting
afterbody the amplitude of the pitching
oscillation re mains comparatively saall with
"'3
0
Figure 4.  Continued.
21
Figure 4 (c)
Figure 4 (d)
Page intentionally left blank
NACA TM 1254
(e) 6m/s: Recording No. 6 shows an unstable
conditionoin the range of the hump for
ao = 10.9 ; the afterbody is still loaded.
Since the unstable range here extends to
high attitude, an airplane which overcomes
the huap with a comparatively low attitude
nay in this range be excited porpoising
which is damped only when the airplane,
under further increasing speed, enters the
stable range.
II a:
~
Su,Per/),jJi7Jeci oscil/cd/ons Or ",fi.
the vide arm r to
(h) 12m/ s: oRecording No. 9 shows a stable run for
a = 2.8. Recording No. 10 shows the most
critical porpoising case which is registered if
the attitude is reduced by only 0.3. Already
after 5 oscillations the model b01lnces, with the
amplitude of the pitching osctllation increasing
very greatly as well. ~ e g a t i v e attitudes of the
floats are attainert and the bow digs in. In
contrast, the mean attlturle increases considerably
and covers the entire stable range without
occurrence of damping.
23
(f) 8111/S: Recording NO.7 shows an unstable
condition for a
o
= 6.7, gliding condition
proper. The afterbody limits the attitude
for maximum porpoising.
(g) 101l/s: Recording No. 8 shows Once more a
lilliting conditIon; the model is in gliding
condition proper; the afterbody is in contact
with the water during the oscillation.
MOdel bOllnces)
Figure 4. Concluded.
3
2
Ci
y
/
o
I I , I
/
9 7 % ~
"
I
I
I
I
Mod 58
42%:
1
08+V222
I
000 18
oJu 90 I
00024
+ I
oJu 87
I I
0 OYouqhf of}w 110 000/8 000 ~ 6
BrI09
Y85
oAr 19S
oWa:l 08+V 138
o B+ V 139
oHe 177
I. I I I , I , I . I ,I 1 1 1 1 11 
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 .(30 40 .50 60
G i n fons
Figure 5.  Coefficient of the moment of inertia as a function of the flying weight.
[\)
+
~
(')
;:t>
~
f'
[\)
\.n
+
/4
12
* 0(.
10
8
6
0
4
EO
!
..;
k..
r.

r..
K
t'
+
,
"
I'...
r
Floaf alone (Model 58 I


i1
1M
, With
l
"""q I Ond(O"i 'I
r

5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
V in mJs
Figure 6.  Float design DVL 18 without wing and tail plane in comparison to the basic test.
f;
:x>
I'
f\)
'vl
+"
f\)
,n
26 NACA TM 1254
..... "'=:: ... 1
' ~
k h ..
~
~
~ N
~ ~
~ ~
=tS
~
.('
,
~
~
~
c
~ .
~
~
. ~
~ ~  +
~
..
~ ~
~
~
,.... .0 .f' '  Yz b
Sf
before sfep
,
~
1
""
,."
. 0 + 
y.; b II II
t r 4 'Sf

. "h ':\.
r )(
OYer sfep (iiJferpolafed from fir] 8 a'

..
r "e '0 '\t   !4 bsl behind slep
1 I
6
1 8
9 10 II
,e
v in m/s
Fi gure 7.  Influence of the position of the center of gravity.
*The number of this fi gure was incorrect in t he original ve r s i on of this paper and has been
c orrected by the NACA r eviewe r .
NACA 'I'M 1254
27
........

It A" I

C
a
= r6T. 1.85
........
r
12'
.......
.......

r
r!:i!!
.
.
0.
1
7'1
(/h',r J' f alJfldy /il71i1.r
c .
r .
 'r
' 
 1  . t


'"
...... 1

'
0.97 ..
 .....
t  __

10"
.........
' ...


