11th International Conference on Fast Sea Transportation
FAST 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, September 2011
The Use of Transport Factor as a Very Simple Model for Ship Design Exploration
Chris B. McKesson
School of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, University of New Orleans, New Orleans Louisiana, USA
ABSTRACT
The author has been a proponent of Very Simple Models
(VSMs) for ship design. VSMs offer the ability to explore a
design space rapidly and with a minimum of input,
frequently saving the design team many weeks of effort
exploring fruitless corners of the space. Of course, VSMs
are limited in fidelity and do not replace detailed design
models. Instead they should be viewed as complementary,
in the same way that a high-powered telescope is often fitted
with a small spotting-scope which is used first.
In the present paper the author explores the use of Kennell's
Transport Factor "TF" as a Very Simple Model,
demonstrating good success in using this method to
normalize a family of dissimilar ships, causing their relative
merits to become more obvious.
Using TF to predict ship characteristics has many powerful
applications: It can immediately indicate basic feasibility,
saving the team from pursuing infeasible missions. But
even more important than this “go/no-go” sort of insight, the
TF-driven design prediction can identify how hard the
design task is likely to be, and where resources will be most
needed. Conversely, a TF-driven synthesis can be used to
investigate the benefit of technology changes, so that best
allocation of R&D investments can be made.
And best of all, these benefits can be pursued very quickly –
in a fraction of the time of ‘conventional’ design synthesis.
The paper takes the reader through the derivation of the
method, and then into a novel example of the virtues and
power of the method. The example consists of a design-to-
design comparison, wherein a design is evolved to a new set
of requirements so that differences with competing designs
can be cast into greater contrast.
KEY WORDS
Ship Synthesis, Very Simple Models, Transport Factor
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The author has been a proponent of Very Simple Models
(VSMs) for ship design. VSMs offer the ability to explore a
design space rapidly and with a minimum of input,
frequently saving the design team many weeks of effort
exploring fruitless corners of the space. Of course, VSMs
are limited in fidelity and do not replace detailed design
models. Instead they should be viewed as complementary,
in the same way that a high-powered telescope is often fitted
with a small spotting-scope which is used first.
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
In the present paper the author explores the use of Kennell's
Transport Factor "TF" as a Very Simple Model,
demonstrating good success in using this method to
normalize a family of dissimilar ships, causing their relative
merits to become more obvious.
Transport Factor is Kennell’s 1998 expansion of von
Karman’s 1950 investigations into transportation
effectiveness. Kennell has published several papers in
which he has used TF as a tool for design analysis and
assessment (Kennell 1998, 2001, and 2010 and Kennell &
Templeman 1998). McKesson has built upon this work by
using TF as a tool for design synthesis (McKesson 2011).
By application of the relationships revealed in Kennell’s
analysis, it is possible to rapidly predict the characteristics
that a ship will have, from a very sparse set of early design
requirements.
This prediction of ship characteristics has many powerful
applications: It can immediately indicate basic feasibility,
saving the team from pursuing infeasible missions. But
even more important than this “go/no-go” sort of insight, the
TF-driven design prediction can identify how hard the
design task is likely to be, and where resources will be most
needed. Conversely, a TF-driven synthesis can be used to
investigate the benefit of technology changes, so that best
allocation of R&D investments can be made.
And best of all, these benefits can be pursued very quickly –
in a fraction of the time of ‘conventional’ design synthesis.
2.0 TRANSPORT FACTOR (TF) DEFINED
Kennell introduced the Transport Factor in Kennell (1998).
At the same time McKesson was working along similar
lines, developing a Very Simple Model that was described
in McKesson (2006 & 2009) and more recently in
McKesson (2011). McKesson has also been teaching both
the Kennell and McKesson methods as part of the
curriculum of Naval Architecture at the University of New
Orleans.
Recently these three threads have converged and the author
has been building a VSM around TF, as follows:
First, let us recall the definition of Transport Factor:
Where “K” is a constant as needed to make TF non-
dimensional. In metric units with ship weight in tonnes,
speed in meters per second, and power in kilowatts, K is
9.81.
