QuickWake — hull resistance and running attitude in Rhino

Plate I. KCS container ship model speeding up from a Froude number of 0.20 to 0.28 and slowing again. The frames are QuickWake solutions at closely spaced speeds, drawn in the Rhino viewport; for this page they are recoloured by wave height on one scale and blended with their neighbours. The waves lengthen and grow as the ship goes faster.

What QuickWake does

Select the hull, give the loading and the speeds, and run. Every speed is solved for its own trim and sinkage.

1 / 11

Wigley: total resistance coefficient

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Kajitani et al. (1983), held at rest, as it was towed; mean absolute error 8.9 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake C_T × 10³	Tank C_T × 10³	Difference
0.25	0.04	5.38	4.50	+19.7 %
0.32	0.05	5.15	4.34	+18.7 %
0.39	0.06	4.97	4.18	+19.1 %
0.46	0.07	4.83	4.07	+18.5 %
0.53	0.09	4.71	4.04	+16.5 %
0.60	0.10	4.61	3.98	+15.8 %
0.67	0.11	4.52	3.93	+15.0 %
0.75	0.12	4.43	3.87	+14.4 %
0.82	0.13	4.36	3.88	+12.3 %
0.89	0.14	4.30	3.85	+11.6 %
0.96	0.15	4.24	3.89	+9.0 %
1.03	0.16	4.19	3.89	+7.7 %
1.10	0.18	4.15	3.90	+6.5 %
1.17	0.19	4.34	3.98	+9.0 %
1.24	0.20	4.33	3.94	+10.0 %
1.31	0.21	4.59	4.05	+13.1 %
1.39	0.22	4.36	4.20	+3.6 %
1.46	0.23	4.66	4.25	+9.6 %
1.52	0.24	4.83	4.19	+15.3 %
1.57	0.25	4.68	4.13	+13.2 %
1.63	0.26	4.48	4.18	+7.0 %
1.67	0.27	4.47	4.28	+4.3 %
1.72	0.27	4.65	4.44	+4.5 %
1.76	0.28	4.88	4.58	+6.5 %
1.81	0.29	5.09	4.71	+8.2 %
1.85	0.29	5.24	4.81	+9.0 %
1.88	0.30	5.29	4.87	+8.7 %
1.95	0.31	5.23	4.89	+6.9 %
2.02	0.32	5.01	4.78	+4.7 %
2.09	0.33	4.78	4.71	+1.5 %
2.16	0.35	4.65	4.66	−0.1 %
2.23	0.36	4.66	4.70	−0.8 %
2.30	0.37	4.79	4.79	−0.0 %
2.37	0.38	5.01	4.95	+1.2 %
2.42	0.39	5.23	5.11	+2.3 %
2.47	0.39	5.44	5.26	+3.4 %
2.52	0.40	5.65	5.41	+4.4 %
2.57	0.41	5.90	5.62	+5.0 %

Series 60 CB 0.6: total resistance coefficient

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Toda, Stern & Longo (1992), held at rest, as it was towed; mean absolute error 4.8 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake C_T × 10³	Tank C_T × 10³	Difference
0.46	0.08	5.12	5.29	−3.3 %
0.61	0.11	4.87	4.76	+2.2 %
0.62	0.11	4.86	4.82	+1.0 %
0.66	0.12	4.81	4.83	−0.4 %
0.69	0.13	4.76	4.64	+2.7 %
0.69	0.13	4.76	4.67	+2.1 %
0.77	0.14	4.68	4.58	+2.0 %
0.77	0.14	4.68	4.64	+0.9 %
0.84	0.15	4.60	4.53	+1.6 %
0.85	0.15	4.60	4.56	+0.8 %
0.92	0.17	4.53	4.44	+2.0 %
0.92	0.17	4.52	4.52	+0.1 %
1.00	0.18	4.49	4.54	−1.0 %
1.00	0.18	4.49	4.46	+0.8 %
1.08	0.20	4.58	4.43	+3.5 %
1.15	0.21	4.58	4.42	+3.5 %
1.23	0.23	4.52	4.45	+1.5 %
1.30	0.24	4.48	4.41	+1.5 %
1.39	0.25	4.52	4.48	+1.0 %
1.42	0.26	4.76	4.64	+2.6 %
1.46	0.27	5.29	4.88	+8.4 %
1.50	0.27	5.76	5.06	+13.8 %
1.53	0.28	6.07	5.28	+14.9 %
1.53	0.28	6.07	5.36	+13.1 %
1.54	0.28	6.11	5.38	+13.4 %
1.57	0.29	6.23	5.48	+13.6 %
1.57	0.29	6.23	5.45	+14.4 %
1.61	0.29	6.25	5.76	+8.5 %
1.69	0.31	5.92	5.94	−0.3 %
1.69	0.31	5.90	5.96	−1.0 %
1.79	0.33	5.52	5.97	−7.5 %
1.84	0.34	5.57	6.01	−7.4 %
1.84	0.34	5.58	6.03	−7.5 %
1.85	0.34	5.59	6.05	−7.7 %
1.92	0.35	6.08	6.45	−5.8 %
1.94	0.36	6.28	6.50	−3.3 %
2.02	0.37	7.16	7.27	−1.5 %

