Talk:Planing (boat)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sailing Low‑importance Planing (boat) is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Lift (force)#Description of lift on an airfoil|lift on an airfoil]] The anchor (#Description of lift on an airfoil) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

• 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)[reply
  ]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

There seems to be a glitsh in this page, so that it can be edited but the edits cannot be saved. Is it just me, or can anybody else try it out? I've been trying to sort the second link to NZ skiffs, but am tearing my hair out... TIA TonyClarke

• 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)
• Well, sort of; spinnakers do provide upwards lift a the bow, which is good, as boats running downwind tend to submarine due to the torque on the mast. However, it's still climbing over its own bow wave (which it must do to exceed the hull speed, which is about 5.1 knots in that class) so it is planing, whether the lift is coming from the sail, the hull shape, or any horizontal foils (which look to be illegal in that class). scot 14:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not very familiar with the Musto class, but it looks as though the boat has jumped out of the water after hitting some other wave. The image from the Albacore page is better, though not ideal since we can't see the stern wave all that clearly. Paulgush 09:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sorry, i really don't know anything about boats, but i was really curious about planing. i don't think i understand one thing though - if the planing is due to a sort of "sound barrier" effect, and since wave propagation in water has a fixed value, how can planing begin at different speeds having different boat weights? this really looks wrong, i mean, if you can change your minimun planing speed just by reducing downward force or shape, how can this fenomeon be due to just "sound barrier"? isn't the sound barrier a fixed value given the fluid in which the object moves? thanks to anyone willing to discuss this, Davide

81.208.36.88 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct that, if planing were due to a sort of sound barrier effect, then planing speed would have a fixed value. But planing is not due to a sort of sound barrier effect. This is how it can be variable even though the speed of sound isn't. Planing speed is the speed at which most of the lift for a particular hull is hydrodynamic, rather than buoyant. It is determined by hull weight and shape, not by the speed of sound, which is usually many times higher than planing speed and unrelated. Mark.camp (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this page about "sailing" when planing applies to all boats? Fiskbil (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I also have a problem with this article's comparing planing to breaking the sound barrier, particularly when I gather that planing is due to lift on the craft and while planing may represent the point where there is more lift than buoyancy, the logical progression would be actual flight, as some speed boats temporarily attain this if they move too quickly. How can almost flying be compared to breaking the sound barrier? Shouldn't it just be compared to near flight? I assume a plane could also experience planing if it flew slow enough. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done – Added two pronunciation guides. — Molly-in-md (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe you could fix some of these issues yourself. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]