The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

14 There is a great lack of and need for more standardization in the internal combustion field and it is to be hoped that our classification societies will exert a good influence in this direction in time. In connection with motor ships it may be remarked that the tendency to give cargo carrying motor ships higher speeds has been very noticeable of late. There are several reasons for this. Of course the most obvious one is the fact that the fuel cost for the motorship is often—not always—some- thing like 50 per cent of that of the steamer. It is readily understandable that owners instead of saving all of this have concluded to save a part only and use the remainder to develop more speed in spite of greater first cost. There are other factors present. Motorships so far have ‘been pre- eminently developed for long distance runs. For such service an increase of speed means much more nearly a proportionate increase of voyages and earnings than for short runs. A third factor may be mentioned which would undoubtedly have had an effect upon the speed of cargo vessels even if the internal combus- tion engine had not been developed. More and more, overseas commerce is being carried by the cargo liner rather than the tramp. In a cargo line service, in competition, speed is obviously an excellent talking point, and as in passenger lines the tendency is to increase speed to get the busi- ness. However we may explain them the higher speeds of recent cargo vessels are a fact and when we read of 14- knot and even 15-knot cargo carriers we wonder whether it is not being overdone and if there will not be a reversion to lower speeds in time. Meawhile I venture to call the at- tention of our Great Lakes members to the fact that a large 15-knot over- seas cargo vessel is nearly twice as speedy as a large 9-mile lake cargo carrier. We all know that on the lakes extraordinary and_ successful and, may I add, expensive, efforts have been made to save the time spent in port by cargo carriers. Short as the Lake trips are it may be that the time has come to save time under way. Recently we have seen again the usual pessimistic and optimistic state- ments regarding the supply of oil available for use. For my part accepting the state- ments of the experts as to the oil in our known western shale fields I have complete confidence that even if, or perhaps I should say when, it MARINE REVIEW becomes necessary to fall back on them the engineer with the aid of the chemist will find a way, as he has always done in the past, to supply us with oil and its products at a reasonable cost. Of course oil may be supplanted. For instance, the inven- tor’s dream of an internal combus- tion engine using powdered coal may come true and succeed in ousting oil from the marine field. Some other development, not even an idea as yet, may do it. If such a result should come, however, in our time, it will almost certainly be because the engi- neer has found a better way—not be- cause we do not have oil at a reason- able price. When last we met there were two great questions affecting the nation and interesting peculiarly the members of this society, regarding which there existed—and had existed for years— controversy, confusion and, may I add, though not with critical intent, a lack of action. I refer to the two questions of aeronautics in the United States and the United States merchant marine. This society has taken an interest in the technical side of aeronautics from the first as evidenced by papers be- fore past meetings and this meeting, and I am sure I voice your sentiments when expressing pleasure at the progress made during the year as regards policy and organization. With five-year programs for the army and navy and an organization in the de- partment of commerce to foster and develop civil aeronautics the congress has put an end to confusion and in- action. As regards controversy? No. Controversy will be eliminated only by the extermination of controversial- ists and that is not done in our days. However, a certain amount of contro- versy does not seriously clog the wheels of progress and has some advantages. Certainly the aeronautical situation is vastly improved. We have still with us the question of the United States merchant marine, of vital interest to the members of this society. In some respects with regard to it the situation is closely analogous to the aeronautical situa- tion a year ago. We have no Morrow board but the shipping board by reso- lution of the Senate has been asked to formulate a policy and is busily engaged in this connection at present. It is too much to expect a 100 per cent perfect result of its labors, or even one a 100 per cent satisfactory to any of the many diverse elements entering as factors into the equation, but the members of this society know well how great is the present need for prompt action and again I feel December, 1926 confident that I voice your sentiments when I express the fervent hope that the forthcoming report will do for our merchant marine what the Morrow board report did for American aero- nautics and result in’ the elimination of confusion and inaction and the reduction to a minimum of contro- versy. We can build in the United States ships equal to any and there are building today in two American yards two large liners for coastwise service equal to any in their class, but for overseas service what have we? Many excellent vessels, I would not dispar- age them, but in the North Atlantic passenger service our leading vessels are the secondhand German ships built before the war converted to transports during the war and re- converted to liners after the war at great expense. In overseas cargo serv- ice our vessels are practically all war-time products designed nearly ten years ago, not to supply the service needed today but to carry the maxi- mum deadweight at low speed _ to Northern Europe. The whole struc- ture of American industry is based upon the principle “scrap the old and obsolete plant, make and use the best.” The most pressing need today of the American overseas merchant marine is that, applying this principle, we should begin if only in a small way to replace out-of-date ships by up- to-date ships. Technical Papers Presented In the two days’ sessions of the society thirteen papers were pre- sented. The titles and authors of these papers with brief abstracts follow: 1. “Maximum Block Coefficients and the Economic Disadvantage of Full Form,” by W. J. Lovett, visitor. This paper is published in full in this issue of MARINE REVIEW. 2. “Naval Development of Floats for Aircraft” by Commander H. C. Richardson, C. C., U. S. N., member. No officer of the navy probably has had a longer connection with the sub- ject of this paper than the author. He was sent to the model basin in Washington in 1911 to assist in the development of proper floats for air- craft. This paper is of great value in that it covers progressively the development of water hulls from the first early crude attempts to the late modern types. The paper is of reat practical interest and is illustrated by a large number of photographs and line drawings. There is also a dis- cussion of speeds at which floats will rise from the water with loads. 3. “Launch of the Airplane Carrier U. S. S. Lexington,” by S. W. Wake- man, member. Mr. Wakeman has done a real service to the marine industry in giv- ing complete information of the (Continued on Page 56)