NPL 4a: total resistance coefficient

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Bailey (1976), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 7.4 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake C_T × 10³	Tank C_T × 10³	Difference
0.79	0.20	7.69	6.49	+18.5 %
0.99	0.25	7.55	6.83	+10.4 %
1.19	0.30	7.28	7.48	−2.7 %
1.38	0.35	7.62	7.66	−0.6 %
1.58	0.40	8.56	8.07	+6.1 %
1.78	0.45	8.82	9.18	−4.0 %
1.98	0.50	8.51	9.32	−8.7 %
2.18	0.55	8.09	8.81	−8.2 %
2.37	0.60	7.72	8.10	−4.7 %
2.57	0.65	7.10	7.54	−5.8 %
2.77	0.70	6.61	7.04	−6.1 %
2.97	0.75	6.21	6.64	−6.5 %
3.17	0.80	5.90	6.38	−7.4 %
3.36	0.85	5.69	6.14	−7.4 %
3.56	0.90	5.43	5.94	−8.6 %
3.76	0.95	5.20	5.76	−9.8 %
3.96	1.00	4.99	5.60	−10.9 %

DTMB 5415: total resistance coefficient

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Olivieri et al. (2001), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 9.9 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake C_T × 10³	Tank C_T × 10³	Difference
0.37	0.05	5.28	4.54	+16.3 %
0.44	0.06	5.11	4.74	+7.9 %
0.52	0.07	4.95	4.33	+14.2 %
0.56	0.07	4.88	4.37	+11.7 %
0.60	0.08	4.82	4.09	+17.8 %
0.67	0.09	4.71	4.01	+17.3 %
0.75	0.10	4.61	4.02	+14.6 %
0.82	0.11	4.51	3.85	+17.3 %
0.90	0.12	4.64	3.96	+17.2 %
0.97	0.13	4.53	3.89	+16.5 %
1.05	0.14	4.44	3.89	+14.1 %
1.12	0.15	4.35	3.95	+10.1 %
1.20	0.16	4.27	4.07	+4.9 %
1.27	0.17	4.20	4.01	+4.6 %
1.35	0.18	4.14	3.98	+4.1 %
1.42	0.19	4.13	4.01	+3.1 %
1.50	0.20	4.25	3.95	+7.7 %
1.57	0.21	4.12	3.95	+4.3 %
1.64	0.22	4.29	3.99	+7.4 %
1.72	0.23	4.61	4.00	+15.2 %
1.79	0.24	4.58	4.07	+12.4 %
1.87	0.25	4.37	4.07	+7.4 %
1.94	0.26	4.48	4.09	+9.7 %
2.02	0.27	4.78	4.08	+17.2 %
2.09	0.28	4.98	4.23	+17.8 %
2.17	0.29	5.02	4.37	+14.9 %
2.24	0.30	4.87	4.45	+9.4 %
2.32	0.31	4.65	4.58	+1.5 %
2.39	0.32	4.57	4.59	−0.4 %
2.47	0.33	4.67	4.68	−0.3 %
2.54	0.34	4.89	4.75	+3.0 %
2.62	0.35	5.21	4.84	+7.6 %
2.69	0.36	5.59	5.01	+11.6 %
2.77	0.37	5.93	5.25	+12.9 %
2.84	0.38	6.38	5.54	+15.1 %
2.86	0.38	6.42	5.70	+12.6 %
2.88	0.39	6.57	5.78	+13.6 %
2.92	0.39	6.74	5.96	+13.2 %
2.95	0.40	6.88	6.12	+12.5 %
2.99	0.40	6.89	6.35	+8.6 %
3.07	0.41	7.24	6.67	+8.5 %
3.14	0.42	7.40	7.01	+5.5 %
3.21	0.43	7.48	7.36	+1.6 %
3.29	0.44	7.65	7.48	+2.2 %
3.36	0.45	7.72	7.85	−1.7 %