.......
'.
.............
.....
.....
1.81
' .... '"
I'...
''t ...
t....
1'.
...........
......!,.P9'
.
' r
..
1
Lower Sf q!Jilifj !tin/Is
'
 :!If.
r
i
f "

 
0.37
'
, 

,.:. 
"" 
)
1'
4
5 8
I
I
8
9
.
6 7 8 9 10 /I
I
12
v In m/s
Figure 8.  Influence of the loading.
12'
:;
V I CO" I.8'
:::::
V
C:=!.30
./
V
C;=O,7f

V I' f
. .
1...... e

.
/
Vca'*=(Uf
(
.".
t
5\0'0
.*"
10'
i
c; /.8;
.; d' :
8
/'
"
./
.' c! . /.10
/
V
tr" = 0.:3"
I I
o 0.02 0.0" P.06 0.1" ()./6 0./8
Figure 9.  Influence of the loading.
28 NACA TM 1254
11
0
12
0
"
.....,
~
"
""'
10
ot'"
'"
K.,
""
r...
.......
" ~
~
"
,
8
0 ~ ,
'"
6'
"
~
4"
r.....
t..
x Inferpolatedfromn;'8

r
I
   BO's/c fest
~
r
2'
1_ v
~ f
"
l
f
9:K bs+
e
9
I
I
6 7 8 9 10 II
V in m/s
Figure 10.  Limits for direct and indirect towing method.
rllil scCile des' 71J
  Mode!, withovi sIJp.sfream inf'luence
 . _. wifh 1/' ./
11f"
........
I I
1
r
/.J1J5table runqtil
.........
........
.........
.......
, , ~
....... ...
r...
....... ........
1
"
..........

.....
.... ...
I.
..........
.....
...
t
..........

t

r
100
1'"
",
r
r

..........
t t I ....
8"
. '"
"
Sfableran e
~
I
~
<
.........
.. 'II
'"
1'.
"
~
f
~
I'.
r. 1',
~ ,.......
i'
,
cl
r.:::
""":":::r.

~
........
~
.......;
h
t;:::..
r,
K
~ .
~

r:. r

I/n.f/able r(Jnq'e
'r .

I
I I I
V In m/s (I'IIIIscale desiqn \
15 PO
I i I ~ 5 ' I I
I
I
6 7
12
9 . 10 /I
v In m/s (Modei)
B
Figure 11.  Comparison between model and fullscale design.
NACA 'IM 1254
Figure 12.  Planing surfaces with 130,140,160, and 180
0
keel
angle.
Figure 13.  Forebodies of the series of DVL float family of 130
0
keel angle.
Figure 14.  Series of DVL float family of 130
0
keel angle.
29
Page intentionally left blank
NACA 'I'M 1254 31
12.5
.I
J6
liZ.$"
+ IZ.5
iy
+'2.5
+ G
c  
I
".
1
'2
.5
 V'GJ;.
/4' ."
/7.5
1. 8/
 I
'11
I
12.5 2..14
+j
+12,5
7.5 2.89

I
i
5.0
2.89
/2 +
2.5 2.89  I
I
1
2
5
'\
I /' J....
+(
.1 1,,\
I
10 +,2. 5
+\
\
L 2 .
+/2.5
t
+ +2..5
+.(.
t
\ e"
12. 5
f8
+ r.
""
''''r.
I
r:
r0
+"\ .......
+2.5
N
:... +
f'
1"'
')
f"..
+ ............
1?5
+
f'..
/It .... ...........
I
r
r
I' r
r
b
r
II>
........
r..
2.;5 r
r
t"
r
..
"""
......
I"'
r 5.0119
...
r
2
r
t:=

r
2.51r9 r
h
v In mls
.
... r
5 6 7
8 9
v/o
// 12
I I
..1
Figure 15.  Stability limits of the flat planing surface.
Figure 16.  Stability limits of the flat planing s urface.
Page intentionally left blank
NACA 'I'M 1254
Figure 17. Flat planing surface; A* = 12.5kg,a.* = 10.2
0
, v = 7.8mjs
stable only for perfectly calm water; porpoising oscillations proper
for slightly rippled water .
33
Page intentionally left blank
NACA 'I'M 1254
/6
I
,
t;  180
0
::.
;?
14
0
I
160
0
7'
,:;
/'
I
'
,/'
I /2  
I
 ' '' = 130
0
P'
./
'f"
'7
I
..;7
./
V
 10'
7=1
./"
I