735
3.0 THE DECOMPOSITION OF TF
Kennell has shown importantly that TF can be decomposed
to parallel the ship weight breakdown. Thus for example,
consider a USN SWBS-based weight breakdown as follows:
Lightship weight =
And
Total weight = Lightship + Cargo + Fuel
This weight breakdown then leads to a completely parallel
TF breakdown, as:
TFTOTAL = TF100 + TF200 + TF300 + TF400 + TF500 +
TF600 + TF700 + TFFUEL + TFCARGO
Now let us consider the individual characteristics of these
TF components:
3.1 TF-TOTAL
Specific Power, TF, and L/D are concepts that are nearly
interchangeable. Specific Power is von Karman’s metric for
transport effectiveness, and is calculated as Power / (Weight
x Speed) (von Karman 1950.) Transport Factor is Kennell’s
inversion of Specific Power, and is calculated as Weight x
Speed / Power. Lift to Drag ratio is the observed ratio of the
ship weight (lift) to ship resistance (drag). In most cases
ship resistance is not known, only ship power is known, so
the drag is estimated to be OPC x (Power / Speed), where
“OPC” is an overall propulsive efficiency. An important
point to take from this derivation is that L/D = TF/OPC.
Note that in the case of powered-lift craft such as SES, the
lift-power is included in the L/D or TF calculation, without
distinguishing it from the propulsion-power, thus creating a
‘virtual drag’ that accounts for the lift power.
McKesson (2006 & 2009) and Kennell (2001) (and earlier,
von Karman) both provide contours for the observed state-
of-the-art of “best attainable” TF. (In McKesson (2006) this
is erroneously reported as best attainable L/D. In fact, this
is only L/D if OPC = 1.0.) McKesson shows that a large
body of data collapses into a single frontier when analyzed
using a non-dimensional speed, and he offers a simplistic
equation for predicting the “best attainable” whole-ship TF
for any combination of size and speed. McKesson’s 2009
data is presented in Figure 1. The solid black line is
McKesson’s curve of “observed best attainable” for TF
performance. As may be seen the curve is not rigorously
the absolute best performance ever observed, but is at least
on the upper edge of the attainable performance space. It is
also computationally simple, being:
Where:
FN = volumetric Froude Number:
FN =
736
g = gravitational constant (e.g. 9.81 m/sec^2)
vol = volumetric displacement of ship (e.g.
displacement in tonnes / 1.025 (tonnes/cubic meter))
Figure 1- McKesson's 2011 presentation of the curve of
"Observed Best Attainable" TF for a large number of ships
As we move forward from this point, let us first pause to
reconsider the meaning of the “Best Attainable” curve. This
curve is an observed frontier of performance, without stating
what efforts must be undertaken to actually attain this level
of performance. In general it is reasonable to expect that
this level of performance is attained by selecting optimal
values for ship slenderness, prismatic coefficient, and so
forth, unfettered by service constraints. Other ships, which
are not free to take optimum L/B, or optimum Cp, will
generally have inferior TF performance.
Because this is a curve of TF, it also includes the propulsive
efficiency. Thus the ‘best attainable’ frontier suggests that
the designer was free to select the best performing and
optimal propulsion suite.
The crux of this portion of the present model is to
understand that the overall TF performance, including
performance predicted by the ‘best attainable’ curve,
represents all of the hydrodynamics of the ship: It contains
all of the hull resistance performance and all of the
propulsion efficiency.
When using the ‘best attainable’ curve there are several
interesting realizations. The most important of these is the
realization that the curve does not tell the user how to get
the ‘best attainable’, merely that it should be possible. That
is to say, the curve provides no information as to what hull
parameters to use for any given point, what Prismatic
Coefficient to pick, what the Length-to-Beam ratio is, etc.
Indeed, it does not even tell whether the ship is monohull or
multihull, waterjet or propeller driven.
3.2 TF-FUEL
Kennell (2010) has shown that TF-fuel depends linearly
upon range and specific fuel consumption (SFC), but not
upon speed nor any ship hydrodynamic feature. (Note that
this has been derived for a Navy-style “DDS 200” fuel
calculation, and not a Breguet range calculation.) This is a
very surprising insight: In other words a ship’s TF-fuel will
be the same for the same range and machinery type
(specifically SFC), regardless of whether the ship is a
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
monohull, trimaran, sea train, etc. So if two ships have the
same propulsion technology – e.g. diesel-with-waterjets –
and the same range, then they will have the same TF-fuel.
More generally, if we change the ship’s propulsion
technology we can capture the effect of this simply by
changing TF-fuel in proportion to the change in SFC.