KCS: total resistance coefficient

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Kim, Van & Kim (2001), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 10.0 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake C_T × 10³	Tank C_T × 10³	Difference
0.92	0.11	4.06	3.80	+6.9 %
1.29	0.15	3.80	3.64	+4.5 %
1.66	0.20	3.72	3.47	+7.2 %
1.93	0.23	3.96	3.47	+14.2 %
2.21	0.26	4.07	3.71	+9.6 %
2.40	0.28	5.30	4.50	+17.7 %

Series 62 4667-1: total resistance

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Clement & Blount (1963), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 10.1 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake (N)	Tank (N)	Difference
0.52	0.11	1.7	1.3	+28.1 %
1.04	0.21	6.5	6.4	+1.0 %
1.55	0.32	18.4	18.5	−0.5 %
2.06	0.43	32.6	42.4	−23.2 %
3.59	0.74	66.4	76.3	−13.0 %
4.11	0.85	74.8	83.0	−9.9 %
5.68	1.17	102.6	97.2	+5.6 %
6.20	1.28	109.8	100.0	+9.8 %
7.79	1.61	127.8	114.9	+11.2 %
8.27	1.71	133.1	120.3	+10.6 %
9.85	2.04	141.1	147.5	−4.3 %
10.37	2.14	148.5	158.0	−6.0 %
11.90	2.46	180.5	196.6	−8.2 %

GPPH: total resistance

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Lee et al. (2017), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 5.7 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake (N)	Tank (N)	Difference
5.56	1.22	161.7	161.0	+0.4 %
6.69	1.47	153.6	160.0	−4.0 %
7.61	1.67	159.2	165.0	−3.5 %
9.00	1.98	177.4	184.0	−3.6 %
10.03	2.20	193.4	207.0	−6.6 %
11.11	2.44	207.1	235.0	−11.9 %
12.24	2.69	243.1	270.0	−10.0 %

Begović warp 3: total resistance

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Begović & Bertorello (2012), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 6.3 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake (N)	Tank (N)	Difference
1.15	0.27	8.8	8.9	−0.9 %
1.72	0.41	16.6	23.8	−30.2 %
2.30	0.55	37.7	40.7	−7.5 %
2.80	0.67	42.5	44.3	−4.1 %
3.40	0.81	48.7	47.5	+2.5 %
4.00	0.95	51.4	50.0	+2.7 %
4.60	1.10	50.3	51.5	−2.4 %
5.10	1.21	50.2	53.2	−5.7 %
5.75	1.37	51.4	57.1	−10.0 %
6.32	1.50	58.9	62.3	−5.4 %
6.89	1.64	69.3	67.6	+2.5 %
7.46	1.78	73.3	75.9	−3.4 %
7.46	1.78	73.2	76.6	−4.4 %

Begović warp 2: total resistance

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Begović & Bertorello (2012), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 6.2 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake (N)	Tank (N)	Difference
1.06	0.25	6.8	8.1	−16.9 %
1.63	0.38	14.9	22.3	−33.1 %
2.30	0.54	36.0	37.5	−3.9 %
2.80	0.66	40.6	41.0	−0.9 %
3.40	0.80	46.4	45.1	+2.8 %
4.00	0.94	50.4	48.5	+3.8 %
4.60	1.08	50.5	50.7	−0.4 %
5.10	1.20	50.8	52.0	−2.3 %
5.75	1.35	52.5	55.5	−5.5 %
6.32	1.48	58.7	59.7	−1.8 %
6.90	1.62	65.9	65.1	+1.2 %
7.46	1.75	71.1	72.2	−1.6 %

Begović warp 1: total resistance

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Begović & Bertorello (2012), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 7.9 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake (N)	Tank (N)	Difference
1.15	0.27	8.2	7.3	+11.8 %
1.72	0.40	16.3	19.9	−17.9 %
2.30	0.54	32.8	33.3	−1.5 %
2.80	0.65	37.2	36.9	+1.0 %
3.36	0.79	41.3	41.0	+0.7 %
4.00	0.93	46.0	45.3	+1.5 %
4.60	1.07	47.7	48.8	−2.1 %
5.10	1.19	48.0	50.1	−4.2 %
5.10	1.19	48.0	50.2	−4.3 %
5.75	1.34	48.8	54.3	−10.1 %
6.30	1.47	50.8	59.2	−14.1 %
6.89	1.61	54.0	64.0	−15.7 %
7.47	1.74	58.0	70.2	−17.4 %

Begović monohedral: total resistance

QuickWake against the towing-tank tests of Begović & Bertorello (2012), at its free running attitude; mean absolute error 6.7 %.

