Quote
[I'm not sure whether I did that but I do know that I brush away descriptions like "semi-planing" because they are not well defined and so allow everybody to read something else into it. As such these "definitions" are useless and can even be confusing.]

Please outline your "description/definition" and source of the term planing as applied to waterborne craft.

It would seem that "semi planing” is the more accurate description, as although all/most sailers feel that they know what planing is, that term when applied to boats is, in reality, a misnomer. No vessel under horizontal motion and in contact with the water is ever FULLY planing it is instead in a state of "semi plane". The only thing that varies between what is called, when in motion, "full displacement" and what sailers vaguely interpret incorrectly as "fully planing" is the degree/percentage to which the hull is affected by the "lift" generated by their forward motion. If a boat were “FULLY planing” it would be, as the name implies, flying (as per a ‘plane, aeroplane, aircraft) I fully realise that most people commonly apply the term planing to waterborne craft, but that does not necessarily make it correct, especially if/when precise descriptive analogies are being asserted.
Mind you if the terms aquaplane or hydroplane were used instead the meaning would be a little better defined, but that still doesn’t alter the application of the terminology “semi plane” as being the most accurate.

Quote
[I did not deny that. And I argued that some hull shapes will not have a planing mode no matter how fast they travel. Therefor the definition of semi-planing is increasingly useless as it implicetly assumes that all hulls plane at some speed. Submarines are great counter examples, so two are ships with fully submerged floats where only the skirts penetrate the watersurface.]

EVERY and ALL shape(s) of object/boat WILL plane (by your definition of planing) IF its velocity is adequate (even a submarine). To say otherwise is to deny a fundamental physical truth.

“When "lift" generated due to the velocity of any object when in contact with a fluid is greater than the “weight” of that object, the object will then (aqua) plane”
(Plane by your definition of plane)

There are too many examples of this principle to fully list I.E just a few being. An automobile is not a very hydrodynamic shape yet it still commonly “hydroplanes” across a puddle of water on the road when travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions (same principle). A spacecraft re-entering the earths atmosphere will skip (plane) across the outer earths atmosphere before it’s velocity is reduced enough to safely re enter (same principle). Large bombs were “skipped” across the water to destroy German dams during the second world war, calculated to lose enough of their velocity (and their “lift” due to their velocity) so that they would sink at the base of the dams before they exploded (same principle), etc ad fin idem.

One of, if not the key foundation stones of mechanical engineering have to be precision and accuracy, particularly with definitions and principles, otherwise conclusions are nothing better than subjectivity