The formula for this is:
TFFUEL = K•(SFC•Range)•
(1.0+fuel rate correction factor)•
(1.0+plant deterioration factor) ÷
(1.0-tailpipe allowance factor)
Or approximately:
TFFUEL = .003622 •SFC •Range
(with SFC and Range in English units of lbs/hp-hr and
nautical miles respectively, and standard values of the three
“factors”)
The ship of course has other consumables, but it seems
reasonable to assume that their weight may also be a linear
function of range. So for purposes of a VSM we may
combine the consumables with the fuel into a single TF,
altering the constant “0.003622” as required, perhaps to
simply 0.004.
3.3 TFCARGO
Up to this point we have developed prediction formulas for
TF-fuel (based on Range and SFC) and TF-TOTAL
(assuming ‘best attainable’ performance.) In terms of the
total ship, this leaves only TFLIGHTSHIP and TFCARGO to be
found. In the paragraphs that follow we will look at the
governing relationships for these items as well.
TFCARGO is in most cases either (a) given, or (b) the ultimate
result – rarely is it an intermediate variable.
In the case of an analysis the TFCARGO is given, because the
cargo weight is given as a part of the highest level
description of the ship.
Alternatively, the TFCARGO may be the output from a TF-
based VSM: The sum of all the TF components must equal
the TFTOTAL. This means that one predicts the best
attainable TFTOTAL, and then calculates the component TF
values for TF100 through TF700, TF-fuel, etc. Simple
subtraction will yield the amount of TF that remains
available for cargo carriage…if any.
3.4 TF100
McKesson (2006) proposes the use of a Cargo Carriage
Multiplier which is approximately the same as saying that
W100 is proportional to WCARGO. This reflects the fact that
one part of the ‘job’ of the ship structure is to enclose the
cargo.
Benford (1976) earlier proposed to model structural weight
using ship Cubic Number “CN”, where:
CN = L •B •D / 100
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
He found that W-100 was proportional to CN0.90, and other
lightship weight groups were proportional to CN0.825. For
purposes of a Very Simple Model, however, we can safely
ignore these exponents and state that the weight is
approximately linearly proportional to the pseudo-volume of
“Cubic Number.”
Cubic Number is the volume of a rectangular prism that
encloses the entire ship. For ships of similar form, we may
assume that this prismatic volume is some constant times
the “real” total volume of the ship, meaning the sum of the
underwater and above-water volumes.
However, we may further choose to assume that the
abovewater volume is some constant multiple (or fraction)
of the underwater volume for a fixed mission (e.g. tanker,
ferry, etc.) This then would collapse this volume
formulation to state that total ship volume is directly
proportional to underwater ship volume, or in other words to
ship weight. Thus in this simplification of Benford’s
formula, we can replace the structural weight density with
simply a structural weight fraction: W100/WTOTAL. It is
simple to see that this is equivalent to TF100/TFTOTAL.
3.5 TF200
The TF of propulsion machinery is, of course,
TF200 = K •W200 •V / SHP
Note that this contains a very common naval architect’s
“VSM” of machinery: W200/SHP. In McKesson 2006 and
2011 this was the parameter McKesson labeled “weight of
power.” And it is commonly understood that this “weight of
power” or “power density factor” is mainly a function of
machinery technology choice: Low speed diesels are heavy
per kW, gas turbines are light per kilowatt. But within a
technology class the “weight of power” may be treated as
constant: Twice as much power weighs twice as much. (A
more complex, but still simple, model of the “weight of
power” could easily be constructed, and would not
materially change the benefits of this use of TF as a VSM of
ship synthesis.)
This suggests that we can have a Very Simple Model of
machinery technology, based on a ‘menu’ of technologies. I
offer the following as starting points in such a menu:
High speed diesel / Waterjet (Fast Ferry propulsion):
W200/SHP = 10 lbs / hp
Diesel – Electric / Azipod:
W200/Ps = 35 kg / kW
TF200 must be calculated on a ship-specific basis by taking
the appropriate machinery power density from the menu and
multiplying it by ship speed. Thus the TF200 for Azipods on
a 10 knot ship will be precisely half the TF200 for Azipods
on a 20 knot ship – but that should be the ONLY difference
between these two cases.
3.6 TF300
The electrical plant weight on a ship will depend
approximately-linearly on the electrical load of the ship.
The electrical load of the ship (Redmond 1984) varies
737
approximately as the ship volume. Following the argument
given under TF100 regarding estimating this volume, this
boils down to saying that the TF300 fraction (TF300/TFTOTAL)
will be approximately constant for a ship of constant
mission.
3.7 TF400
The weight of the command and control suite of a ship is
only weakly related to the size of the ship – radios and
radars don’t scale. The author suggests taking the W400
weight as fixed across variations in a ship, or assuming a
value for this weight if conducting a new design.
Appropriate values may be reasonably guessed by a
competent naval architect – from a few hundred pounds for
a small craft to some tens of tons for a larger ship.
3.8 TF500
The argument here is that weight of auxiliary systems will
vary in the same manner as was argued for SWBS 300, and
thus TF500/TFTOTAL should be taken as a constant for a
constant ship type.
3.9 TF600
SWBS 600 is the weight of outfit and furnishings on the
ship. This weight is (Redmond 1984) normally assumed to
vary as a function of both ship size (volume) and ship
manning. Up to this point the manning has not been
mentioned – how can we create a VSM of manning for this
parameter? Fortunately this problem collapses, because the
early-stage VSM of manning is that manning is roughly
linear with ship size or displacement. This means that the
manning too varies with ship volume, and thus once again
the entire TF600 collapses to obeying the ‘law’ that
TF600/TFTOTAL is constant, for a fixed ship mission.
3.10 TF700
Finally we come to the shipboard weapon systems.
Shipboard weapon systems are actually the warship
equivalent of ‘cargo’ – they are the weight lift which
constitute the ship’s raison d’être. The present VSM
therefore simply puts the weapons into the group labelled
‘cargo.’
4.0 Using TF as a VSM
What does the above amount to? The preceding paragraphs
resulted in a collection of very simple relationships for the
components of the ship weight breakdown. Appendix A
summarizes the relationships that were derived.
Note that the items for SWBS 100, 300, 500, & 600 may be
combined into a single figure, which for simplicity is called
the “1-3-5-6” fraction. The 1-3-5-6 Fraction may be taken
as a single “lump” without knowing the proportion assigned
to SWBS 100, -300, -500, or -600. And in fact, given its
small size, it is suggested that SWBS 400 may be thrown
into this item without seriously affecting the validity of the
results, thus yielding a 1-3-4-5-6 fraction.
In other words, the parameters in the VSM are:
 Cargo weight
 Displacement
738
 Speed
 Range
 Power Density – tonnes/kilowatt or lbs/hp
 1-3-4-5-6 Fraction, a function of ship mission
The result is a Very Simple Model of ship design that
involves only six parameters. Of these, several are ‘input’
via the requirements (e.g. Cargo, Speed, Range.) Of the
others, Power Density is the result of a design decision
made by the architect. Finally, the 1-3-4-5-6 fraction is
derived from historical data on ships of similar mission.
Again, the need for “mission similarity” is because we have
embedded in these fractions some assumptions of volume
ratios, manning ratios, and other factors that are mission-
dependent.
Let us now use this model to see how it performs are a tool.
The simplest use of the VSM developed thus far is as a
synthesis tool. This was the original genesis of this VSM
and was described in McKesson (2006 and 2011), and space
limits do not permit that explanation to be repeated here.
Instead the Author wishes to use the present paper to
introduce the use of the VSM for design reconvergence.
4.1 Design Normalization or Reconvergence
Let us suppose that we have three designs that we wish to
compare. Due to the evolutionary nature of the design
process the designs are not “apples to apples” relatives –
they have inherited some differences in their requirements
or technologies, and so forth.
This is a very common problem in real world design.
During early stage explorations we may start out with one
concept. Then at some point we discover that, say, a
catamaran is looking like a better concept so we shift gears
to that new design. We refine the catamaran design, while
our customer refines the mission requirements. At the end
of the ‘day’ we are then asked how our evolved catamaran
compares to an earlier monohull concept. Can we rapidly
reconverge that ‘overtaken by events’ monohull to bring it
into some sort of parity with the catamaran? Alternatively
can we normalize both the catamaran and the monohull to
some third set of requirements – say to compare against an
existing-ship competitor?
The TF-based VSM offers one means of doing this, in a
matter of minutes rather than weeks.
In this case we subject the two designs to TF analysis as
described above. We can then adjust the TF factors of the
OBE design to match the new requirements, and then re-
express the results in traditional ship terms.
Here is an example of that process:
The first generation ship was, say, a 25-knot concept
carrying 2000 tons of cargo. As the design evolved it turned
out that a 30-knot / 1500-ton-cargo requirement set was a
better match to the needs. How would the characteristics of
the ship change if it was evolved to the new requirements?
We imagine that the first-generation ship was designed by
some appropriate process, including using ship synthesis
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
tools, conventional “manual” calculation procedures, and so
forth. The feasibility point resulted in the characteristics
given in Table 1.
SPEED  25  knots 
INSTALLED POWER  17000  kW 
RANGE  4000  n.mi. 
WEIGHT 
100  1000  t 
200  200  t 
300  50  t 
400  10  t 
500  150  t 
600  20  t 
700  0  t  Table 2 - The TF breakdown of the Baseline ship
LIGHT SHIP  1430  t 
Fuel  1600  t 
Other Consumables  250  t  requirement while holding other requirements fixed.
Cargo  2000  t  Furthermore, it is not necessary to explicitly map a range of
FULL LOAD  5280  t  displacements – the columns in Table 3 – as the calculation
DISPLACEMENT  5151  m3  this paper is that this TF-based VSM can be used to rapidly
Table 1 - Baseline ship which is to be reconverged to new
requirements by use of the VSM
Then, as the project evolved, the customer changed his
requirements by increasing the speed but reducing the
payload, and felt that this would probably have little effect
on the design. At the end of the project we are tempted to
compare the old designs against the new ones, because we
feel “The requirements aren’t THAT different.” But the
power of the VSM is in that we can, in a matter of minutes,
predict what is likely to happen to that design in response to
the shift in requirements, as follows. First step is the
analysis of the baseline ship into TF terms, as shown in
Table 2.
Next, we use these TF values and the relationships
summarized in Appendix A to investigate what will be the
characteristics of a new ship to the new set of requirements.
In this example in Table 3 the author has presented this as if
we would investigate a range of possible displacements,
from 5000 to 8000 tonnes:
The analysis shows us that the evolved requirements would
drive us to a new ship displacement of 7172 tonnes. This is
interesting because it shows us that our expectation was
wrong – the changed requirements would result in a
substantial change to the old design, if it were to be brought
up to date. A displacement increase of 36%, with attendant
cost increase. A power increase of 19%, with attendant
operating cost increase.
© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers
TF Breakdown 
TFTOTAL  39.176 
TFCARGO  14.839 
TF13456  9.126 
TF200  1.484 
TFFUEL & OTHER CONSUMABLES  13.726 
TF200/knot  0.05935775 
Power Density  11.765  kW/kg 
TFCONSUMABLE / mile  0.00343162  TF / mile 
TF13456/TFTOTAL  0.233 
Other examples may be tried, such as a change in the range
can be run as a simple convergence in Excel. The point of
‘perturb’ a given design point, in order either to explore the
effect of requirements changes, or to follow an evolving set
of requirements, without re-engaging the complete design
process.
The results are, certainly, subject to a limited precision
based on the linear simplifications embedded in the model,
but they are surprisingly accurate in view of their
computational simplicity.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The author has demonstrated how the non-dimensional
nature of Kennell’s Transport Factor “TF” permits it to be
used as \the basis for a Very Simple Model of total ship
design. While the VSM is not intended to replace higher-
fidelity models, it is nonetheless a powerful tool in the naval
architect’s repertoire.
REFERENCES
Benford, H (1976) “The Practical Application of Economics
to Merchant Ship Design” University of Michigan
NAME departmental publication No. 012, December
1976
Von Karman, T. and Gabrielli, G (1950) “What Price
Speed?” Mechanical Engineering Vol. 72 No. 10 Oct.