Show the figures

V (m/s)	Fn	QuickWake (N)	Tank (N)	Difference
1.15	0.27	7.8	6.9	+11.8 %
1.72	0.40	14.9	18.3	−18.9 %
2.30	0.53	30.3	31.3	−3.1 %
2.80	0.65	35.3	34.9	+1.0 %
3.40	0.79	40.2	38.8	+3.7 %
4.00	0.93	45.5	42.7	+6.6 %
4.60	1.07	48.8	46.5	+5.0 %
5.10	1.18	49.7	48.3	+2.9 %
5.75	1.33	50.8	52.0	−2.3 %
6.32	1.46	52.5	56.2	−6.5 %
6.89	1.60	55.4	61.3	−9.6 %
7.46	1.73	59.4	65.6	−9.4 %

1.Resistance over the speed range

Total resistance at every speed, divided into friction, wave and the smaller terms, with the effective power. Displacement and planing hulls, and the transition between them, are handled by one method.

Load your own towing-tank results and they are drawn on every plot beside the prediction. The plot shows QuickWake against the tank for each of the 11 monohulls it has been checked on; step through them with Next.

Fig. 2. A planing hull from 2 to 6 m/s and back: running trim and sinkage against the calm waterline, with the centres of gravity and buoyancy and the dynamic lift at its centre (CL). Below the keel is the planing bottom pressure (Morabito's), as load per metre of length.

2.The running attitude

QuickWake balances the weight between buoyancy and dynamic lift at each speed and finds the trim and sinkage the hull settles at. Select a speed and the hull is shown in the viewport as it runs.

Wigley1 / 10

Fig. 3. The wave pattern of the Wigley model in plan, from a Froude number of 0.15 to 0.41 and back, held at rest as it was towed. Every frame is a QuickWake solution, recoloured by wave height on one scale for this hull.

3.The wave pattern

The free surface around the hull at the selected speed, coloured by wave height and meeting the hull along its own wave profile. Draw the waves at true scale or exaggerated; add the surface to the document as geometry.

The figure steps through the hulls of the resistance plot, other than the GPPH, each over its towing-tank speeds. Behind a dry transom the surface leaves the transom in a trough that rises into the wake. Past the hump the planing bottom pressure makes the waves, and the wake narrows as the speed rises, as it is seen behind fast boats.

Fig. 4. A catamaran of two NPL 4a demihulls 0.4 L apart, centre to centre, from a Froude number of 0.30 to 0.70 and back: the two demihulls' waves added, recoloured on one scale for this page.

4.Catamarans

Give one demihull and the spacing, or model both hulls. QuickWake adds the two demihulls' wave systems, so the viewport shows the waves between the hulls and their interference behind the boat, with the streamlines and the pressure coefficient on both sides of each hull.

The two fields are added without reflection between the hulls, and the running attitude is one demihull's: treat the inner side as indicative.

The same view of the KCS hull coloured by the provisional pressure coefficient: red at the bow and the bulb, which face the flow, and at the stern; blue at the forward shoulder and along the run aft, where the flow is fastest

Fig. 5. The flow along the wetted hull of the KCS. Above, marks animated for this page run along QuickWake's streamlines at the local flow speed: rust where the water moves faster than the ship, blue where it moves slower. Below, QuickWake's pressure coefficient of the same flow: blue where the flow is faster and the pressure falls, red where it is slower. The colours end at ±0.25; on the hull C_p runs from −0.17 to +1.00.

5.The flow along the hull

Streamlines traced over the wetted surface show where the flow speeds up and slows down along the body, bilge and stern, and the pressure coefficient C_p of the same flow colours the wetted hull. Both come from the linear model and illustrate it; they are not a measured flow or pressure field.

The pressure coefficient is provisional while one term of the solver is under review: faces that point forward or aft, such as a bulb, read the oncoming stream itself and show red whatever the flow, and at the waterline the colours understate the wave pressure.

The Stability tab of the QuickWake results: the inputs, the GZ curves at rest and at the selected speed, their measures side by side and the reference criteria

Fig. 6. The planing hull of Fig. 2 heeled from upright and back, and its Stability tab in the panel: the curve at rest in grey, the curve at the selected speed in blue. The model is small and the code criteria are absolute, written for full-size craft, so some read as not met; QuickWake shows them for reference.

6.Stability at rest and at speed

The GZ curve at rest, and at any solved speed with the running trim and the share of the weight the dynamic lift carries. At rest, the hull as modelled floats freely at each heel, with the downflooding angle from the openings you pick, and the curve is set against selected GZ criteria of the IMO Intact Stability Code or the HSC Code for monohulls or multihulls, or your own limits: a reference check, not a complete stability assessment. Hover over the curve to see the hull heeled.

