claims 1/900 of normal energy to power "boat"

SWATH SERVOWATCH SERVOTRIM JULIET MARINE TWIN HULLS ACTIVE TRIM DEVELOPMENTS http://www.bluebird-electric.net/SWATH_ServoWatch_ServoTrim_Juliet_Marine.htm

Ok, 1/900th the friction.

My first thought is "put down the crack pipe".

But even if its "just" 1/3 normal friction is that still HUGE and make it more than worthwhile to have a complex funny shaped boat with extra moving parts?

Could this finally be the big breakthrough?

And what about a mono version that would balance sorta like a bicycle at speed, maybe settle on outriggers rest?

Or does it use 850 X more power to generate the air-lube that cuts the friction by a claimed 1/900?

 

"The 38 ft central hull is made mostly from aluminum and stainless steel, which makes it hard to detect with sonar."

 

That alone is enough not to take them seriously. Any hard surface shows clear, sharp images on a sonar.

 

I was thinking that the reason the central hull was hard to detect with sonar was due to it being suspended above the water.

 

Only got to 35 mph so far.....that does not sound like the "big breakthrough", just yet.

 

I'm thinking of the breakthrough in claimed EFFICIENCY, Mr Efficiency.

even if it only tops out at 30mph but does it at 2x the efficiency that would be huge and worth making odd shaped boats, and even building massive new docks for ship sized vessels for container ship replacement.

Yeah, I'd think 2x as fast at 1/2 the fuel would justify pretty much anything, especially since its not like a hovercraft with lots of high maintenance soft features.

 

If the reason it was hard to detect with a sonar was that the central hull was suspended above the water, the materials is irrelevant.

 

I'm thinking all that supercavitation would give a pretty distinctive sonar sig on passive sonar, maybe the supercavitation around the metal hulls would hamper active sonar?

And since when has active sonar been a factor in tracking fast moving surface vessels?

But all I care about is whether the performance claims are legit, or even 1/2 legit.

Is this the break-through in hull-air-lube, using pulling props on front to suck air on fully submerged torpedo hulls, rather than various schemes to pump air under conventional hulls?

 

I think 2000HP going 35 kts is not very efficient.

If I remember correctly, a PT boat had 1350HP and did 41 knots.
So they are not up to the standards of a 1945 boat carrying 2 torpedoes, at least one machine gun, and a crew of 11 to 17.

I had a friend in the 60's who had a 16' 80HP ski boat that went 50+

 

I thought it was engine exhaust being used ?

 

How many tons are these craft?

 

PT boat - 51 to 61 tons (Elco)
Ski boat - less than 1 ton