Peter, "Whoever you are,

1.       We consider it civil to identify yourself by signing your posts"

Talador Wood is a character in a novel I am amusing myself by writing. I prefer to remain semi anonymous because of the open nature of the internet. No disrespect is intended to anyone.

2.       Your misunderstanding of ship hydrodynamics appears to be deep. In spite of  Rick and others remaining polite and explaining their points both accurately and in detail, using the standard meanings for naval architectural terminology, you persist in misinterpreting their responses to the extent that I am beginning to suspect trolling.

Except for the trolling part I somewhat agree. I think the standard meanings for architectural terminology aren't really applicable to modern designs so my fall back position is Physics terminology. And yes I do have gaping holes in knowledge about ship hydrodynamics, I am getting quite the education regarding the Monk effect right now from a NA.

3.       You claim some background in aerodynamics and seem to think this can be applied without further investigation to a very different field of fluid mechanics. The people you are dismissing are knowledgeable in their field, can you produce any evidence that you are educated in fluid dynamics, so we can be persuaded to continue to take you seriously?

I am not educated in low Reynolds number fluid dynamics and you should not take what I say seriously. I certainly don't take what I say seriously.

However, I am trying to be truthful, my original post was simply to provide some ballpark numbers to help calculate hp and kW requirements for the Proa.

As an aside I have worked for TI, JPL, helped design the guidance system for the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, built and partially designed an airplane including designing the prop and transmission, created and sold a gaming company, blah, blah, blah got a couple of degrees in college, but mostly I just play.

4.       A submerged bulbous bow and narrow hull are normal  characteristics of a high speed displacement hull. Any similarity to a submarine hull is because they are both designed to work at high speed in a displacement mode, whether at the surface or submerged. Furthermore a Swath type hull would have a reduced waterplane area (by definition – look it up) which this does not have  beyond the consequences  of a generally slender hull. A submarine’s hull would also commonly have a smaller length to beam ratio to minimise surface area, for the given displacement.

I think the operative phrase here is "high speed displacement hull" which is not the same as a displacement hull that is subject to the Froude numbers. And I think that the Crouch calculations can be applicable to a high speed displacement hull.

Do you disagree?  Really, I am not trying to start a fight.