In our Premier Issue, Malcolm Tennant, one of today’s foremost power catamaran designers, discusses the principles of planing vs. displacement catamarans. In this article he makes clear his choice of the displacement cat.

For some fifteen years now our office has been designing powerboats that combine something of the old and something of the very new. To make a leap forward in comfort and economy we looked back to the close of the 19th Century and the early years of the 20th. We have taken the powerboat wisdom of that time and used it in the designing of very modern power catamarans that can have much more living space than their monohull cousins, and that easily surpass them in comfort and economy. Current thinking has it that to go fast in smaller craft it is necessary to plane. This is because the usual monohull displacement craft are restricted to a speed of approximately 1.34 times the square root of their waterline length (Froudes Law). To drive a normal displacement vessel faster than this requires an inordinate amount of horsepower and may even lead to foundering in their own bow and stern waves, or by rolling the gunwales under from the enormous torque produced. Planing is a way to circumventing Froudes Law by getting the vessel to plane on top of the water where the wave making drag is no longer a restriction on their performance. However, planing craft do need to be relatively light, ie: have good power-to-weight ratios, and planing surface-area-to-weight ratios; are very inefficient when they are not planing, and are not as economical to run at some speeds as the displacement craft. So we seem to have two distinct type of boats: a. One that is fast, but uneconomical at slower speeds and can have a bone-jarring ride in a seaway; b. The other, that is economical and comfortable in a seaway, but is slow. Is it then even possible to get a craft that combines the best features of both these types? A boat that has reasonable ­ even good ­ performance with excellent accommodations and is still economical to build and run, and has good seakeeping capabilities: ­ or is this just one of those designers’ pipedreams?

One quite successful attempt to achieve this dream was made by Tom Fexas with his Midnight Lace series of monohull designs, in which he used long, light, semi-displacement hulls to improve economy without compromising performance too much. These boats were, in fact, a compromise (aren’t all boats?) and, to me, only partially successful by reason of his definition of a slim hull which was, of course, forced on him by the need for stability, accommodation and sea keeping. To Tom Flexas a slim hull was one that had a length-to-beam ratio of four (the waterline length was four times the waterline beam). This was certainly narrow by contemporary planing boat standards, but was unexceptional when compared with earlier boats, or with types of hulls that I am proposing should be used.

Before the improvement of the power-to-weight ratio of the internal combustion engine, and the development of the hard-chine, low-deadrise hull allowed boats to plane, there was only one way to go fast: building long-and-slim, and in the first decade of the 20th Century we find boats such as Slim Jim, that were achieving speeds of 15 knots from a 15 HP engine driving just such long hulls in 1905. Typical of the early boats was Defender: 16.2m (53') long, having a maximum hull beam of 2.28m (7'6"). Headroom under the flush deck was only 1.45m (4'9") and she slept six in berths only 500mm (18") wide. In anything of a seaway it would have been incredibly wet and uncomfortable. The boat had a great deal of grace and elegance to her lines, but her rolling at sea, and lack of accommodations, would be totally unacceptable today except for one small detail: a 48 HP motor propelled this 16.2m boat at 16.5 knots! Is it possible, then, to reconcile these old, easily driven, but incredibly uncomfortable hull forms with the current, ever increasing demands for more interior space and more home comforts that can be the downfall of many a well-designed planing craft? I believe the answer is: catamarans! By joining two of these long, slim hulls together and surmounting them with an extensive superstructure, we are able to provide even more than the currently desirable amount of accommodation and at the same time stabilize the hulls so that rolling is no longer a problem.

Even a very cursory look at sailing catamarans will show that they are not restricted by Froudes Law. Their very fine hulls place them on a very different part of Froudes’ wave making continuum, and results in their having a very much higher hull speed than he ever envisioned from his observations ­ in the order of 30+ knots is not unusual for these boats. Certainly the boats with this sort of performance are very lightly loaded racing craft, but even the more heavily laden cruising boats do not have much trouble breaking the 1.34 barrier. If these sorts of speeds can be achieved under sail, than it should be much easier under power. Towing tank tests of long, slim hulls with high prismatic coefficients (fine hulls with a fairly even spread of displacement from bow to stern), such as our displacement powerboats exhibit, have shown no catastrophic increase in wave drag at speed/length ratios above approximately 1.4 ­ such as occurs with "normal" displacement hulls. These high prismatic hulls have a higher displacement hull speed than is "normal." This test data is further supported by the precisely measured performance tests of such boats as the Zenith-47 Antaeus, the Awesome 2000, the Mako-61, the Jaybee and the Icarus 46 in the full-sized ocean test tank. All these boats have prismatic coefficients greater than 0.66 and all easily exceed their theoretical hull speeds, while returning exceptional fuel economy.