I
./
V"
/
.....:: V
V
V
'I
/
V
,
,
V /" '"
_6
'
=6

I
V
p
I.:
,
/
P
'""':
....a V
7
e
8
I 4
I
V
/
.
I

,,&o.l ,..:;:;


I
#
V'
...,,&
V
r 2
0
It A*
I
1
= rx 1. 3
JI
I
0.5 1.0
I{ I
2.
()
Figure 18.  Influence of the deadrise angle for planing s urfaces.
r/6
I
I '
O'rferbody
/'.....
1:
I 1.2 it
""...!.
.......
'.t..
N::: b ":::t>...
  J)YL 17
,)Lr\
..J.,
.....::
C;;= I. 50
. ...
........
 DilL 17
I I
r 1'V>f
.'\
,
J
...
e
l
)/\
''Z...
.25
 f'/(minq surfacp,
I"
t:
............
'"
...........
1)
I.()O
r

r...
............
:
" .......
:::::::::
'.
"f, .....
r


I 6
0
""'
r
l<t
r....
......

""'
:t
...;
f:..
...
I
"
1 ,
..........
r..

,If




......
I"
.;;:..

I 4

I
"'

II
(J.t5
r




.1
l
I
l
I
 
' 2



I
v


I
,
I
4 5
I 1 (qr
hsf
7
8
1 I I
Figure 19.  Short forebody DVL 17; comparison with float DVL 17 and
planing s urface with 130
0
keel angl e.
35
o
NACA TM 1254
r 16
I
1
" 'r / 4
...... . .....
I
"
'N" r,......
1""
k Efrt!'cf of cdter60dj
I
1 , ....
"
'I'
l"t......
I I
t"b..
C
a
= 3.0
12
0
I
I
f\:'
I".
............
1 ..... 1
iJ.f
h....
......
f':::
r....
r....
I
(\
I'
N
.... 
f:
I'
I 10"
I r..
 Fore/Jodj /9 
I (
l
l
IY
.......,;
.....;
"
......
"""..'
I . ,
DR
f'..
 on. /9

8 
rJ r.:::::: b..
I"
 P/oninqsvr/oce,
 I.
1,1<
....::
..........

I'
r...
r......, '.5
tS
I""
f;;.::,
t'.....

I 6
Ib.
It
::::::::::
..........
............
r

1
'"
........:::
1"0.
f::::==,.
4

r...
I
....

.......
" 0.5
.  0.2
2'
+
F=
v'
J
",
5
Vgy b
Sf
7
I I I I
Figure 20.  Long for ebody DVL 19; comparison with float DVL 19 and
planing surface with 130
0
keel angle.
* . * 0 /
Figure 21.  Long forebody DVL 19; A = 12.5kg, a. = 20 , v = 5. 5m s
stable even fo r high angle of attack.

t
(Y)
...::t
Ll\
C\J
ri
o
c*
a
l
2.0 t;;T = 6.04
2.
I
:)
c, :. 12.5 kg CJ=IS62
I.S I [ I I J I 1.5
1.0
.5
5
I
3
I
{OJ) 1.250
J 0.938
I
5.0 0.62!i
1
I
2.5 0 .112
6
+Vin m/s
f! I I
456
F
c:
1.0
0.5
10 '2
,
7
[3
5 6
i
3 4
I
CST 7.50
I I I
G.n", (,.2.,86
/5.0 1.875
I I
1.2.5 1.562
T
I
10.0
1.250
0. . 0.625
},
I
0.312
Lv,,.,Im/s
T I
5 6
F
10
7
2
I,
8
305
11
I i I I I I
f = 9./9
sr I ..
'0 II
2.5
II I II I
II rttiir
5
2.0
Cr
ex
!.S
10 II tit 7[ t I O'''it I a
5 .0 0.625
0.5 II I II 2.1 II I I
5 6
3
.,.
I 1
10
.5 6
r
7
12
I
8
Wldih of'siep
Figure 22.  Scheme of investigation for the series of DVL float families.
NACA TM 1254
I
.........
.......
 16'
I
......
r....
............
.........  uP/,((' sfabilli), limifs
I
............
r_
=1'l.Skq
 Lower
" "
f/4 2.68 I
I
1.62 .... r r 10.0 "9
.. r _
7skg
I
....
t t _
rn 2.08 1 
r
f/R' =
l<l
I
1
I t
5
.
Okg
._
1.26 1.36r......
r e/.82 27;/fgt
=
In
V3
I
.. til
P+I.7( r
..