At speed, the hull is held at its running trim and floats on the part of its weight the water still carries; the dynamic lift carries the rest. On a planing hull this shows how the stability falls away as the lift takes over. The lift's own rolling moment is not modelled, so the curve is hydrostatic, not a dynamic roll-stability assessment.

The Propeller tab of the QuickWake results: one B-series design per blade count for the KCS at 24 knots, and the recommended four-bladed propeller with its powers and cavitation check

Fig. 7. The KCS at full scale and 24 knots, at a shaft speed of 104 rpm: one B-series design per blade count, and the recommended propeller with its hull–propeller factors, powers and cavitation check. The full-scale resistance comes from the same method, beyond the model-test range it has been compared with.

7.From resistance to the propeller

For the selected speed, QuickWake recommends a Wageningen B-series propeller. Fix the shaft rpm and it finds the diameter; give the largest diameter the aperture takes and it finds the rpm; or enter a propeller you already have and it checks it.

Each blade count gets its own design, with pitch, the blade area cavitation calls for, open-water efficiency and the delivered and brake power. Run the chosen propeller over the whole sweep to see its rpm and power at every speed.

The thrust deduction can come from the usual statistics or from a virtual disk: QuickWake puts the chosen propeller behind the hull as an actuator disk, at the hull's running attitude, and adds up the suction it draws on the wetted hull. The viewport shows the disk and colours the hull by that suction.

The stern of the KCS seen from below, with the recommended propeller as a disk behind it; the hull ahead of the disk is coloured blue by the suction the propeller draws on it — **Plate II.** The KCS at full scale and 24 knots, seen from below, with the four-bladed B-series propeller QuickWake recommends at 104 rpm drawn as a virtual disk 7.9 m across and coloured by the wake w it sees. The wetted hull is coloured by the pressure the disk induces on it, from −8.9 to +3.1 kPa: the suction just ahead of the disk pulls the hull aft, and its sum is the thrust deduction. The disk is potential flow; the viscous part of the thrust deduction is not modelled.
aSuction (blue): just ahead of the disk the propeller speeds up the water flowing past the hull, which lowers the pressure on it. This pulls the hull aft; summed over the hull, it is the thrust deduction.
bThe virtual disk: the recommended propeller as an actuator disk, at its position and diameter behind the hull, coloured by the wake w = 1 − V_A/V of the potential flow, darkest where the water reaches it slowest, next to the hull. This w is only the potential part of the wake: it leaves out the hull's boundary layer, which makes most of the wake at a stern. Its mean over the disk, 0.034, is about six times smaller than the 0.21 the design uses, which comes from statistics; the colour shows where the inflow is slowest, not how slow it is.
cFurther forward the disk induces almost no pressure, and the hull stays pale.
dFaint red near the top of the stern: a slight overpressure.

Six hulls, six propellers

Each hull of the library at full scale, free to trim and sink at its speed, with the B-series propeller QuickWake recommends for it, turning at a tenth of its shaft speed.

KCS container ship

L_WL 232 m · 24 kn · single screw

Blades: 4 B4-66
Diameter: 7.90 m
Pitch ratio: 0.966
Blade area A_E/A₀: 0.66 Keller ≥ 0.66
Shaft speed: 104 rpm
Open-water η₀: 0.705
Delivered power: 25 992 kW
Cavitation σ at 0.7 R: 0.32

Diameter at the limit given: a larger propeller would need less power.