So it would seem, that all we have to do is to make power catamarans with long, slim hulls, and then we will have speed, economy and accommodation. The potential is there, but is it really that simple? The answer, of course, is "no" ­ not quite! If we compare a sailing catamaran with a keelboat, we will see that the catamaran has one immediately obvious advantage. It is lighter because it is able to eliminate the lead keel upon which the keelboat depends on for its stability. In the case of the powerboat, there is no such advantage. The catamaran may, in fact, be heavier than the monohull because of its increased area. All is not lost, however, because while the skin area is increasing by the square, the interior volume is increasing by the cube! This possible increase in weight may be a problem with planing catamarans because of their limited planing surface, but it does not mean that our dream is impossible.

The displacement catamaran is not as susceptible to overloading as is the planing craft. The hull speed of the displacement boat is largely dependent on the L:B ratio of the hulls and this does not change very much with modest overloading. This does, however, bring up one of the limitations of the displacement boat. To work successfully, the L:B ratio of the hulls should be in excess of 10, and preferably higher. Consequently, if high displacements and length restrictions force short, fat hulls on the designer, then the displacement approach will not be successful. In this situation the only recourse is to lengthen the hull until the requisite L:B ratio is obtained, or to use a planing hull form. It will be apparent from this, that the displacement concept would seem to have little place in boats shorter than 10m (32'), unless they can be built light ­ or a very modest performance is required. I have designed smaller displacement boats that achieve quite credible 15-knot cruising speeds from very small horsepower (43 HP per side) engines. But if performance on par with planing vessels is required, then the displacement boat must be able to have long, slim hulls, preferably without the planing boats’ low deadrise, submerged chine sections, as this increases the drag substantially, and even more if the chines break the surface. This, then, is the approach we have taken with a lot of our power catamaran designs: long, slim, easily driven round-bilge, minimum wetted surface hulls that give performance on a par with planing craft, but with considerably better sea-keeping capability and better fuel economy.

It is, of course, possible to question whether these boats really are displacement craft. Current theory says that for vessels of this length, to go this fast, they must be planing. In fact, if we accept the usual definition of planing vessel, namely: that it has a speed/length ratio of more than 2, then these boats are clearly planing. However, a boat is said to be planing when most of its mass is supported dynamically by the downward directed thrust of the water. A vessel that is planing will typically have a bow out trim and will have bodily risen out of the water. The waters are muddied a little by the fact that there is no sudden jump from displacement to planing. It is a continuum and somewhere in the speed/length ratio range from 1.5 to 2 the craft would be considered to be in a "semi-displacement" mode. We have now designed a large number of displacement power cats exemplifying the "long and slim" approach of powerboat design.

The Zenith-47 displaces 13 tonnes fully loaded, and motors at 20 knots maximum ­ much more economically at 16 knots ­ with only two 122 kw (160 HP) pushing hulls with a 24.5 knot hull speed. A monohulled displacement boat of this length would have a hull speed of about 8.5 knots. The smaller Nomad and Cortez powerboats also have a similar hull speed but are optimized for more for economy with slower speeds with small engines. The Icarus-46 has a top speed of 25 knots from two 150 kw (200 HP) turbo-charged diesels. At the upper end of the scale is the Mako-61, an 18.6m (61') game fishing boat with a hull speed of 37.5 knots which would yield an easy 30 knots with around 500 HP per side. In the interest of economy, this boat is intended to cruise at 16 knots ­ with a maximum of 20 knots ­ using twin 150 kw (200 HP) engines.

These performances are very much faster than those of the traditional displacement boats of comparable size and are on a par with that of a planing boat of similar displacement, but with lesser power requirement and subsequently greater economy. I believe the performance of these designs demonstrates the potential of the displacement power catamaran to be that very elusive and ephemeral animal; the best of all possible worlds: combining excellent accommodation, comfort, and economical performance with good old-fashioned seaworthiness. It seems to me that there is no reason why this old "long and slim" principle should not be applied to lightweight boats with less superstructure and even finer hulls, to produce 30 or even perhaps 40 knots of fuss-free performance from quite modest horsepower.

In fact, this belief has been partially tested with two offshore designs: the 17.5m (57') Red Diamond II, designed for a Japanese client, capable of a top speed of 33 knots (cruising at 24) from twin 320 kw (430 HP) Yanmar diesels; and the 20m (65') Awesome 2000, which has a top speed of 28 knots, and an open ocean cruising range of 3,000 miles at 15-knot speed. This craft has made the trip from Long Beach, California Hawaii using only her internal tanks. Although these displacement cats may not be the fastest things around in flat water, they have demonstrated an ability to maintain much higher average speeds than most other craft regardless of sea conditions. In situations where the high-speed planing monohull is forced to drastically reduce its speed, the displacement catamaran is able to continue on with very little reduction in performance.