l
I
t4.51
10'
::::"
N
........ P..
G
"' 12t"g
r
1'
.:37
1./9 1.06
1.69
l' 1.25 ...... !'
 '!14 ......
lo.L g
1'1
't8'
['... t I
G
q/
...... f'..
l"
I I
Ii:
12.5 1.51
I I
1.10 ...........
..........
10.0
1.80
l"
f'..
I 7.' 1.91
I 6
0
r
J
5.r,;;
1.':1(1
5.0
/.91
r
t:,t
2.5
2 .07
I
!

+
4. _
I/, ' t=t
t
t'V?3
J
05C1 <7110 /7 0
t +
?5I1q +'.8
f; 1.18
PO
0/.42 1. 6'
I
1. 5j
,2"
t
v In m/s
I I
5 6 7
9 10 II 12
Figure 23. Measured values for DVL 17, _7,_ = 6.04,
bst
._.=
NACA TM 1254
I
".
1':1
J
.,f'..,.
G
c'/*Tr
"
/. 56
I
......
.........
0 t..
/5.0 1.71
..
/7. 5 1:</ 12.' 2.06
1
+1'......
............
........
r
10.0 2. 06
i...
15 .0
I I4D 50 R.69
1
.....
t.
..... r. r.
<'.5 2.69
"
I
1
+1'

 
t
12
tr
"1
I
.
0

l
I ifi
I V
'"
..
 
I
L
5 . 0
1/ o
i. f t::".
0/7.5
....
ll< 1/
........ r..
'"
l
I 
j
2.5
po:
i'
'"
"
J"<.'lo
+

'
0
I 
f
8i l
'"
tx,f0
+
+
1
I 1
1'.+
It>
r.....
  Upper 5/0""1,,), /1m/Is
16"
J
1
4"
1
1
2
I
I
.....;,
"'
r.....
r&
 LOWN
"
"
...........
f'...
.....
ro:
t
:
+
n

l i z'.S' 
I
..
t
Y
f
 v in Im/ ...
5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
,
. Z
Figure 24. Measured values for DVL 18, b = 7. fJJ , 1; = 120 .
st
L f r
II " c iy
 ow G
1 II I . I I I I .1 ITT 1 25.0 U 9
f++l++IContld/om rqrYlnf tOIi'O'ro' crt'lerhtly , no sf(1'b;//1f lim;!s 22 .5 1.6(J
1 ., + _ _ f . I 1 I 17. f 1.7
1
7
Uo 12J 2. I
1 I
.... 75 2. 67
/' 1 _ jO 2. 61
11/ ............ 1 .... _ ,G :/2. 5/<9, 25 12 1.
67
120 + 2.19 ,..... I
, I. ,r ' .. .+6
5
Itl++ttt"""'i:':i 'I"... r;,.
tk
9 'To...:.:' 7.5 hg .. 2.68
I 1 1
/0. .. 1 I"':t '::0 /.S 1 " '..2 r. t " 5.0 hg l,L...j
1
V. ....... '.26 " + t ..., ___ 10 ,3'
1.20 " 1 1 ....... 1_ Inl.'O 1 1
,I t . ..........
I t /. 26 ,tS 1 f,Q.
I
1.59 I
.( 0 , O." ........ r..... 'r. i"r. ...L 7.SJrg ( 111  2,tl
1 ........ r.
LJ . F>=t"I=:Ir=:::::t1
.__ ++ __ .. ,J'SIr . 1, t t tl
0
'.90
1.11
I I
. , i
/f
1'.1]
1f... v ,'; m/s 1I+.Il+.4
I 5 6 7 8 9 I {o
/2 /I
Figur e 25.  Measur ed values for DVL 19, b
l
= . 19, 1; = 130.
st
39
40
NACA TM 1254
I)
 ... l.,....o
F"4.!!,.
I
).... .
1)0
v
v
15.0 10
"
...... V
....
;;;
.. g. .... ...
I
I
,./ ,
?:P
I