1950 pp 775-781
Kennell, C. (1998) "Design Trends in High Speed
Transport" Marine Technology Volume 35 Number 3,
July 1998
739
Kennell, C and Templeman, M, (1998)“The Effect of Ship Redmond, M (1984) “Ship Weight Estimates Using
Size on Transport Factor Properties”, M, HIPER High. Computerized Ratiocination” 43rd Annual Conference of
Performance Marine Vehicle Conference, March 1998 Society of Allied Weight Engineers paper No 1602,
Kennell, C. (2001)“On the Nature of the Transport Factor Index Category 13
Component TFship” Marine Technology, Volume 38,
Number 2, 1 April 2001 , pp. 106-111(6)
Kennell, C. (2010)“On the Nature of the Transport Factor
Component TFfuel” Marine Technology, Volume 47,
Number 1, January 2010 , pp. 59-64(6)
McKesson, C. (2006) “A Parametric Method for
Characterizing the Design Space of High Speed Cargo
Ships” Royal Institution of Naval Architects
McKesson, C.B. (2011) “The Utility of Very Simple Models
for Very Complex Systems” SCS M&S Magazine,
Volume 11, Issue 1 (January)
McKesson, C. (2009) “The Practical Design of Advanced
Marine Vehicles” available online at
http://www.sname.org/SNAME/SD5AdvancedSurfaceS
hipsCraft/

New Ship 
Assumed new displacement  5280  6151 7172 8356 t
Change of speed will change TF attainable 
Fn‐old  0.99  0.99 0.99 0.99
TF‐predicted‐old  46.47  46.47 46.47 46.47
TF‐attained‐old  39.18  39.18 39.18 39.18
k  0.84  0.84 0.84 0.84 k = TF‐attained / TF‐predicted
Speed‐new  30  30 30 30 knots
Fn‐new  1.19  1.16 1.13 1.10
TF‐predicted‐new  29.00  30.90 32.97 35.19
TF‐"attained"‐new  24.45  26.05 27.80 29.67 << This is the new TF‐TOTAL "budget" 
for the new ship 
Range changed, so the TF expended on range will change
Old range  4000  4000 4000 4000 n.mi.
New range  4000  4000 4000 4000 n.mi.
TF‐consumable‐new  13.73  13.73 13.73 13.73 << 0.00343 x Range 
We assume machinery technology will not be changed
TF‐200  1.78  1.78 1.78 1.78 << 0.05936 x SPEED 
We assume the “13456” technology will not be changed
TF‐13456  5.70  6.07 6.48 6.91 << 0.233 x TF‐TOTAL 
Subtraction identifies the amount of total TF available for Cargo  
3.25  4.48 5.81 7.25
We have to re‐dimensionalize the TF to find the total power of the new ship    
Predicted Power  32698  35746 39066 42642 kW
We know what cargo we WANT to carry, so we can calculate the NEEDED TF‐CARGO
Cargo  1500  1500 1500 1500 t
Needed TF Cargo  6.95  6.35 5.81 5.33
‐53%  ‐30% 0% 36%
      ^^ This is the ship that meets the new requirements
Table 3 - A range of reconverged designs derived from the Baseline by the VSM

740 © 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers

 Appendix: Method Summary
TFPRED Use TF = 5 + 40•FN-3 to predict the Best
Attainable TF at this displacement and speed.

Where: FN =

g = gravitational constant (e.g. 9.81 m/sec^2)

vol = displacement of ship in cubic meters
TFTOTAL Adjust the TF-predicted by the observed TF of the
parent design, as follows:
TFTOTAL (offspring) = [factor]•TFPRED
Where: [factor] = (TFTOTAL/TFPRED) from a suitable parent
ship.
This number is fixed. If the component TFs sum to
a higher value, then range or speed or something
else must be adjusted.
TF100 Use TF100/TFTOTAL = constant, or TF100/TFCARGO =
constant, derived from a suitable parent ship.
TF200 Use TF200= k •Vk •Power Density from text]
TF300 Use TF300/TFTOTAL = constant, derived from
suitable parent ship (same mission).
TF400 Use constant W-400 value, derived from suitable
parent ship (same mission / similar size.)
TF500 Use TF500/TFTOTAL = constant, derived from
suitable parent ship (same mission).
TF600 Use TF600/TFTOTAL = constant, derived from
suitable parent ship (same mission).
TF700 Don’t use – put the W-700 into cargo
TFCARGO This is the remainder when the TFTOTAL is
compared to the sums of the component TFs
TFFUEL Use TFFUEL = K•SFC•Range) •* (1.0+fuel rate
correction fact.) •(1.0+plant deterioration
fact.)/(1.0-tailpipe allowance)
Or approximately:
TFFUEL = .003622•SFC•Range
Or approximately:
TFFUEL = .004•SFC•Range

© 2011 American Society of Naval Engineers 741