PDA

View Full Version : Idiotic Musings on Trim Tabs



Formula Jr
04-18-2001, 06:11 AM
Looking at Scott's beautiful restore got me to thinking about Trim Tab placement last night. So I thunk some, and then I thunk some more and this is what I've resolved and want feedback on.

First, there are two entirely different ways of looking at trim tabs and trim tab placement.

There's an accepted, traditional use for trim tabs and, there's also an un-sanctioned, non-traditional use of trim tabs.

The traditional use, the one that Bennett and other tab makers can sign off on, involves application on hulls that do not exceed their design limits. This use is the commonly understood use of controlling boat trim, list, lowering the planing speed etc.

The Non-traditional use, is where tabs are used on boats, particularly older Deep Vee designs, that are being driven far over the speeds they were designed for. In this un-sanctioned application, the tabs are really acting as extentions of the hull and become critical planning surfaces. Lets say you got a boat made in '66 that was never intended to go over 50 mph.
Now you stuff, wedge, shoehorn or otherwise squeeze in an engine that makes 150 to 200 more hp than the boat was originally designed for. You're going to have handling problems since there isn't going to much in the way of a running surface to stablize the boat. This is where the non-traditional use comes in. The stability problem is because the "Point" of your running surface is the point of a V shape and the boat will try to fall over side to side in a chine walk. The drive is really your other "Point," but since its in line with the point of the V it doesn't add side to side stability. Now what if we add two flat running surfaces so that the V now
looks like this _ V _. And we run the two trims, drive and tabs, counter to eachother to push the transom chine area into the water. You have here, essentally turned a Deep Vee design into a high speed four point hydroplane and the rest of the hull is ill-relevant. Now I can understand why any trim tab maker would never advise anyone on this non-traditional use since the liabilty problems would be obvious, the practice exists none the less. But when you examine this four point concept, there are some things that immediatly come to view. One, you want long, extremely stout, tabs. You also want fine control of both the drive trim and the tab trim. And the traditional rectangular shape of the tab may be improved by a curved shape. You might also need some sort of safety mechanism that locks out fast trim changes or have a completely computer controlled progression of both the drive trim and the tab trim keyed to speed.
Well, the dentrites are getting a bit of a caffine jag so I'll stop here before I REALLY start babbling nonsense.

Scott Pearson
04-18-2001, 06:29 AM
You have to remember also that I raised my X-Dim. up 1 1/2 inches. If you put the tabs in closer you could run into steering clearence also you will need the tabs outward because as the boat gets on plane there is less drive in the water.

(NJ)Scott

RickR
04-18-2001, 09:49 AM
Formula Jr has some good points

My 18 Genuine Trouble rode on 3 points at speed, the prop, port tab (RH prop) and keel.
I would have prefered the tabs (12x9) were mounted closer to the keel for speeds above 65mph because more down port tab was necessary as the hull lifted out of the water. The starboard tab was never used ecxept to maintain plane at slow speeds.
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1261326&a=9670185&p=32211850&Sequence=0&res=high
Scott P's location looks very close to Genuine Trouble. Since his tabs are 12x12s, with a mid 60s top end, they should work fine.

------------------
RICKR
mailto:riggerb@aol.comriggerb@aol.com</A>

[This message has been edited by RickR (edited 04-18-2001).]

Len
04-18-2001, 10:34 AM
What about adding a short (in length) by 6" wide pad on some of these "modified" boats that are getting re-done to non-original standards?,...especially with a raised x-dim.

Looped
04-18-2001, 11:13 AM
These are quite effective on boats larger than 22’ or so but imagine the control with an 18’

http://www.duraplanemarine.com/images/products/alwhite.gif http://www.donzi.net/ubb/eek.gif
Yikes, flip me over time!

Craig

Looped
04-18-2001, 01:41 PM
All I have to say is Ooo la la, http://www.donzi.net/ubb/eek.gif
Now would you even want to get this wet? Shaawing.
http://www.marinemachine.com/images/ptrim.jpg

Formula Jr
04-18-2001, 03:48 PM
The pad idea makes alot of sense, and I've seen this modification before - one thing I never bothered to ask though, was at what angle to the keel was the pad cut? If your WOT trim angle is 3 to 5 degrees, is that the angle of the pad? And did it affect other running speeds. You still have the problem of torque listing though, unless you are using a dual prop type setup.

BigGrizzly
04-18-2001, 08:11 PM
Scarab uses what they call the Delta pad. that boat doesn't have a rocker hull like a Donzi. The pad has some advantages, bur more disavantages. the biggest is speed, the worst is chine walk.
The T fin like on Geoo's boat and now on my skeg is a better Idea. It works great pn mine. I may loose a little speed, but stability is great. I'm thinling of putting A/R planes on my Corsican also.

Randy

Scott Pearson
04-19-2001, 06:14 AM
Craig,
Where did you get the 2nd picture? They are GREAT LOOKING! I need to get a set of those. Are they all Billit Alum?? How much? I may be able to make emm!

(NJ)Scott

Looped
04-19-2001, 07:18 AM
Scott,
They are Billet Aluminum. I found them on a site called http://www.marinemachine.com but without a price or sizes. I have sent them an e-mail Yesterday about them to see on sizes & prices. You know when they state "Ask one of our reps for more details" and give you no price then they must be big bucks.

Anyone care to guess on say 12 by 12’s or 12 by 18’s?

Craig

Looped
04-19-2001, 10:05 AM
Well I'll be. Going through the “Hot Rigs” section of MarineMachine what do I run into? That’s right, Frank C. & Geo (http://www.marinemachine.com/hot.htm). Hey Geo, I never knew that they made 95 X’s?

Craig