TRS,Bravo,Arnies,props n tabs. Step right in folks

[Mr X]

Thanks Joe,
I don't think the Merc props will have a problem......but it looks more like a Herring 5 blade is what I will be running.

[BUIZILLA]

Ted, with that much brute torque available, wouldn't a 1.36 be a better gear set with a 28" prop?

[Mr X]

Ted, with that much brute torque available, wouldn't a 1.36 be a better gear set with a 28" prop?
Jim,
Yes, the math points that direction for sure. BUT I have tried 1:36 ratios and smaller pitch props on other high HP 22's and they are so ill handling that they are almost un-drivable. I know it sounds weird but, the more RPM's you turn a smaller pitch prop.....the squirelier the boat gets. A larger pitch prop turning less RPM's is much friendlier....and you still end up with the same top speed.

[BUIZILLA]

my calculator must need new battery's.... ya lost me there... :confused:

1.36 x 5200rpm x 28"/12" = ?

1.50 x 5200rpm x 32"/12" = ?

(?) = ft/min?

[Mr X]

Divide the engine RPM's by the drive ratio....
a 1:36 ratio turns the prop more RPM's than a 1:50.
My goal is to turn the prop less RPM's and a bigger pitch as apposed to a smaller pitch more RPM's

[BUIZILLA]

okay, doing it that way, I come up with a 3.5% different efficiency quotient?

[Lenny]

Ted, Don Tamm told me the same thing. (I believe it originated with you) :)

1:50 boats run better than 1:36 boats for whatever reason... (handling)

[DonCig]

Jim,
Yes, the math points that direction for sure. BUT I have tried 1:36 ratios and smaller pitch props on other high HP 22's and they are so ill handling that they are almost un-drivable. I know it sounds weird but, the more RPM's you turn a smaller pitch prop.....the squirelier the boat gets. A larger pitch prop turning less RPM's is much friendlier....and you still end up with the same top speed.
I do not fully understand the mechanics on this issue, but I agree with Ted and others on this point. Here is another opinion on the subject from BAM Marine.
http://www.go-fast.com/sterndrive_gear_ratios.htm

[BigGrizzly]

Here is what I have found. Ted is correct to a point. When turning smaller props 26 and less to make up the difference the prop slips and can not bite, it sends water in all directions causing instability especially in raised X dimensions. The problem occurs on single drives mostly. The point where a prop becomes a paddle wheel in stead of a prop is the issue. When you get up passed the 34->36inch problems recur. Of course this becomes the 100+ mph problems. Arnesons are another chapter!!! At this time M+ doesn't make a large prop for this reason. The stock BravoI also has issues above inches. This is the point that 5 blades on raised X's become the advantage. The other issue Ted didn't mention is when you turn a prop at high RPMs it will ventilate and cause blade failure. Herring and hydro and all others have this situation. With every body raising the X's to get more speed and people putting more power into boats, it is becoming a real issue, not just with props but drives and gimble housings as well. I have seen Herrings with blade failures, and at $4,000 a pop and no warranty it is a real drag.

[Mr X]

I do not fully understand the mechanics on this issue, but I agree with Ted and others on this point. Here is another opinion on the subject from BAM Marine.
http://www.go-fast.com/sterndrive_gear_ratios.htm

Don, a great find! An article that explains why it works like that.
I have found that to be true on countless boats I have run.
Thanks!

[osur866]

I'd bring this back up to the top since there has been talk of another v-10 22, If my calculations are anywhere close if Ted can turn a 31" prop @ say 6100-6200 rpm assuming a 1.5 ratio drive @ 9% slip your looking at about 110ish M.P.H. :eek: And if hes uses 1.36 gears and can turn the 6200 rpms he's looking at more like 120ish. I'm thinking a pilots liscence is in order :yes: Ted this anywhere close? Steve

[Mr X]

I'd bring this back up to the top since there has been talk of another v-10 22, If my calculations are anywhere close if Ted can turn a 31" prop @ say 6100-6200 rpm assuming a 1.5 ratio drive @ 9% slip your looking at about 110ish M.P.H. :eek: And if hes uses 1.36 gears and can turn the 6200 rpms he's looking at more like 120ish. I'm thinking a pilots liscence is in order :yes: Ted this anywhere close? Steve

Steve,
I think you might be a touch optimistic.
My calculations are closer to 105 ish. with a 1:50 and a 30 pitch. It will definatly take lots of dialing in with different props and maybe drivo ratio changes.

Had a minor slow down....now waiting for a new custom fuel tank to be made.

[Greg Maier]

Here is what I have found. Ted is correct to a point. When turning smaller props 26 and less to make up the difference the prop slips and can not bite, it sends water in all directions causing instability especially in raised X dimensions. The problem occurs on single drives mostly. The point where a prop becomes a paddle wheel in stead of a prop is the issue. When you get up passed the 34->36inch problems recur. Of course this becomes the 100+ mph problems. Arnesons are another chapter!!! At this time M+ doesn't make a large prop for this reason. The stock BravoI also has issues above inches. This is the point that 5 blades on raised X's become the advantage. The other issue Ted didn't mention is when you turn a prop at high RPMs it will ventilate and cause blade failure. Herring and hydro and all others have this situation. With every body raising the X's to get more speed and people putting more power into boats, it is becoming a real issue, not just with props but drives and gimble housings as well. I have seen Herrings with blade failures, and at $4,000 a pop and no warranty it is a real drag.

Grizz,

In your post you say "Arneson's are another chapter". What did you mean by that? Does the rule of thumb of turning a big prop slow still apply with Arnesons. I have a set of 1.3 HD gears for my Arneson, but after reading your post I think I may want to get the 1.5 gears. Let me know what you think.

[BigGrizzly]

Well you have really read and understood what I said. Most fast Arnies are running very low gears or 1:1. The props they run are specifically surface piercing props. They to have issues but more in the handling of singles. Twins negate the single handling issues. As for your thing. You need to think about the top speed then reverse engineer for that. That is keeping the props between 26 and 30 pitch. That way you have a cushion. Just another point, Prop guys are scrambling to fix the high prop height issue. I use prop height because the X dimension is really the wrong term. I was involved in some pretty neat discussions at Miami. Merc's new lowers are creating some strange issues on Fountains and most other Deep v hulls, with drives getting closer to each other and high props etc. I see much more change in the near future. I just hope I can get involved. Cats are another breed. More are getting involved in the surface drive thing(not just the Arnie but all of them, especially the rudder type) because power is far exceeding the drive strength. Its like a horse drawn cart, the cart will never catch the horse.

[Greg Maier]

Thanks Big Grizz,

What is a good slip number for an Arnie? I saw Geo refer to slip numbers of 8% but also saw him refer to numbers of 15%.

By the way, I picked up a set of Arneson Rocker Tabs in good condition for $800. Hopefully they will eliminate any possibility of not having enough bow lift.

[BigGrizzly]

I would seriously doubt any slip of 8%. 15% and more on a surface drive is closer to true. Also slip at certain speeds and boat hulls are big different s. Remember you, at best will have only 25% of the blade area in the water working. The more blades, again to a point, the better with current technology. Designed cupping is getting so more important. The days of just putting a cup on a prop are gone. I got a real taste of it when we designed the prop for the Volvo drives. Graphs and more graphs both tank testing and then real life testing. Theory does not always work in real life.

[Lenny]

Thanks Big Grizz,

What is a good slip number for an Arnie? I saw Geo refer to slip numbers of 8% but also saw him refer to numbers of 15%.

By the way, I picked up a set of Arneson Rocker Tabs in good condition for $800. Hopefully they will eliminate any possibility of not having enough bow lift.

You're worried about Bow lift on a BH 22 :D

[Greg Maier]

Lenny,

The BH has plenty of bow lift with the BH drive on, but with Arneson it may not, so I am just playing it safe. Even if I don't need to add rocker with the tabs, I think the rocker tabs will definitely increase stability. The only issue that I am concerned with is the tabs not being able to produce enough hook to get the bow down when I need it down.

[Mr X]

Lenny,
The BH has plenty of bow lift with the BH drive on, but with Arneson it may not, so I am just playing it safe. Even if I don't need to add rocker with the tabs, I think the rocker tabs will definitely increase stability. The only issue that I am concerned with is the tabs not being able to produce enough hook to get the bow down when I need it down.
Exactly. :yes: The rocker tabs WILL give you enough bow down too.

[Boatless]

I would seriously doubt any slip of 8%. 15% and more on a surface drive is closer to true. Also slip at certain speeds and boat hulls are big different s. Remember you, at best will have only 25% of the blade area in the water working. The more blades, again to a point, the better with current technology. Designed cupping is getting so more important. The days of just putting a cup on a prop are gone. I got a real taste of it when we designed the prop for the Volvo drives. Graphs and more graphs both tank testing and then real life testing. Theory does not always work in real life.

What do you consider a "surface drive"? Ilmor, NXT, SSM#3, 4, 5, & 6,. Arneson, IMCO, Bmax, Bravo, Volvo? All can be put in a surfacing mode making them a “surface drive”.

15% is what was common maybe 15 yrs ago but not now days. 25% of the blade area is working? So, a 16" diameter propeller only has 4" of blade in the water?

Surface drives are more efficient than a submerged propeller. Think not. Then why are manufacturers surfacing them if it is less efficient? They are not looking for less efficiency, quite the opposite.

Where this 25% blade area theory comes from is a mystery but I can assure you that 25% will not propeller a boat very well. As for cup, well you need to involve a real propeller company here. Hering, Merc, Rolla and others all add/ remove/adjust the amount of cup that they put into a propeller and where they put the cup in a propeller. We all know that tip cup will give bow lift. We also know that no cup means faster acceleration of RPM and higher slippage in certain speed ranges. There is far more to a propeller than cup though.

[The Hedgehog]

What do you consider a "surface drive"? Ilmor, NXT, SSM#3, 4, 5, & 6,. Arneson, IMCO, Bmax, Bravo, Volvo? All can be put in a surfacing mode making them a “surface drive”.
15% is what was common maybe 15 yrs ago but not now days. 25% of the blade area is working? So, a 16" diameter propeller only has 4" of blade in the water?
Surface drives are more efficient than a submerged propeller. Think not. Then why are manufacturers surfacing them if it is less efficient? They are not looking for less efficiency, quite the opposite.
Where this 25% blade area theory comes from is a mystery but I can assure you that 25% will not propeller a boat very well. As for cup, well you need to involve a real propeller company here. Hering, Merc, Rolla and others all add/ remove/adjust the amount of cup that they put into a propeller and where they put the cup in a propeller. We all know that tip cup will give bow lift. We also know that no cup means faster acceleration of RPM and higher slippage in certain speed ranges. There is far more to a propeller than cup though.

Interesting point. I would consider a surface drive to be exactly that, a drive that was meant to be on the surface. That would be an Arneson, #6, Twin Disk, Pulse, Blackhawk, NXT and not the Ilmore. Oh yeah, I forgot about a Go Devil. I know that the older #3's and 4's were run deep. Not sure about the #5. I know that you can run any drive on the surface, even an outdrive.

The efficiency comment is interesting. It seems that surface drives have a higher slip and lower drag. I don't know this for a fact but have dealt with this some with the whole shorty issue. It would be interesting to see how the slip and drag lines cross for true efficiency. That is getting out of my league though.

[BigGrizzly]

Well boatlass, if I am not correct then WHY are more blades being used, unlike you I test props for prop companies. One is the largest in the world and another is tie for first in the USA, yes I have tested for merc too. Go Devil is one of Honda's OEM's too. The reason the more blade are involved is BECAUSE of slip. As you know the perfect prop would be a one blade screw, but technology isn't there yet. Some day, but not today. In a fluid situation slip will always be present. Again if surface drives were so good all around they would be standard and not an option, especially in today's economy. They should actually be cheaper, but they are not. I am sure it will happen some day, but not today. On certain applications they have a great advantage on other it is a waste and out drives and jets are better suited. You should get a job with Arni they could use your dedication.
A discussion with you is useless. You obviously have a thing against me, Konrad drives and several others. So keep using Wikipedia and your theory, and whatever else you think necessary, and I will use my real world experience and keep boating in my own boat. BTW, I want to Thank you. It is because of you and your adverse description, That I am putting a Konrad drive on my Criterion, just to prove you wrong. Have a nice day:smile: Btw I don't consider thoes drive to be surface drives but surface piercing derives.

[Boatless]

The only issue I have is your ignorance and smugness. Why don’t you tell everyone here that you do not test anything that is put into a surfacing application (other than maybe the mud devil) ? Informing people of exactly what area of your supposed expertise lies would negate this.

FYI, anything can be installed in a surfacing application for an Oar to a paddle wheel and yes even an I/O such as Ilmors new one which they claim in the press release with Paul Ray stating that is a Surface Drive.

Konrad can be run as a surface drive also so don't discriminate, they all fit into the pie. Why do you think they are making a shorty? The Konrad is the best thing for your TRS if you have a problem with the TRS, but nothing more. A Bravo has proven to be way more efficient. That by the way is a fact not a bias. I guess you are going to use a 2 bladed propeller on that drive?

As for more blades, well that is pretty much been answered on under water gear as well as Bravos, Volvos’s, Alpha’s and every other drive out there whether in a surface or sub surface setup. More blades are more efficient to a degree. You own smugness prevents you from looking outside the blinders apparently. You splatter this ignorance onto solely one facet and ignore the others which are every bit as relevant. Why does hardly anyone (I say this as there are a few multi outboard applications that still use them) use a 3 bladed propeller anymore? They really sucked getting on plane to the degree that a lot of high speed Bravo boats barely would get up. They vibrated so bad everyone complained, they would fall off plane at slower speeds, they really sucked in mid range speed and the only area they do shine is top speed, or should I say the 1% factor.

Then one day people went to the 4 blades and life was better. Then someone says “how about a 5 blade” and some experts say they would never work but they do. Then if 5 is good how about a 6 blade (Hydromotive, Hering and Throttle UP make these) so today we have these also. Oh didn’t you realize that I am speaking of the Bravos here not surface drives, but sub surface drives. I guess they must be inefficient or bad as they need more blades in the sub surface water in order to perform correctly. Hmmmm…

I am not saying that surface drives are best for all applications. They suck on a lot of applications and that is undeniable. But I also do not believe your theory on what they are or aren’t as you have no more experience than I do and this is so obvious that as stupid as I am I do not appear as ignorant as you do about these things..

Oh and the one blade propeller is the Archimedes screw and they would work in a jet pump application.

[The Hedgehog]

The only issue I have is your ignorance and smugness. Why don’t you tell everyone here that you do not test anything that is put into a surfacing application (other than maybe the mud devil) ? Informing people of exactly what area of your supposed expertise lies would negate this.
FYI, anything can be installed in a surfacing application for an Oar to a paddle wheel and yes even an I/O such as Ilmors new one which they claim in the press release with Paul Ray stating that is a Surface Drive.
Konrad can be run as a surface drive also so don't discriminate, they all fit into the pie. Why do you think they are making a shorty? The Konrad is the best thing for your TRS if you have a problem with the TRS, but nothing more. A Bravo has proven to be way more efficient. That by the way is a fact not a bias. I guess you are going to use a 2 bladed propeller on that drive?
As for more blades, well that is pretty much been answered on under water gear as well as Bravos, Volvos’s, Alpha’s and every other drive out there whether in a surface or sub surface setup. More blades are more efficient to a degree. You own smugness prevents you from looking outside the blinders apparently. You splatter this ignorance onto solely one facet and ignore the others which are every bit as relevant. Why does hardly anyone (I say this as there are a few multi outboard applications that still use them) use a 3 bladed propeller anymore? They really sucked getting on plane to the degree that a lot of high speed Bravo boats barely would get up. They vibrated so bad everyone complained, they would fall off plane at slower speeds, they really sucked in mid range speed and the only area they do shine is top speed, or should I say the 1% factor.
Then one day people went to the 4 blades and life was better. Then someone says “how about a 5 blade” and some experts say they would never work but they do. Then if 5 is good how about a 6 blade (Hydromotive, Hering and Throttle UP make these) so today we have these also. Oh didn’t you realize that I am speaking of the Bravos here not surface drives, but sub surface drives. I guess they must be inefficient or bad as they need more blades in the sub surface water in order to perform correctly. Hmmmm…
I am not saying that surface drives are best for all applications. They suck on a lot of applications and that is undeniable. But I also do not believe your theory on what they are or aren’t as you have no more experience than I do and this is so obvious that as stupid as I am I do not appear as ignorant as you do about these things..
Oh and the one blade propeller is the Archimedes screw and they would work in a jet pump application.

Uh, I use a 3 blade on my X-18. The 4 blade Bravo was horrible. If I wanted a couple of more mph I would go with a shorty and more blades.

I am not an expert on props but I do know that for the most part fewer blades is better. I don't see any of the hydroplane guys toting 5 blades and when it comes to airplanes I do know that a 1 blade is the most efficient. It is kind of odd looking though.

Just for the record, Randy and I were talking a few days ago. As a result of the conversation I will try a 5 blade on my 26ZX. He was able to help dispell a few myths about 5 blades and lower units with big power. So far I have been erring to the conservative since trashing expensive XR's is not my thing. I am sure that I will trash that XR one day and when I do it will be my problem but I do want to be careful and not make unnecessary mistakes.

Am I sold that the 5 blade is the ticket? No but trying is not a bad idea. To my knowledge Randy has never encouraged someone not to try a prop.

[fogducker III]

I am a little concerned with this "boatless" guy as well, sounds "clueless" to me.........

Your posts read like you are talking for the masses....... you are not, I for one, have run three blade props on MANY boats, although I have tried four and even five on ONE occasion. For ALL of MY applications I have found three blades the best. This is just ME talking about MY situation, and not anybody else's.............;)

I have run Alpha legs, Bravo legs, Volvo, OMC and now an Imco on a Bravo upper. I have tested quite a few props and tried to listen to good advice given here on the site.........despite what you think, unlike you, some people know what they are talking about.

[Boatless]

It is pretty self stating that I know nothing. That is the irony isn’t it. But at the same time I am not throwing an ignorant opinion out there as fact b/c I do something totally different and imply they are related. Dispute my writings for fault that is all I am doing here in an attempt to keep a lawn chair engineer from spreading misconceptions and biasing everyone from trying something outside the box. BG was even negative on GEOO’s success and that is mind boggling, but what do I know. Mr X who owns the boat is probably better off never to have read BG’s comments on why the boat should not work.

Look to the recent Powerboat Mag, article on the Lavey with a NXT. Sounds great but in reality the owner says he feels it is responsible for his boat rolling over in 1st turn in San Diego. Spoke with him (Mr. Cooper) in Key West when I asked about the success of the drive. This is a SURFACE DRIVE and the irony is that is what I am talking about not arnsin or any one particular make. The boat handled better and in reality was faster with a Bravo over the NXT but the NXT was more reliable. Quagmire of a situation.

The Unlimited hydro's run a 3 blade due to the rules being written to exclude any propeller other than a 3 blade based upon a technology limitation. The smaller teams did not want to get into a spending war with Budweiser on propeller technology. The sport was/is expensive enough as it is. So they have limited the class to a 3 blade propeller.

I never said BG suggested that no one try a propeller. Rather he is persecuting that only surface drives have high slippage and thus the only reason for more than the single blade theory when in fact the same holds true for all types of propulsion to a degree. The Hatteras use a 7 blade propeller. Lord only knows what the submarines use; I've heard they are a 9 blade design.

As for 3 blades I stated, I was shocked to see a lot of the applications with multi outboard’s using a three blade on all 4-5 engines. Midnight Express as well as Concept and Deep Impact are using this setup. I would have incorrectly have thought that the four blade or five blade would be better to counter the stern weight of all those outboards.

[Boatless]

I am a little concerned with this "boatless" guy as well, sounds "clueless" to me.........

Your posts read like you are talking for the masses....... you are not, I for one, have run three blade props on MANY boats, although I have tried four and even five on ONE occasion. For ALL of MY applications I have found three blades the best. This is just ME talking about MY situation, and not anybody else's.............;)

I have run Alpha legs, Bravo legs, Volvo, OMC and now an Imco on a Bravo upper. I have tested quite a few props and tried to listen to good advice given here on the site.........despite what you think, unlike you, some people know what they are talking about.

Ug, you are making my point. Generalities do not apply to everyone. This is the theory that BG was pointing to with all his stuff. Slippage and # of blades.

[BigGrizzly]

Now Boatlass you hit a nerve. I never contested Geoo's boat's ability to go fast or handle, just the docking, I used George's own humor, Neutral- turn of engine etc. It is obvious you can read, your comprehension needs a lot to be desired. I did not say that surfaces drives had a lot of slippage, but the quote is" I would seriously doubt any slip of 8%. 15% and more on a surface drive is closer to true." All surface piercing drives have more slippage than deep drives. I will not get to personal, but yes I am smug, I have worked hard at finding out answers. Unlike YOU, I don't believe anything I hear or read and only half of what I see. At least until I can prove it.

[fogducker III]

Ug, you are making my point. Generalities do not apply to everyone. This is the theory that BG was pointing to with all his stuff. Slippage and # of blades.


I disagree with BG, you CAN'T read...........what I stated was that your post appeared to be speaking for the masses, your main problem is you are mixing up your comparisons, you talk about props for outdrives, surface drives etc and then you go on to talk about props for outboards and multiple outboards.....? COMPLETLY different animals..........but hey, what do I know, I don't hang around the docks and talk to race teams and the owners and name drop..........:jestera:

[Air 22]

I don't see any of the hydroplane guys toting 5 blades and when it comes to airplanes I do know that a 1 blade is the most efficient. It is kind of odd looking though.
.
Hedge...not exactly but ur on the right path..I can speak w some experience realtive to airplanes..
It depends on the type of airplane, engine type and speeds as to which propeller is used...ie piston, turboprop, and jet propelled aircraft.
A propeller, like an airplane wing, is an airfoil: a curved surface that can generate lift when air moves over it. When air moves over the surface of a moving propeller on an airplane, the air pressure in front of the propeller is reduced, and the air pressure behind the propeller is increased. The pressure imbalance tends to push or pull the airplane forward. We say that the propeller is generating thrust....:)
The same principle applies to helicopter blades/propellers, only now the propeller rotates around the vertical axis. The pressure on top of the propeller is reduced, and the pressure underneath is increased, generating lift...You can also call it beating the air into submission..:D
The first pic below defines some terms that are used to describe the shape of a propeller. The radius (r) of the propeller is the distance from the center to the tip. The chord length (c) is the straight-line width of the propeller at a given distance along the radius. Depending on the design of the propeller, the chord length may be constant along the entire radius, or it may vary along the radius of the propeller. Another variable is the twist angle (β) of the propeller, which may also vary along the radius of the propeller.
Second pic is a gas turbine power plant producing shaft power to drive a propeller or propellers for aircraft propulsion. Because of its high propulsive efficiency at low flight speeds, it is the power plant of choice for short-haul and low-speed transport aircraft where the flight speeds do not exceed Mach 0.5–0.6.
Third pic..is a Jet engine and provide enormous "kick in the pants" thrust by combusting jet fuel under very high pressure and temperature. The turbine visible on the front of a jet engine is the first stage of the compression process. Vast amounts of air, Canadian Geese :D(and anything else in the way) are ingested into the engine and hurled back into the next compressor section. The constantly combusting, super heated gas exiting the combustion chamber is forced through the rear turbofans at high speed. This movement turns the rear sets of turbines to perpetuate the process. While much of the engines thrust is achieved by the exiting gas, even more is derived from the spinning turbo fans.
Propellers provide an efficient means to pull or push an airplane through the air. Unlike a screw type ship/boat propeller, these are basically spinning airfoils. Now we someone to invent an affordable variable pitch propeller system for powerboats...THAT would be sweet...:)

[The Hedgehog]

Hedge...not exactly but ur on the right path..I can speak w some experience realtive to airplanes..
It depends on the type of airplane, engine type and speeds as to which propeller is used...ie piston, turboprop, and jet propelled aircraft.
A propeller, like an airplane wing, is an airfoil: a curved surface that can generate lift when air moves over it. When air moves over the surface of a moving propeller on an airplane, the air pressure in front of the propeller is reduced, and the air pressure behind the propeller is increased. The pressure imbalance tends to push or pull the airplane forward. We say that the propeller is generating thrust....:)
The same principle applies to helicopter blades/propellers, only now the propeller rotates around the vertical axis. The pressure on top of the propeller is reduced, and the pressure underneath is increased, generating lift...You can also call it beating the air into submission..:D
The first pic below defines some terms that are used to describe the shape of a propeller. The radius (r) of the propeller is the distance from the center to the tip. The chord length (c) is the straight-line width of the propeller at a given distance along the radius. Depending on the design of the propeller, the chord length may be constant along the entire radius, or it may vary along the radius of the propeller. Another variable is the twist angle (β) of the propeller, which may also vary along the radius of the propeller.
Second pic is a gas turbine power plant producing shaft power to drive a propeller or propellers for aircraft propulsion. Because of its high propulsive efficiency at low flight speeds, it is the power plant of choice for short-haul and low-speed transport aircraft where the flight speeds do not exceed Mach 0.5–0.6.
Third pic..is a Jet engine and provide enormous "kick in the pants" thrust by combusting jet fuel under very high pressure and temperature. The turbine visible on the front of a jet engine is the first stage of the compression process. Vast amounts of air, Canadian Geese :D(and anything else in the way) are ingested into the engine and hurled back into the next compressor section. The constantly combusting, super heated gas exiting the combustion chamber is forced through the rear turbofans at high speed. This movement turns the rear sets of turbines to perpetuate the process. While much of the engines thrust is achieved by the exiting gas, even more is derived from the spinning turbo fans.
Propellers provide an efficient means to pull or push an airplane through the air. Unlike a screw type ship/boat propeller, these are basically spinning airfoils. Now we someone to invent an affordable variable pitch propeller system for powerboats...THAT would be sweet...:)

Yes, I am with you on the lift vs thrust. I was over-simplifying things. I do understand low pressure and lift.

Now if we could do the variable pitch thing.. that would be cool

[Boatless]

I disagree with BG, you CAN'T read...........what I stated was that your post appeared to be speaking for the masses, your main problem is you are mixing up your comparisons, you talk about props for outdrives, surface drives etc and then you go on to talk about props for outboards and multiple outboards.....? COMPLETLY different animals..........but hey, what do I know, I don't hang around the docks and talk to race teams and the owners and name drop..........:jestera:

I suggest you get out a little more then.

My comparisons are just that. Comparisons and were meant to compare the situations of what is relevant and apply it across a broad spectrum to see that the more people think things are different the more they are actually close in a lot of ways.

The statement that a surface drive needs more blades holds true for under water gear as well negating the theory of what is bad in one and good in another.

[Boatless]

But you see BL, here is where another of your theories is flawed. BG is not lawn chair engineer, hell I have spent several days with him in his own boat testing props (on a lowly TRS no less), and indeed reaped the benefits of that testing when I got mine. He has also spent countless hours doing in water testing of many other of our members boats, plus other customers V AND Cat hulls on Lanier. Now, I'm just talking about the test time he did AFTER he retired from his job, which BTW, included a lot of prop testing on outboards..
Now, ya want to talk fishboats, bring it. I can gauranteeeee you between Buiz and I we have more hours propping various fishboat hulls then the rest of the board combined.
Including a few that run 3 & 4 blades simultaneously.. :nilly: :nilly:

Thank you for narrowing down his expertise to outboards.

They are just a hop, jump and skip away from a surfacing drive.:yippie:

Oh, what is the normal amount of slippage for an underwater gear on a 56' Hatteras?

[Ed Donnelly]

Clueless; It is actually, Hop, skip, and a jump.

Barfly??? Cute........Ed

[chappy]

Deshacerse de :troll:, por favor.

[The Hedgehog]

I will step in with a question for the inboard gurus.

I have a 1987 37 Marinette Aft Cabin that lives up here in Tn as a lake cruiser. It cruises at 17-20 knots and I can peg it 27 knots maybe more but I don't stay in it.

No, its not a Hatteras or any important ocean going boat but it works fine for my region.

Any benefits from new prop technology for that type of boat?

I have not really thought about it much since I usually loaf along at 7 knots or 15 knots (planed off).

I am not really concerned about speed as much as cruising efficiency but heck if I could pick up .25 mph it would not hurt. So far my best result was to pressure wash the bottom.

Oh yeah, I am spinning 21" three blades (pretty sure) with a .88 velvet drive trannies.

Just thought I would float that out there for the likes of Poodle, Buiz and co to make sure that I am not leaving a bunch on the table.

Oh yeah, the boat's name is "Roller Girl!"

[Just Say N20]

I have a Carver 38 Aft Cabin, so I understand somewhat.

Nice light aluminum yacht you have there. Mine has Crusader 350 hp 454 with straight inboards, 1.92:1.

About the best bang for the buck I have found is having the props checked, and reworked if necessary, by a prop shop that has a Prop Scan (the actual brand), and a good reputation. When I had mine done, I wasn't experiencing any real vibration issues. I just wanted them checked.

None of the blades were the same pitch, and they apparently had been worked over before, because the pitch was 2" greater towards the hub than the last third of the blade, like they had been flattened out.

Even though I hadn't been aware of any major issues, there was a lot bad going on. After they had been reworked, they were much smoother (who knew). I don't have a Flow Scan, so I would be guessing if I made claims about fuel economy. And because they effectively changed the pitch of the props, any before/after speed rpm comparisons wouldn't be very valuable.

[Just Say N20]

Deshacerse de :troll:, por favor.

You would think, living in Western Michigan, my spanish would be better, but I had to look it up.

I know por favor = please.

:D

[BUIZILLA]

Oh yeah, I am spinning 21" three blades (pretty sure) with a .88 velvet drive trannies. ya wanna check that .88 again there sparky... :umbrella:

[The Hedgehog]

ya wanna check that .88 again there sparky... :umbrella:

Looked a little odd to me too. Woops its 1.88


Oh yeah, it has a set of 454 Crusaders with 350hp.

[RedDog]

Looked a little odd to me too. Woops its 1.88
Oh yeah, it has a set of 454 Crusaders with 350hp.

To continue off topic - all of the Marinette's I have seen around here had 318ci Chryslers. Probably don't have near the speed you are seeing though. Nice boats for lake use. Be sure of your corrosion protection.

[The Hedgehog]

To continue off topic - all of the Marinette's I have seen around here had 318ci Chryslers. Probably don't have near the speed you are seeing though. Nice boats for lake use. Be sure of your corrosion protection.

Yes, most 32's and down have 318's.

Two nice things about alum. 1. If the corrosion system is working well then no problems (Blisters) 2. They are light and fast

[BUIZILLA]

Federal DJX

[BigGrizzly]

I grew up up on the Jersey Shore, living at a marina, Love big boats too. As for the props I do have some experience not as much as Outdrives but what I would do is the same as NO2. The industry standard is 1/2 inch. However It doesn't hold true. Check the props out. It really won't be a benefit to get new ones. The real problem is everyday props the left and right have a big variance from each other, especially before the 1990s. I don't think there will be any gain on top but cruise may be helped, especially with 1.88 gears.
Now back to the TRS, My Konrad should be here this week. I will actually have a drive stronger then my engine. Time to rethink HP and economy. I though I was done tinkering. Guess not. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

[The Hedgehog]

Yes, I think that N2O has a great point. I have an extra set. They are supposed to have been reworked but I don't know who did it so I may have the extra set gone over. No hurry since it is kind of cold to throw on the tanks and change them now.

Like I said, I don't think that there is anything there but thought I would ask because you never know.

I have been around boats all of my life too but and learning a bunch these days about bigger boats.

I will never get away from small fast boats though.

[Boatless]

BG and others with a TRS, apparently VOVLO has a solution to your current out drive that allows you to bolt up a BRAVO without glassing the transom.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mercruiser-transom-adapter-Volvo-Penta-Alpha-bravo_W0QQitemZ400010809010QQihZ027QQcategoryZ5044 2QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Saw a thread on OSO about someone who took a TRS off and replaced it using some form of adapter from Volvo. Very Interesting. Wonder why no one has ever thought of this. I guess sometimes the simplest idea is the hardest.

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/swap-shop/203938-27-magnum-hull-3-500-00-a-4.html

[BUIZILLA]

so, I guess we won't venture into the Konrad dual prop introduction.. :umbrella:

[handfulz28]

BG and others with a TRS, apparently VOVLO has a solution to your current out drive that allows you to bolt up a BRAVO without glassing the transom.

Poor guy, doesn't even know Merc parts from Volvo parts. Your attitude and ignorance only dig you a deeper hole of disregard.

[handfulz28]

so, I guess we won't venture into the Konrad dual prop introduction.. :umbrella:

Venture away! This poor thread is used and abused... :smileybo:


I'm a little surprised that introduction wasn't trumped up a bit. But I do wonder exactly what market that drive will suit. Are there a lot of old TRS powered cruisers with that kind of money? The only downfall I see to new Konrad installs is the trans requirement. Not saying it's a bad thing, just goes against the grain of what most builders are used to these days in an "outdrive" application.

While we're at it, how about Yanmar trying to hit the market with their ZT350? How many people knew they've been making drives for a long time in the Jap market?

[Boatless]

Poor guy, doesn't even know Merc parts from Volvo parts. Your attitude and ignorance only dig you a deeper hole of disregard.

Try reading the linked page. Then you decipher who made what. BTW, Stellings has made these for years come to think of it.

TRS to Bravo conversion.

[Boatless]

DUO Prop. :smileybo:

There are obviously some added benefits to these on certain applications. Yanmar has introduced theirs recently, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqnT1d0HOZ0 but as BZ stated I am curious why Konrad did not or has not made as much of a deal out of their recent launch?

FYI, the Yanmar uses the Yamaha shifting design that was developed back in the late 80's. It has smooth and quite engagement.

Drawback to the Duo Prop's is propellers. No one has really developed a "high performance" propeller system for them that has gained top speed over the single propped Bravo.

Wisemen have made a surfacing duo prop which is based upon a Volvo design and they too are probably looking for a propeller design that can offer performance.

But IMO they are all behind the curve that VOLVO threw out there with the IPS system. ZF has basically copied the design and turned it around to a "normal" orientation and offers them for sale through Mercury.

They offer greater maneuverability over a stern drive as the pods can steer 360 degrees I believe.

Why has no one mentioned the Mercury AXIS system? It does require a twin engine setup to function.

[The Hedgehog]

"Yanmar uses the Yamaha Shifting System"..
Which as I seem to recall, was a clone of the OMC, now Volvo..
And failed miserably...
You might want to do a search on the board BL, there have been a few threads about the adapter plate here before. If ya want FUGLY, mmm well, there's your answer.. :puke: Not news here, surprised it's news over on OSO..
As far as IPS, where does that relate to surfacing propellers, and indeed, our boats? Cool technology, not applicable to our style of boats.. :drive:
Still waiting to hear your accomplishments.. :cistineb:


I looked at one of those plates. Members of the site encouraged me to reglass my transom instead since the cost was not that big of a difference.

I am sure that the plate is fine in a pinch but I am glad I reglassed.

[BigGrizzly]

First the adapter plate issue. It is mainly for the old Volvos to update to the SXdrive. It requires you to remove the transmission, then move the engine back about 11.5 to 15.5 inches. re do the exhaust then buy a bravo1 which is not as strong as the TRS. BTW new cost more then the Konrad drive. With the Konrad you can do it two ways, 1 with a new transom plate with rams and all, that is a direct bolt on. Or 2 the drive which will bolt directly on to the stock transom assembly. In either case it will handle 300 more HP than a XR drive. Now you don't have to worry about anything else. You do not have to remove or relocate the engine. In fact even with the transom assembly it is 6 bolts 4 hydraulic lines and bolt it on. Nothing else has to be moved. For all they also have a shorty and a Duo prop. Boatlass If you had gone to the boat show, instead of reading about it, you would have seen it, and it is a big deal. What was Arni doing, same old stuff. In fact the Navy has been useing their stuff for years. The twin prop is for mainly for commercial and some sports application. Btw where is Arnie's twin prop? Its funny all the other makers have twin prop units too. In short. So because of money, ease of installation and the ability to handle my engine's horse power( bravo is too weak) I went with the Konrad, Saving over $2,000 Compared with the complete Bravo set up. I am comparing NEW here not some used unit or re manufactured unit. Went over to merc and you don't even want to know the $$$$. I cannot remember exactly but I think 3 merc drives bit the dust at Cumberland. My boat is rear and 28 years old and deserves some good stuff. BL what is your problem with Konrad, they won't hire you, what? On other sites whenever Konrad is mentioned you jump in with bravo replacement, been lurking,. You obviously have not done the swap and I doubt you have even worked on an outdrive. BTW playing with the trim button doesn't count. So folks this is what I am up to, I will do a thread on it as soon as I get started. Guys and Gals, wish me luck. BTW I did not opt for the shorty, I happen to like a deeper drive, I don't want to be accused of trying to copy Arnis.:smile::smile:

[Just Say N20]

But IMO they are all behind the curve that VOLVO threw out there with the IPS system. ZF has basically copied the design and turned it around to a "normal" orientation and offers them for sale through Mercury.
They offer greater maneuverability over a stern drive as the pods can steer 360 degrees I believe.
Why has no one mentioned the Mercury AXIS system? It does require a twin engine setup to function.

I was working at Tiara Yachts when they built the first "designed from the ground up" boat to use the IPS drives. Huge advantages all across the board.

But, they don't rotate 360 degrees. I don't remember exactly, but something like 85. I'd love to do the whole dissertation about them. They allow you do to things that you literally can't do with conventional drives.

[Lenny]

MMM, aluminum yachets :) :)

One of, if not THE, best fish raisers on the water, we would catch fish on days when no one else did.



I gotta wonder how "hot" that hull was in the water ??? hmmm Obviously dispersing enough voltage to keep the fish interested. How did the zincs stand up :) ???

[BigGrizzly]

I wanted to put a bow thruster on the Criterion, then I found a trolling motor cheaper, and I can go bass fishing too.:uzi:

[Lenny]

I was working at Tiara Yachts when they built the first "designed from the ground up" boat to use the IPS drives. Huge advantages all across the board.

But, they don't rotate 360 degrees. I don't remember exactly, but something like 85. I'd love to do the whole dissertation about them. They allow you do to things that you literally can't do with conventional drives.


We have a large (40+ ) Formula here with these drives. It is at a local marina drydock getting freshened up. Sure interesting looking drives.

I know this is off topic, but the whole thing is heading that way anyway :D

[Lenny]

I wanted to put a bow thruster on the Criterion, then I found a trolling motor cheaper, and I can go bass fishing too.:uzi:

Grizz, post a pic of you bass fishing in the Criterion with a procharged Grime 502 and I want you to turn in your "man-card" :yes:

[VetteLT193]

I gotta wonder how "hot" that hull was in the water ??? hmmm Obviously dispersing enough voltage to keep the fish interested. How did the zincs stand up :) ???

I don't think the average person would even notice it was constructed differently, they are all painted so I doubt they were hot in the water at all. Seems that the info was passed on via dock chat... they usually gathered a crowd because most of the ones I ever saw were HUGE.

http://www.strikeryachts.net/yachts.html

[VetteLT193]

Rumr at the time mainly concerned bolts getting dropped in the bilge, chipping the itnerior paint, would cause issues. I never figured that out, tseems the antifouling paint would help. Never "worked" on one, I was just a dock rat that got to mate on quite a few of em.. The 35 (ish, maybe 38?) was a pig IMO, and no where near as stunning in the water.
The 70 on the other hand, rocked my world. :worthy: :worthy:
And convinced me to marry Heidi, something I will forever be indebted to Sttriker for :) :) :)

If the 72 is the one I'm remembering, you could have gotten married in the cockpit... and had the reception there too.

[VetteLT193]

I recall a 72, website references a 70 so I changed it, but I am not sure. Regardless, with a 24' beam, as I told Heidi at the time, that boat is wider than my boat is long...
AWESOME to see on the tournament trail. We fished a 29 Strike against one in a Marlin tmnt in Walkers.. 6 guys lined up on the transom of the thing, rods at the ready, plenty of room to spare.. We still kicked their arse's :) :)
We just got the snot kicked out of us by the weather.. :nilly:

yeah... that's the one. I saw one in the Bahamas with 3 fighting chairs. One massive one in the middle and the two on the sides were the size we had in the 42' Ocean. We could barely walk around ours with the foot rest extended. The Striker could have had a guy in each chair + a dozen people around them and no one would have touched. :p

Bad azz fishing machines.

[Boatless]

"Yanmar uses the Yamaha Shifting System"..
Which as I seem to recall, was a clone of the OMC, now Volvo..
And failed miserably...
You might want to do a search on the board BL, there have been a few threads about the adapter plate here before. If ya want FUGLY, mmm well, there's your answer.. :puke: Not news here, surprised it's news over on OSO..
As far as IPS, where does that relate to surfacing propellers, and indeed, our boats? Cool technology, not applicable to our style of boats.. :drive:
Still waiting to hear your accomplishments.. :cistineb:

Wrong. Yamaha had an hydraulic shifting outdrive back in the late 80's. They joined a venture with Mercury to manufacture them for the American market. Mercury backed out of the deal after Yamaha had stopped production in whatever country they were being made in. Lawsuites followed.


Technology, Duo Prop, something new, this thread is inclusive of everthing so please try to keep up.

[gcarter]

So how many of you have seen a Stryker out of the water???
That is the wierdest powerboat hull I've ever seen. The hull form seems to fly in the face of all rules of contemporary design.
I don't get it.......
It's just very strange.

[BUIZILLA]

i've seen a 70 with an engine fire result.....

now THAT will get your attention.............................

[Boatless]

First the adapter plate issue. It is mainly for the old Volvos to update to the SXdrive. It requires you to remove the transmission, then move the engine back about 11.5 to 15.5 inches. re do the exhaust then buy a bravo1 which is not as strong as the TRS. BTW new cost more then the Konrad drive. With the Konrad you can do it two ways, 1 with a new transom plate with rams and all, that is a direct bolt on. Or 2 the drive which will bolt directly on to the stock transom assembly. In either case it will handle 300 more HP than a XR drive. Now you don't have to worry about anything else. You do not have to remove or relocate the engine. In fact even with the transom assembly it is 6 bolts 4 hydraulic lines and bolt it on. Nothing else has to be moved. For all they also have a shorty and a Duo prop. Boatlass If you had gone to the boat show, instead of reading about it, you would have seen it, and it is a big deal. What was Arni doing, same old stuff. In fact the Navy has been useing their stuff for years. The twin prop is for mainly for commercial and some sports application. Btw where is Arnie's twin prop? Its funny all the other makers have twin prop units too. In short. So because of money, ease of installation and the ability to handle my engine's horse power( bravo is too weak) I went with the Konrad, Saving over $2,000 Compared with the complete Bravo set up. I am comparing NEW here not some used unit or re manufactured unit. Went over to merc and you don't even want to know the $$$$. I cannot remember exactly but I think 3 merc drives bit the dust at Cumberland. My boat is rear and 28 years old and deserves some good stuff. BL what is your problem with Konrad, they won't hire you, what? On other sites whenever Konrad is mentioned you jump in with bravo replacement, been lurking,. You obviously have not done the swap and I doubt you have even worked on an outdrive. BTW playing with the trim button doesn't count. So folks this is what I am up to, I will do a thread on it as soon as I get started. Guys and Gals, wish me luck. BTW I did not opt for the shorty, I happen to like a deeper drive, I don't want to be accused of trying to copy Arnis.:smile::smile:


Ask them.

Konrad, reading (like everyone else) they are no faster than a Bravo. Nothing bad but you seem to want to stick to something so stick to that. A Bravo is just better than a TRS or a TRS copy. Whatever floats your boat, just make certain you get their shorty as reports are it improves the Konrad's performance over their standard unit.

As for the arni, it cost less than a Konrad and it is faster. Two pluses in my little book. (new construction) I read the Konrad is 23K OEM and the Arneson is about the same list, both way over priced but that is life.

