Talk:Small-waterplane-area twin hull

Disambiguation

Swath is also an agricultural term and may describe the "sweeping width" of a remote sensor. Perhaps these articles should be ammended.

Also i would like to point out that the 80% increase in resistance is not always true, yes there is an increased in skin friction resistance, but the SWATH form reduces wave making resistance and due to the increase in the depth of the hull the propeller can experience increased efficiencies, these two increases in efficiencies have also been known to offset the increase in skin friction resistance.

Also SWATHs are not it fact limited to low speed there have been examples of 35 knot SWATHs

Done. 66.229.182.113 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more power, more complex

I don't understand how they use significantly more power. Isn't wavemaking friction dependent on waterplane area (which is lower)? This may be made offset by the greater surface friction, but 80% more power? Really?

I also don't see why they would need a more complex control system than a regular catamaran. Why?--Dj245 (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping such a ship levelled is as diffucult as keeping two submarines on the same steady level, just a few meters below surface. A ship just stays put if you switch of the engines, a swath will tend to tilt in all directions until the broader parts of the hull touch the water, generating buoyancy.

But i don´t understand why it should neep more power, either. I can take more power, because it´s got no "hull speed" (the speed maximum dictated to a vessel by being caught between its bown and stern wave), which other vessels can only overcome by being lifted out of the water, or by submerging. --129.13.72.198 (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The design of SWATH vessels is also considerably more complex due to the structural complexities inherent to the design. - department of redundancy department — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.197.186 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Example of an cruise ship

I think there should be an addition about an cruise ship build with this technique. Radison Diamon build by Finnyards (Rauma, Finland) in 1992 at the time, and probably still is the biggest SWATH cruise ship build and operated (Length: 430.4 ft / 131.2 m). I found an page that tells more about it. [1] I don't know should the ship be mentioned in the article, but at least there could be a link added to the page I mentioned.--Gamepad (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.L.I.C.E. reference needed

I _ASSUME_, but do not know that there must be a related Wikipedia article on S.L.I.C.E., a technology related to SLICE. I can't find it. If and when someone finds it, or writes it, a link needs to be made back to and from the SWATH article. LP-mn (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article say's: "Minimizing the ship's volume near the surface area of the sea, where wave energy is located, maximizes a vessel's stability". This is not true, the stability (the resistence against heeling forces) is better if the hull at the waterline is bigger.

A more correct phrase is: Minimizing the ship's volume near the surface area of the sea, where wave energy is located, reduces a vessel's motions in waves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.37.51 (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]