Talk:Hull (watercraft)

message: Totally agree!  P199 14:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merged. CP/M 02:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 06:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom [[Displacement hull]] 

message: Wave-piercingwould seem to warrant inclusion. See HSV-2 Swift, Incat and Earthrace
*Wave piercing hull forms are a distinct variant of the displacement form.  I feel it belongs in its own entry as people will inevitably search for that term (ie: “wave piercing�?) and that if included here would open the door for the inclusion of many other variants (catamarans, trimarans, sea sled, barge, double-ended, etc.) Jmvolc 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wave piercing?

message: *Oppose - I don't think it is appropriate to merge Draft (nautical) in here. The draft may measure the clearance required for the hull, but The air draft is a measure of the clearance required above the waterline (under bridges, through tunnels, etc.). A better option would be to make more of the article, in my opinion. -- Ratarsed 08:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge in [[Draft (nautical)]] 

message: Some of the descriptions and formulas given under Coefficients are incorrect.  For example, are coefficients are based on measures on the design WL (LWL, BWL).  Additionally, the text describing the influence of the various coefficients is probably better suited to be relocated to its own article on ship motions.  These changes will be made shortly unless there is any objection.  Jmvolc 01:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Objection: I don't know what source you're using, but mine is the late 1980s (latest) edition of "Principles of Naval Architecture", and as I recall it defines the block, prismatic, and waterplane coefficients relating to length between perpendiculars (Lpp) not Lwl.  Your source is... ? Georgewilliamherbert 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (followup) Yes, I know you're a practicing NA and I'm not, though I have the degree, but can you recheck the PNA first?  I will as well.  Georgewilliamherbert 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added citation and consulted Rawson&Tupper, and note it specifies LWL for Cwp, LPP for Cp and Cb...I recommend these forms--Billymac00 (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form Coefficients 

message: Metrics includes the following definition of Depth (D):
: Depth (D) is the vertical distance from the bottom of the hull to the uppermost edge at the side.
This does not seem to fit well with whaleback ships and may not be applicable to all turret deck ships.  Kablammo 16:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the way it's defined, though.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That raises the question of what the uppermost edge at the side is on a turret or whaleback ship, which does not have an outside edge but only a curve where the gunwale normally would be found.  Has the definition changed over time?  Kablammo 10:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In turret deck ships the practice may have been inconsistent.  A little book put out by the National Maritime Museum entitled Steam Tramps and Cargo Liners reproduces drawings from a paper by J. Foster King entitled Structural developments in British merchant ships from Transactions of the Institute of Naval Architects XLIX (1907), which show cross-sections of two turret deck ships.  The depth of SS Turret of 1892 apparently was measured from the bottom to the horizontal part of the "side" of the hull, that is, where the side curves to a horizontal plane before arcing back to vertical (there being no "edge" present).  SS Queda of 1905 however has two depth figures, one measured as in SS Turret, the other of which appears to be measured further inboard and higher, where the true deck meets the inboard and upper part of the "side" of the hull at right angles (and therefore forms an edge).  (Difficult to explain without a drawing.)  Perhaps the profession or rating authorities had difficulty applying standard definitions to these anomalous vessels.  Kablammo 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now answered, by reference to more refined definitions in 1969 convention.  Kablammo 10:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depth 

message: Air cavity hulls aren't mentioned; see http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6167829/description.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.60.155 (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Air cavity hulls

message: Please define. Soerfm (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moulded breadth 

message: Planing hulls are more efficient at higher speeds, although they still require more energy to achieve these speeds.
The phrase "more efficient" is typically defined as, "using less energy or fewer resources to achieve the same result."  If a planing hull requires more energy to achieve a given speed than another type of hull, it is less efficient -- unless the author is using some non-standard definition of "more efficient."  Either way, this sentence needs a rewrite to reduce confusion. GPS Pilot (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A planing hull requires more power to initially get it up on the 'step' but once there requires less power for a given speed than a displacement hull does. Hence overall it is more efficient, due to less of the hull being 'wetted' and causing hydrodynamic drag. For this reason all flying boats and other seaplanes always have planing bottoms to their hulls or floats. OTOH, helicopters required to operate from water usually do not, having instead plain pontoons due to being able to take-off vertically.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency of planing hulls 

message: I'm moving the History section upwards to its usual place in WP article structure. In the meantime it needs development and lacks references. User:HopsonRoad 10:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section underdeveloped 

message: Guys, I’m not a native speaker. But is this sentence correct? “Above the hull is the superstructure and/or deckhouse, where present.” It doesn’t make any sense to me. --185.4.43.93 (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly awkward, if logical. I've changed it to: "Atop the hull may be a deckhouse or some other form of superstructure, like a mast." Thanks for the tip. Of course, anyone may edit here, including you! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this correct? 

message: In the Smooth curve hulls section, a ship called the "Centaur" is said to have a semi-round bilge hull, with a link to the mythical creature. I am changing the link to Centaur (ship (disambiguation page) because there have been multiple ships called "Centaur" and I don't know which one is being referenced. Does anyone know which Centaur ship has a semi-round bilge hull? --LiamM32 (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which "Centaur" is being referenced?