Talk:Planing (boat)

message: * Page Planing (sailing) originated as matter cut out of the 03:41, 26 August 2004 edit of the page which is now named Hydroplane. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Page history

message: * Would you say a hydroplaning craft has less turning power than a displacing one?  In my mind this sounds right; you can't turn as sharply if you're skimming over the water.  Although if you can cut an edge into the water you probably do all right.  These arguments probably apply more to a windsurfer than a rudder-equipped boat or a hydrofoil.  Is this worth mentioning in the article?
*: I only in relation to planing RIBs. It depends on factors like the x-section of the hull through the water and the ratio of length to width : some RIBs have "shallow V" hulls - they bounce badly round the turn, others have "deep V" hulls they turn smoothly but need more power to get onto the plane than a flatter hull. Probably a similar situation with displacement boats - wide and flat bottomed hulls skid - long or keeled hulls turn well. --User:Mark.murphy
A planing windsurfer can make very tight turns. This is achieved by tilting (carving) the board. The edges of the board and the fin combine to make this possible. The fin's surface area is proportionally much larger than that of the rudder of other craft, and the mass of the board is low, making it very manoeuvreable. --Steve  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.116.130 (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Turning power

message: * seaplanes are cool... but, just for the pun... Can they really land on the water??? 189.5.143.217 15:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology? 

message: * The image looks more like the boat is being lifted out of the water by its sail...  --128.218.19.195 02:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the comparison of planing to transonic travel cannot be correct. I'm guessing that the original editor was trying to make an loose analogy to there being a critical speed beyond which the physics is qualitatively different, but the present wording comes across as far too literal and is therefor incorrect. There is a different effect which is more directly analogous to the sonic boom, namely when the boat speed exceeds the speed of surface/gravity waves (which is obviously much smaller than the speed of sound in water), causing the classic v-shaped pileup of waves marking the edge of a fast boat's wake, analogous to the sonic Mach cone. Davide above is exactly correct that the critical speed for this effect should be independent of the boat, whereas the planing speed where hydrodynamics dominates over hydrostatics should be boat-dependent. For some boats, the two speeds may be similar, just by coincidence. Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how to fix the article text, since I'm not sure what kinds of hydrodynamic forces are actually relevant here. Is it a Bernoulli effect thing? Or is it more to do with deflection by the hull's angle of attack? "Hydrodynamics" could mean several things, and I know enough physics to know that I shouldn't try to guess the answer to a hydrodynamics problem. Spatrick99 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion about planing

message: I changed the name of this article from "Planing (sailing)" to "Planing (boat)". The disambiguation word "sailing" limits the article to content about wind-powered craft. However, the disambiguation word "boat" can be applied to planing craft powered by any means. As for planing ships, I propose (without doing any research) that perhaps one of the characteristics that separates boats from ships, is the capability to reach planing speed, with the method of propulsion that is typical of that type of vessel. This means that outfitting an oil tanker with twenty 50-Megawatt turbine engines that power a water jet system does not count, although it does sound kind of bad ass. The first exception of ships that can plane that I can think of are those car ferry catamarans that operate in Asia, and possibly other places by now. If you object to the name change, or if you have a better one, please put your thoughts below this comment. Also, if you want me to know about any suggestions, please alert me on my talk page, as I will not be watching this article or its talk page. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It really ought to be changed to Plane (boating), as it looks awkward and unprofessional for a reference work to have an article title be a verb in the -ing form. Eric talk 22:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty standard on Wikipedia for articles about actions to use a gerund for the title.  Thus we have Walking, Running, Sitting, Surfing, Singing, etc. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article name 

message: I assume it's pronounced like plane-ing, not planning.  One of those IPA pronounciation guides would be great from those who actually speak the word. OsamaBinLogin (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I disagree with the article's statement "To plane, the power-to-weight ratio must be high, since the planing mode of operation is quite inefficient".
From power boating and windsurfing experience I can say that significant power IS needed to get the craft planing, but once "on the plane" the drag is very much reduced and the power need to maintain speed is also much reduced.
This was also reflected by the fuel consumption of my boat which was much lower (per mile) at planing speed.
When planing on my windsurfer only the rear third of the board's underside is in contact with the water, compared with its whole length and part of its sides when non planing - Hence the drag is very much less and it whizzes along at 30 knots with little effort.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.172.190 (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planing efficiency 

message: Though it might contain some interesting information, this is one of the worst articles I've encountered on Wikipedia. We're trying to produce an encyclopedia here, and this article is an embarrassment to that effort. It reads like a personal essay by a barely literate ten-year-old who's just discovered that boat hulls plane over water when given enough thrust. The title is bad, the section names are wrong, and the writing is unencyclopedic. If the article does not get improved soon, it should be deleted. Eric talk 03:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could fix some of these issues yourself. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If I thought such an article should exist, I might. The best fix would be to delete it before too many people see it and lose hope for humanity. Eric talk 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "C" rating is generous... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Planing (boat). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170602010101/http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=62010&id=1&as=false&or=false&qs=Ntt%3D1355&Ntk=Report+-+Patent+Number&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ns=HarvestDate%7C1&N=0 to http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=62010&id=1&as=false&or=false&qs=Ntt%3D1355&Ntk=Report%20-%20Patent%20Number&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ns=HarvestDate%7C1&N=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified