I have spent more than 30 years in product development and testing. Trust me when I say everything is trial and error in every product development process including the use of CAD, FEA and CFD. I am an engineer but that is just the minimum degree to get into the business.
No way I could design a 180 mph boat without years of experience and testing. The CAD/FEA/CFD would just be tools to help validate each step along the way from going 120 mph then 130 mph, etc.
There is a good book on this subject called "To Engineer is Human" all should read it to understand my point. Most engineering disasters over time can be explained by a simple conclusion of the book......success leads to failure and failure leads to success.....
God bless those and their families that have lost there lives pushing the limits so the rest of us can learn.
I am also a student of aerodynamics and have watched the crash videos many times in this thread. The CFD modeling would be extremely complex as it it involves drives, props, thrust, lift,......but the aerodynamics of the crash once the cat leaves the water appears to be quite simple. Center of lift and center of gravity need to be close like on an airplane for the boat to "fly" straight. On a cat they are typically far apart so it flips with the rear heavy CG. Others have pointed this out so not a new revelation.
I don't have a solution but am confident a next generation of designers will.

great book for sure, read it while I was getting my degree (as most students should). been a while may have to dig it out for a ready read.

Mr. Jusabum since you don't list a boat or location, who are you and what do you have to contribute to this site? From what I see your posts are nothing but rude childish keyboard cowboy antics. Find another sand box to play in if you have nothing constructive to add to the OSO family.

Just Sayin'

Maybe his screen name is not just a random coincidence but a cry for help?

Engineered in a wind tunnel, splashed off a Boston Whaler, built from 30 years of experience? Does any of that really matter? The truth (in my opinion) is that accidents are going to happen through mechanical failure, operator error, swerving to miss a dog, whatever . At 100 miles an hour, your chances of survival are greatly diminished, no matter what the cause or who designed the hull. I have never understood this infatuation with going 100+ mph.

I think everyone can agree that drunk driving is a bad idea.


Please do not think that because your boat is not as fast that it is OK to captain intoxicated. It is not OK.

it here after referred to as " THE BOAT "" is an air plane , a jet , a flying wing , a rocket , a bird , whatever they fly through the air / they sure as hell do not run in water other then take off and landing / so when we hit these awe inspiring speeds WHERE is one dam single control ? we can not count the prop rudder when they constantly fly , that is the elephant that nobody will admit to / boat companies sales guys do have a responsibility to the customers passengers

You have to factor in the human into the equation. Drunk, half drunk or sober, most of us here are type 'A' people. We like to go fast. we like to press the limits.

You can put all the NASA rocket science technology you want into a cat that can go 200 safely. As soon as you accomplish that, as soon as you make a cat as safe aa a minivan going to the grocery store, we are going to figure out how to make a 225 then 250 mph cat that is once again unstable.

Because thats who we are. Minivan rides to the grocery store are not exciting. The risk and beating the risk is the thrill.

If it wasnt for this drive and determination, we would still be sitting in caves eating sprouts and berries.

A vee hull can also launch off a wave or wake.

v hull does NOT = flying wing / so its the unsafe part you guys crave / no reason we cant have a cunard wing - a moveable wing as a control at front and rear of said tunnel