this symposium. To me its significance lies not only in its coordinating force, in terms 

 of hydrodynamic research, but in stimulating such research and its practical applica- 

 tion by bringing together physicists, mathematicians, experimenters and engineers. We 

 must improve the communication between these groups if we are to properly define 

 our problems, plan the appropriate analytical and experimental research, and then 

 apply, in engineering terms, the results of this research. Our several talents and inter- 

 ests are all needed if we are to produce ships to best serve the future military and 

 economic needs of the Navy and the Merchant Marine. 



May I say that I feel it particularly appropriate that a naval architect of Mr. 

 Niedermair's stature should present a paper before this symposium. May I also say 

 I am very happy to have this opportunity to make these brief remarks. 



K. S. M. Davidson 



I am afraid I must take issue, not so much with the statements in this paper, 

 as with one or two of the implications. I dare say John Niedermair suspected I 

 might. 



In the first place, I do not like the word "barrier." I do not think the aero- 

 nautical people were very smart when they coined that word, and then very soon pierced 

 the barrier they were talking about. The naval architects are not confronted with 

 anything like a real barrier to increasing the speeds of ships. A good deal of power 

 is needed, but we have in fairly advanced states of development various means of 

 getting much more power without materially increasing the machinery weights. One 

 hears people these days talking soberly of building inter-continental missiles and 

 satellites that will circle the earth. Yet when one talks of increasing ship speeds by 

 25 or 50 per cent, the same people seem apt to think that the world is coming to an 

 end. 



Personally, I do not believe that there is a very great difference between com- 

 mercial and military requirements for speed. It is a matter of second-order differences. 

 I think it is high time that the Western Allied Powers began to give ships enough speed 

 to permit them to run away from submarines. We nearly lost two wars because of 

 submarines and everybody knows that submarine speeds are going up. I say that it 

 is quite feasible to give cargo ships very much greater speeds. 



I promise to push as hard as I can to get things going, if somebody will set 

 to work to design a really fast cargo ship, instead of talking about how difficult it is 

 to do. 



Mr. Niedermair said that ten times the power is needed if speed is increased 

 from 30 to 60 knots. That is true, provided however that one insists upon building 

 the same ship. But the knowledge has been available for a long time that reducing 

 the fullness of the hull reduces the wave-making resistance enormously. I do not have 

 exact figures here, but if one does not insist upon 60 knots and is satisfied with say 

 45 (which is, after all, a fairly respectable speed) and if one makes the hull a good 

 deal skinnier than is usual (which is not impossible to do), less than five times the 

 power is required. 



I submit that there is a considerable incentive to go this far, first from the military 

 point of view, and second from the commercial point of view. There are various 

 indications from recent studies to show that the cost will be less than many people 

 are inclined to think. 



I would like to see work started now on the design of a cargo (not a passenger) 

 ship of 45 knots, and I would like to see plans laid to build such a ship very soon, as 

 an experimental ship looking to the future. It would make a challenging research 

 target. 



R. W. L. Gawn 



We are fortunate in having such a searching paper from Mr. Niedermair which 

 reflects his outstanding ability, ripe experience and fine achievement in ship design. 



150 



