1.1 



1.0 



.3 



t & w 2 



.1 



TEST RESULTS 

 FROM COWrOURS 































«rr 





































































. 







__t_^ 





























15 



18 



16 17 



SPEED IN KNOTS 



Figure 89 — Comparison of w, t, and e^^for Series 60 



SCHUYLER OTIS BLAKD from Contours and 



Test Results 



t 4 w 



1.1 



1.0 

 .4 



.3 

 .2 

 .1 











.err. 





















■ w 























































t 





























TEST RESULTS 

 FROM CONTOURS 



13 



14 15 



SPEED IN KNOTS 



16 



Figure 90 — Comparison of w, t, and e^^ for Series 60 

 PENNSYLVANIA from Contours and Test Results 



cargo ships but without a bulbous bow (Model 44-10). A comparison of this model with the 

 Series 60, 0.60 C ^ parent (Model 4210) showed the latter to have appreciably lower (C) 

 values at the service and trial speeds (Figure 6 of Reference 45). Although the lines were 

 rather similar, the hull form coefficients were different-for example, the block coefficient 

 of Model 4440 was 0.611— and a comparison of the ehp for Model 4440 with that derived from 

 the contours for a Series 60 equivalent form of C ^ 0.611 (Figure 91) indicates that again 

 the agreement is good. 



Tiie contours can also be used for comparative purposes in much the same way as is 

 done with the Taylor Standard Series. If a new design has secondary characteristics which 

 differ from those of its Series 60 equivalent but model results are available for some other 

 ship which more closely resembles it in these respects, the latter may be used as a "basic" 

 ship. Calculations of ehp can be made from the contours for the "Series 60 equivalents" of 

 both the new design and the basic ship. Then the approximate ehp for the new ship will be 



ehp for basic ship 



ehp of Series 60 equivalent 



ehp of Series 60 equivalent of basic ship 



XII-8 



