I think you have explained why our results were different Bill. Yes in the example that you give ie SC versus Tornado, the differences would, I think, (without actually doing the tests) be as you say, but in my opinion, that is not the correct way of conducting an accurate test for "camber deck as compared to flat, or very near flat" To "compare" two different hull forms is just that, a comparison between those two hull forms,on two entirely different characteristic hulls, and the result that you get is a "comparison" between the entire differences of their hull form, not specifically the fore decks. To test whether camber is more efficient to flat, in this instant, the same identical forms must be used in the same controlled conditions with the only difference being the area that is being tested ie the fore decks. As to the anecdotal example of submarines, I think that if you were to research the evolution of the submarine, you will find that the curves over the complete vessel resulted from the need to have the greatest reistance to underwater pressure, and how the submarine travelled at the surface was only of minor secondary consideration. Besides the vast majority of submarines produced through out the second world war all had flat decks. It was only their inner "pressure hull that was curved.