with F .s ptII'qmdtlr
12"
.......
...
I
....
9.0


I
....1. ....

I'
/o! 

.....
.... V
VJ.:Y
I""
1
V
l.,....
v
V
....
"'"
.... 6.0
8
V
V I.,....
....
V ....... V
V 6.s
   VIper .Nq/J///fy limil.s
6
H l0
V ........
V
r;; 7. 0
f I
 I
V
V

ower
"
"
Ih
V
V

t::::::
!?,O
;;;;iii
'.S
,.....
It A"
, 
I
0.5
I.t)
. 1.5 1 I If RiO
2.5
I I
f16j
.....
Ir_
.1
*
I
 r


...
l t:
/4'
with c: as "
I ...

f.
r
r
r ...
i ...
C::: I.U
I
 r
1 ...
r

r

r
r: r::I.c." be 12'
l
I I ...
r:
.......
t.
b...
I rr
l
t !J!_
.I
r
1
..... ...

r.
F'
r...
I
1

t
I'
r 100. i'...
0.2S . ....
171
f""".
I"'..
.....
r.
r
1
1.
" I"
V I
.......
r.
r..
r.
8"
t..
......
r..
r
r.
"""
.....
t.
r.

"""'....(..0.7S
"""'

r.
r 6

11
r.

i ..Lb.St)
r

r
.,....
......
I I
,
r
t
 ,,0. 25
I
2'
I
f.t
_ v
1
5
6 I/
g
11>51 7
8
Figure 26.  Dimensionless work sheet for DVL 17, b 7, = 6.04, S = 130
0
st
NACA TM 1254
41
I
I I
16 u
F= 4;0
I
v i ........
... 1
I
I
...
}O

o{.. as
14
0
c
1 / "

I
6.0
....
:
wdh f as fK/rdl1ld
e
r
12;0 .
_ ....
V
....
f... :fa.



.'
v
l t::::


1
I 8.0
....
4.5 L
e:;
I
8.5 ;:.40
....... ';'
,,'
./
V
V
........
V
I
V
8
0
'""
V
...... V
V
V .....
" If
V
V
./
V
"....
,.V
6 ...
/
V
V
........
I.'
"....
... 6.5"
"
 I
V
/
V
V
V
"....
V
V
::::.
"....
V
'"
   tJl'l't'1' J!qbildy limils
r/"
"
V
V ::::
t:::::
4
:;"'8. 0
8.5  Lower
II /I
I
::a
;;;;
1
11' A

I c
Q
r;:;p
O./i
1.0
1.5 . 1
2.0 2.5
/6
.......
"
".
i'
..
...
r...
L,I 1 " (1$f{F)+ t......
I 1
...
l"
I"::'
1
t
I"Co =2.01
14
0
r
_ 1.7S'
with c; 115
'I

t

r

1 ....
1 r

f 
I
_t _
r
I 
I
I
1.,0
12
,

i
1.25
I

t
.f
fI

I I
I
1

.....
t....
I 
e..?[
J
t:7
I<' ........ r.;;:::
r
;
I"

I 
t..
t....
.
r


f
'1
r.
........
,
"""
r

1
I
I'.... ....... t..... I....j

d:

I
r....
,
........
.........
"'"
....
:... 1.7.5"
r
8
0

I
r....... I'
,
t.......
........
r.... 1.50
r
1
.....
t
r...
I"".
t......
"'"
t.......1.i5 t
..
I'
"
t....... l. dcJ r
t....... t......

t

r.
0.15
r
4j
l"
I'


r
r 0]:0
t


I
i
pl
rI

0.25 
_IF = _v_
I
5
6 I/gtbsl 7 8
Figure 27. Dimensionless work sheet for DVL 18, b'l = 7.50, S = 130.
st
42 NACA 'I'M 1254
/6 "
I
I
a'*as I(e:)
I 1
with F as pardlJ7efl?1 f
I
r;.f.O
...
f..
1
12"

I

v"""6k j:::: I:::

l
iI:. .5. 0

l
I
t..
V I,.. 1,...==
10
1

......
;;.....

... 
, ....
, ....
I
1
po
1..
..
1.,.....
v 6.0 v

V ,/
V
1..
I'
8
./ ... I J..

,.
V
V ./
V
....
"
t..
V
70
V

't!
6
0
r
/
,/
V
V
V
.....
V
.......
1,,,,
/'
..,.

,/
V /' ./
V
......
V
....
V


l
I
f.. 8.(,
/.
V
/'
V
V
V
:. I
V ....
::;...
4"
'/ V
',/
t::
t:::;;
....    l/l'fJt'r sfcr/Jildy' lim;' fs
...:
....... 
::::::;;;::,;
IOii""'
Lower
"
/I
* Alt
I

Car
O.S 1.0
1.5 I \
1'.0 2.5
I
16
1
a* as f(F)
I
with as JJ(Yiamelei_
. 14(



I I
'
I
'

r 

1.2
12
1


'1 I:;::::
io=:..
.......:
r
'


.......
=
;
.....
 

10
1
r
.........
io....

 
I d!:.r
s
......... .,

/' r r
r.
.....
r.......
""0:
'l1li::::::
r::::
=..
r:



I I"
/
r
r.....
......
r....
.......... (.:!,.
..........
......
r
.....
..;;;:::,

8"
r...... i'....
/
.........
r
......
r....
..........
K"
.........
r.
.........
I"

.....
..

t
'"

l" I' .........

l"
f'.
6
1
t.
r...... r.......
t.
t.... r
r

I'
r!:..0o t.

r
r
r
t
r
t r. t II ri.
I
t.
I'
r.
t
r.
t
l"'
I
t
4"
I l
I"'
t
t o
r
t
r

l
t
t 0.25
2"
4
r= _v_
4 5
f
1 '7
8
I
Figure 28. Dimensionless work sheet for DVL 19, _7,_ = 9.19, = 130.
, b
st
NACA 'I'M 1254
I
 /6

"
::::::
I::::;:: ::
.50
,::::::::
.25
I
k::::;::
.;::::::::.
14\
A
I
i 12r
0.50
.....:a



I;'";
'7
,.............:

..!:,::
10'/
0.25
1\
.;:?
0. 75:
I
k7
R,
b:?'
./
1/'0.50
  Upper slob/lily !;ilJ/ls
16
4"
 \,
Z
1
1.00
Lower
..
"
a5P
Alt
C ::
i /,/2n
2
.b;,
0.05
O.{O
0.15 0.20
Figure 29. 0.* as f(cB) with
C *
a
as parameter for DVL 17.
I I I
_ /60;++f++l++l++l+I1. 7S 2 0 0 
___
_6
1
1
I /.'f'"   Upter sIOi)//;/y' IlilJd.!
l++It I
I I f I /'
4. 1. 2:'' V
I.OV
O. OS
0.10
I
t? /f 0.20
f
Figure 30. 0.* as f(cB) with c
a
* as parameter for DVL 18.
43
44
NACA TM 1254
r /6"
1
I
I
I I. .l I 1 I I I I I
 14'
Conddi/J1J5 70IYOrd O"f"leroody
1
1
\/,'0.
' 1.25
?7S
12'
'I
,...:

I
....<.SO 
........
. 1
#
f'?o:50
.,.
f:::.
.............
N.?5
10.'
.2.fJn
'l
:::::::::
.............
!:.!5 "'
..e
1.25
0.25
go
' /.00
./
N
/075
6
1
.......
  Upper sla/Jil/Iy I/m/ls
1
Vo.50
Lower
1.50

"
"
4
1.0.0.
I
I A:/;" I
_ 2.0.50 0.25
 C 
I
8  I'IExv2.r
1 I I I
0.0.5
0.10
o(
0..20
0.2
I
5
Figure 31. (1,* as f(c
B
) with c
a
* as parameter for DVL 19.
romJiy
Id
o
I
H4r
H2[
/,
Ii}
8
I
11
6
r
:
4.1 1
/
.1
2
V

A
. V"
iflJd. 5=
6f)4 on /0.
t/fltr )Io/;/I/Iy limil s
DYL 8
7.50
....  Cordi/IOns c slaNe 70ne
9.19 ov 7
:;;
vary toward
/
afterbody
,/
V


I
varJ foward //0
/A
af"ierbody /V ... :::
':f
?'
/
1 .....
==
Lower slab/IiIf 11m/Is
.....
/j
/
.,..
/
/.
"/
19,
/'
.:::
L::::;;; ,7'"'
1
"." 19
/
/ :d
P'IIIiIoo
r.....
...... 1


I
/
/:
........::

r
ti;
18
8
"'......
........
All"
.... la
Wid/Ii or llie 5 table
ZOlJe

f(8
1
I I
0.0.5 O. /0 0./5 0.20 0.25
I
Figure 32.  Series DVL float families A and B of 140
0
and 130
0
keel angle; comparison of the mean stability limits.
B
$=130'
DYL 17
DrLI8
DYL /9
NACA 'I'M 1254
Fc/Yl//y A Famtly 8
DVL la, 8 , 7 ) DVL 17,18, /9, 5 =/30
14
r I
I
f\."
" .
JLoadti?q Ilm;l
,:r;:
/2"
I
"
"
, .50
". i'..:: 's.!?'f!.!.
r
t.
2.00
I
I'
'
+...
1"
10

I
.........

"


I
Q)
"
I
>;!
;;t
:;;!

<::I
<:\
<::>
<:)
<:\
=4i
f4
I
)
I
f. l/bst
I.. l/hsl
1
I I
1
6
7 8
10 6 7 8
/0
I I I I I
Figure 33.  Series DVL float families A and B of 140
0
and 130
0
keel angle; comparison of the stability maxima of the lower limit.
/:5"0/:/0
. Slep wedge
O.OI+O.02b
s
f
Wi!h qlldiory
on
a:*
/
nr.........
/ I
4 0 wtf/lovf (7vJt'i//ar y
Sleps on
o 4 6 8
/0
I \(/Ierbodj
Q
12
Figure 34.  Favorable shifting of the upper stability limit by use of
auxiliary steps on the afterbody.
Page intentionally left blank
NACA TM 1254 47
Figure 35.  Series of floats DVL 19 with auxiliary steps on afterbody;
A* = 2.5k, 0.,* = 8.2
0
, v = 12.5m/s, still stable at upper limit.
Page intentionally left blank
z
;,
()
;,
t
"
" <e
11>
'<
':"
'"
'" ,
...
'"
o
Mod. 107 107a: 101 b
10'(c
EF.f
0.025'6sl l r+J fO;6st
lsI Ft.'52' "sl "'S4#' C2hS
1 '
'" " (
,4., "", i
/2"1 1 ..............
.... 1' ....
10'1
*", 1, ...... F"'"
....... ........... 71 .......
.......
81
I ....... r ..... ( _ <J .........
"I ..............
61 r=ooc::::::l
40 1 1 r. .... ........L
1'1 ....... , 1
o 4 5
__ V_
rJxosl
6 7
Figure 36.  Influence of a slight concavity of the bottom before the
step on the position of the lower limit for the planing surface
with a keel angle of 130
0
8
(")
:x>
f'
rD
V1
+
$