Show the figures

The recommended design per hull from QuickWake's propeller chain, run on 10 October 2026 (quickwake 34a1b18 with uncommitted changes; quickwake-core 0.2.0 (solver bc05664-wip), ABI 6). Powers are totals over all shafts; w, t and η_R are estimates by the method named. The two- and three-bladed propellers are drawn with the series' four- to seven-blade outline.
Hull	L_WL m	V kn	Fn	R_T kN	Screws	Z	D m	P/D	A_E/A₀	Keller min	rpm	J	η₀	w	t	η_R	w, t, η_R from	P_D kW	P_B kW	σ at 0.7 R	Rn at 0.75 R, millions	Flags
KCS container ship	232.5	24.0	0.259	1559.6	1	4	7.90	0.966	0.66	0.66	104	0.709	0.705	0.214	0.181	1.008	Holtrop (1984), single screw	25 992	26 522	0.32	76.5	at the diameter limit
DTMB 5415 combatant	141.5	30.0	0.414	1951.9	2	5	5.20	1.105	0.87	0.87	187	0.895	0.759	0.058	0.075	0.975	Holtrop & Mennen (1982), twin screw	41 457	42 740	0.19	64.6	cavitation number at 0.7 R below 0.25: cavitation is likely to cut the thrust, so the non-cavitating series data are optimistic (a cavitating or surface-piercing propeller may suit better); at the diameter limit
Tanker	329.5	16.5	0.149	1794.7	1	3 *	9.90	0.697	0.42	0.42	76	0.419	0.591	0.381	0.216	1.018	Holtrop (1984), single screw	20 009	20 628	0.57	73.3	No wave resistance from the solver at this Froude number: the propeller is sized on friction and form drag; at the diameter limit
Series 60 CB 0.60 cargo ship	122.2	18.0	0.268	319.4	1	4	4.90	1.125	0.49	0.49	110	0.807	0.695	0.217	0.171	1.010	Holtrop (1984), single screw	3 983	4 106	0.61	23.5	at the diameter limit
Begović fast boat	12.0	35.0	1.660	14.6	2	4	0.48	1.114	1.00	1.00	2 300	0.942	0.697	0.028	0.080	1.000	Blount & Fox (1976), planing craft (twin-screw data)	438	452	0.10	10.0	cavitation number at 0.7 R below 0.25: cavitation is likely to cut the thrust, so the non-cavitating series data are optimistic (a cavitating or surface-piercing propeller may suit better); blade area at the series' largest for this blade count: cavitation (Keller), not efficiency, sets the diameter; speed outside Blount & Fox's Fr∇ 1-4: their end values are used
Sysser 62 yacht, auxiliary	10.0	6.5	0.338	0.6	1	2 *	0.32	0.648	0.31	0.31	1 400	0.435	0.649	0.029	0.100	0.980	Holtrop & Mennen (1982), open stern	3	3	0.73	1.5	blade Reynolds number below 2·10⁶: model-scale open-water data, uncorrected

* B4–B7 outline: the series' two- and three-blade outlines are not reproduced here, so these are drawn with the four- to seven-blade one. Hull–propeller factors w, t and η_R are statistical estimates; every hull is a full-scale extrapolation of a model-scale comparison.

Fig. 8. Six hulls of the plug-in's library at full scale, each free to trim and sink at its speed, with the B-series propeller QuickWake recommends for it: the series' outline for the recommended blades, area and pitch, turning at a tenth of its shaft speed. Full scale lies beyond the model-test range the method was compared with, and the hull–propeller factors w, t and η_R are statistical estimates; the ringed values show where the series, or the method, is asked for too much.

Plate III. A yacht's canoe body, the Delft series' Sysser 62, heeling from 2° to 30° at a Froude number of 0.35. The waves are those of the equivalent symmetric hull that carries the heeled resistance, fitted to the heeled hull and recoloured on one scale for this page; the waves of side force and leeway are not modelled.

Speed polar of a 10 m yacht

Boat speed against true wind angle as the wind rises from 6 to 20 knots and eases again.

main and jibspinnakerbest upwind and downwind angles

Show the figures

Boat speed in knots at each true wind angle and true wind speed (s: spinnaker or gennaker set)
TWA	6 kn	8 kn	10 kn	12 kn	14 kn	16 kn	20 kn
30°	3.31	4.22	4.89	5.23	5.37	5.39	5.02
35°	4.00	5.00	5.68	6.06	6.25	6.33	6.22
40°	4.51	5.54	6.28	6.68	6.86	6.95	6.94
45°	4.91	5.96	6.71	7.09	7.27	7.37	7.41
50°	5.21	6.30	7.00	7.38	7.58	7.70	7.77
52°	5.31	6.41	7.09	7.48	7.69	7.80	7.89
55°	5.43	6.54	7.20	7.60	7.83	7.94	8.04
60°	5.58	6.70	7.33	7.75	8.00	8.13	8.26
65°	5.69	6.79	7.42	7.85	8.12	8.29	8.47
70°	5.74	6.84	7.47	7.92	8.22	8.44	8.70
75°	5.75	6.85	7.50	7.97	8.31	8.59	8.93
80°	5.72	6.85	7.52	8.02	8.40	8.73	9.18
85°	5.67	6.82	7.53	8.05	8.46	8.83	9.39
90°	5.60	6.78	7.52	8.04	8.45	8.85	9.53
95°	5.53	6.73	7.44	8.00 s	8.45 s	8.84 s	9.60
100°	5.43	6.60	7.44 s	8.06 s	8.54 s	8.99 s	9.73 s
105°	5.27 s	6.57 s	7.44 s	8.07 s	8.59 s	9.08 s	9.98 s
110°	5.24 s	6.52 s	7.40 s	8.05 s	8.58 s	9.12 s	10.18 s
115°	5.16 s	6.43 s	7.33 s	7.99 s	8.54 s	9.11 s	10.31 s
120°	5.04 s	6.28 s	7.21 s	7.90 s	8.46 s	9.04 s	10.33 s
125°	4.88 s	6.10 s	7.08 s	7.78 s	8.35 s	8.93 s	10.25 s
130°	4.69 s	5.90 s	6.92 s	7.63 s	8.21 s	8.78 s	10.07 s
135°	4.48 s	5.67 s	6.72 s	7.46 s	8.06 s	8.60 s	9.84 s
140°	4.26 s	5.44 s	6.49 s	7.27 s	7.90 s	8.42 s	9.57 s
145°	4.03 s	5.20 s	6.22 s	7.06 s	7.71 s	8.24 s	9.32 s
150°	3.81 s	4.95 s	5.95 s	6.84 s	7.49 s	8.05 s	9.08 s
155°	3.60 s	4.71 s	5.68 s	6.58 s	7.28 s	7.86 s	8.85 s
160°	3.41 s	4.48 s	5.44 s	6.33 s	7.07 s	7.66 s	8.65 s
165°	3.25 s	4.29 s	5.23 s	6.10 s	6.88 s	7.48 s	8.46 s
170°	3.13 s	4.13 s	5.06 s	5.90 s	6.69 s	7.32 s	8.31 s
175°	3.04 s	4.01 s	4.93 s	5.77 s	6.56 s	7.20 s	8.21 s
180°	3.00 s	3.97 s	4.88 s	5.71 s	6.50 s	7.15 s	8.16 s

Fig. 9. The sail VPP for a yacht with a 10 m waterline (the Delft series' Sysser 62 canoe body), with the Delft series hull resistance. The polar follows the true wind between the solved wind speeds, drawn faint; the rings mark the best upwind and downwind angles.

8.Under sail

Give a heel angle and QuickWake floats the hull at it, free to sink and trim, and predicts its heeled resistance; the viewport shows the hull heeled at its running attitude, with the waves of its equivalent symmetric hull around it. For yacht canoe bodies inside the range of the Delft Systematic Yacht Hull Series, the series' heel regression is shown alongside.

The Sailing tab turns this into a speed polar: an ORC-style rig with main, jib, spinnaker or gennaker, the keel and rudder, crew on the rail and the hull's own righting moment, with the sails flattened and reefed as the wind rises. Hull resistance comes from QuickWake or from the Delft series. The heel method and the sail polar are new, and are not yet validated against tank data.

The QuickWake results panel: the hull and its notes at the top, the speed table, and the selected speed's breakdown on the Speed tab

Fig. 10. The results panel. The header names the hull and its run; the note at the top right is QuickWake's own mesh check, which warns when a hull mesh does not close into one piece. The speed table stays in view above the selected speed, its stability, its propeller and the viewport display.

9.Inside Rhino, on your model

A panel beside the viewport: polysurface, SubD or mesh, full hull or one half. Choose the hull and QuickWake checks it at once, with its hydrostatics and any mesh notes on the Setup tab, before a single speed is run.

Results appear speed by speed as they are solved, in a table or a plot that stays in view while you look through the selected speed, its stability, its propeller and the viewport display; the header keeps the hull, its notes and whether the results still match the inputs. Everything exports to CSV.

Why naval architects use it

Answers while the lines are still changingA full speed sweep in milliseconds, so you can compare hull forms, loadings and trim before the design is fixed.
One method from displacement to planingResistance, trim and sinkage through the hump and into planing, without changing tools.
Checked against the towing tankCompared with model tests of 11 monohulls: the mean absolute error in resistance is 5–10 % per hull.
No meshing, no exportIt works on the geometry in your model, in the program you already use.
Stability with the same modelThe GZ curve and reference criteria come from the same hull, at the same loading.
Your data beside the predictionTank results on every plot, and every result to CSV.

Specification

Platform	Rhino 8.20 or later on Windows
Hull input	Polysurface, surface, SubD or mesh; full hull (symmetric port and starboard) or one half; catamarans as one demihull or both
Hull types	Displacement and planing monohulls; catamarans, with indicative results (less validated; the two hulls' waves added, no hull interaction in the attitude); sailing yachts
Results per speed	Total resistance and its parts, effective power, running trim and sinkage (the heave of the centre of gravity), buoyancy and dynamic lift
In the viewport	Running attitude, centres of gravity and buoyancy, dynamic lift; the free surface, streamlines and the pressure coefficient on the wetted hull (provisional), for monohulls and catamarans; at a heel, the free surface of the equivalent symmetric hull
Propeller	Wageningen B-series design for a fixed rpm or a diameter limit, or a given propeller checked over the sweep; estimated hull–propeller factors, with the thrust deduction from statistics or from a virtual disk behind the hull; Keller's blade-area criterion for cavitation
Heel	Imposed heel up to 45° on displacement monohulls, free sinkage and trim, by an equivalent symmetric hull; the Delft series heel regression alongside for yacht canoe bodies
Sailing	Speed polar of a displacement monohull against true wind angle for several wind speeds: ORC sail coefficients, main and jib, symmetric spinnaker and gennaker, flattening and reefing, Delft series keel and rudder, crew righting moment, best upwind and downwind angles; CSV export
Stability	GZ curve at rest with free sinkage and trim, and at any solved speed with its running trim and the dynamic lift's share of the weight (hydrostatic); downflooding angle; selected GZ criteria of the IMO IS Code 2008 or the HSC Code 2000, or custom criteria, for reference at rest
Output	CSV of every speed; flow geometry added to the document
Method	Michell thin-ship theory with closures for friction, form, transom flow, planing lift and spray

In development

Grasshopper	Components for the hull, the speed sweep, the propeller and stability, for parametric studies
Scripting and agents	A documented Python interface, and an MCP server so that AI assistants can set up and run QuickWake studies in Rhino
macOS	Rhino 8 on macOS

QuickWake predicts the bare hull in calm water and has been compared with model-scale towing-tank tests. It is a tool for the design stage, not a substitute for model tests or CFD for final figures.

The research behind it

QuickWake comes out of ship-hydrodynamics research at the University of Split. Davor Mimica and Josip Bašić develop it at the Chair of Naval Architecture, FESB; the method is set out in these papers, whose authors are below.

J. Bašić, B. Blagojević, M. Andrun (2020). Improved estimation of ship wave-making resistance. Ocean Engineering, 200, 107079.doi:10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107079
The thin-ship wave-resistance method QuickWake builds on, with corrections for the boundary layer and the far-field waves.
D. Mimica, I. Bezić, M. Bašić, B. Blagojević, J. Bašić (2026). Neural calibration of the resistance prediction for slender ship hulls. AI for Engineering, 1(2), 6.doi:10.3390/aieng1020006
A study of where linear thin-ship theory holds for slender hulls and where fuller forms need more than it can give.
D. Mimica, I. Bezić, M. Bašić, B. Blagojević, J. Bašić. Preliminary prediction of resistance and running attitude across the displacement-to-planing transition. Ocean Engineering, under review.
The method QuickWake uses to carry one prediction of resistance, trim and sinkage from displacement speeds through the hump into planing.

Prof. Branko BlagojevićHead of ChairShip structures and advanced marine vehicles
Josip Bašić, PhDAssistant ProfessorShip hydrodynamics, CFD and wave resistance
Martina Bašić, PhDPostdocLagrangian CFD and planing hulls
Davor MimicaSenior ResearcherShip resistance and propulsion
Ines BezićResearcherEnergy-saving devices and propeller flows

Licences and prices

One seat is one named user, on any of their computers. Both licences include the full plug-in.

Launch offer: 50 % off both licences

Perpetual licence

~~Regular price €600~~ Offer price €300

per seat, paid once

Use it without a time limit, with every update after you buy.

Annual subscription

~~Regular price €260~~ Offer price €130

per seat per year

Every release while the subscription is active. Renews each year; cancel at any time.

Prices plus VAT where applicable. Requires Rhino 8.20 or later on Windows, licensed separately. Full refund within 14 days of any payment. Orders are processed by our reseller Paddle.com, the Merchant of Record. See the Terms of Service, Refund Policy and Licence Agreement.

Download and install

QuickWake installs from Rhino's own Package Manager. The download is free; running a sweep needs a licence key.

Open the Package Manager. In Rhino 8.20 or later on Windows, type PackageManager.
Search for QuickWake, click Install and restart Rhino. Rhino keeps it up to date from then on.
Open the panel with the QuickWake command, or the W on the QuickWake toolbar.
Enter your licence key with Licence at the top right of the panel.

The user guide goes through every step. Questions: support@quickwake.app.

Request a licence

Write to us with a line about your work and the licence you want, and we will reply with the order details and a demonstration.

Write to us