Are you currently breaking the TRS? Didn't Konrad make a SSM#3 leg? Wonder if that would fit a TRS gimbal? Might be faster once again. Nothing wrong with old technology but it is just that at the end of the day. Old technology. Mercury just slashed the prices on their parts so I think things are a lot cheaper now than last year. The Bravo HD transom assembly is 50% less than it was in Dec. 08’. Would think one could build for a lot cheaper today.

[BUIZILLA]

I read the Konrad is 23K OEM wrong.. :smash: :outtahere:

[Boatless]

wrong.. :smash: :outtahere:

Sorry, what is the OEM for the Konrad Ace?

[BigGrizzly]

Actually Boatlass, again you do not have any Idea what you are talking about. The #3 will bolt onto the TRS but the standard is deeper the short one is the same height. Now the #3 Konrad replacement is the same part and their shorty is 3.4 inches shorter then the real #3. The stand off Ace had full hydraulics and the BAM 1350 transmission included. The TRS replacement complete is 11,995 retail the transom plate is included. The bravo is weaker and really not any more hydrodynamic. As for the shorty being faster, I don't need it, I am faster then your boat, and I am as fast as I want to be. BTW With the conversion I will be shorter then the standard bravo on a 22 classic. If the Arnie is faster then how come Kenny's arnie was slower then his Alpha. Of course you will have every excuse there is from props to humidity. Talking about pluses, Not moving the engine and removing the trans and not changing my CMI with silent choice is a real nice thing. Just to refresh your memory the sister of my engine broke 2 bravos and 9 XR drives in a summer. Granted the driver was hard but he did not break the Konrad. So far As for Bravos there are a lot of broken ones on this board with under 500 horsepower. So there is another hole in your better bravo story. Wake up get back to reality. You see I remember you when you came on the board, many years back, I think early 2000, your just a kid.

[chappy]

http://www.boatless.com/ from a pretty good :troll:.

[BUIZILLA]

Sorry, what is the OEM for the Konrad Ace? none of us here can probably buy at the OEM level, but I had a written quote for less than 10k about a year ago at street pricing.... rebuilt was $7.5k... if they are good enough for the US Navy, I can live with it.. :p

[Boatless]

Actually Boatlass, again you do not have any Idea what you are talking about. The #3 will bolt onto the TRS but the standard is deeper the short one is the same height. Now the #3 Konrad replacement is the same part and their shorty is 3.4 inches shorter then the real #3. The stand off Ace had full hydraulics and the BAM 1350 transmission included. The TRS replacement complete is 11,995 retail the transom plate is included. The bravo is weaker and really not any more hydrodynamic. As for the shorty being faster, I don't need it, I am faster then your boat, and I am as fast as I want to be. BTW With the conversion I will be shorter then the standard bravo on a 22 classic. If the Arnie is faster then how come Kenny's arnie was slower then his Alpha. Of course you will have every excuse there is from props to humidity. Talking about pluses, Not moving the engine and removing the trans and not changing my CMI with silent choice is a real nice thing. Just to refresh your memory the sister of my engine broke 2 bravos and 9 XR drives in a summer. Granted the driver was hard but he did not break the Konrad. So far As for Bravos there are a lot of broken ones on this board with under 500 horsepower. So there is another hole in your better bravo story. Wake up get back to reality. You see I remember you when you came on the board, many years back, I think early 2000, your just a kid.


Don't think I am that far off. The #3 replacement is the shorty you are confirming which is pretty obvious to what I was suggesting.

The price you quoted is solely for a leg, not a drive assembly which is why I put in parenthesis "new construction” as you cannot mount a leg to nothing. You need it all and that is the Konad Ace. You need to update you glasses apparently and your pricing.

As for the arnesins, ask them, ask the boater you refer to if he is unsatisfied and then ask him to comment. You are surely quick to speak on others behalf. There are a lot of broken TRS drives out there also, a point that must strike close to you as you spent $$ on an alternative. The Bravo for all its faults is still pretty darn good, else Merc would still be making the TRS.

I guess you are going to run a 2 or 3 bladed propeller on the Konrad as it is so efficient it will not benefit from a 4 or 5 blades like a surface drive would require.:cistineb:

[Lenny]

You need to update you glasses apparently and your pricing.

As for the arnesins,

Please, please, please. :bonk: :bonk: :bonk:

It is ARNESON .

[The Hedgehog]

none of us here can probably buy at the OEM level, but I had a written quote for less than 10k about a year ago at street pricing.... rebuilt was $7.5k... if they are good enough for the US Navy, I can live with it.. :p

That's not bad. If not care full I could easily trash that much in bravos a year.

[Air 22]

Please, please, please. :bonk: :bonk: :bonk:

It is ARNESON .

:clap::tase::beer:

[HOWARD O]

Don't think I am that far off. The #3 replacement is the shorty you are confirming which is pretty obvious to what I was suggesting.
The price you quoted is solely for a leg, not a drive assembly which is why I put in parenthesis "new construction” as you cannot mount a leg to nothing. You need it all and that is the Konad Ace. You need to update you glasses apparently and your pricing.
As for the arnesins, ask them, ask the boater you refer to if he is unsatisfied and then ask him to comment. You are surely quick to speak on others behalf. There are a lot of broken TRS drives out there also, a point that must strike close to you as you spent $$ on an alternative. The Bravo for all its faults is still pretty darn good, else Merc would still be making the TRS.
I guess you are going to run a 2 or 3 bladed propeller on the Konrad as it is so efficient it will not benefit from a 4 or 5 blades like a surface drive would require.:cistineb:


How old is the Bravo drive on your boat and how many hours you suppose you have on it? Have you had to rebuild it? Just wonderin'.......

[HOWARD O]

Please, please, please. :bonk: :bonk: :bonk:

It is ARNESON .

That was buggin' me. Almost as bad as reading about somebody's Dodge truck powered by "Cummings". :banghead:

[BigGrizzly]

Boatlass, again you are wrong the $11,995 is the suggested RETAIL of the Konrad PRS the TRS replacement. I have it in writing. It is not just the lower leg but the transom too. I DO know what I am talking about because it will be here either Friday or Monday. Unlike you I was actually going to by a #3 lower leg and found it would break Too, and gears are NOT made anymore. Several high performance dealers have told me this, including a Merc engineer and a former merc rep that now works for Honda. You are a wast of space, OH I get it ARNESON would not hire you either. BTW the reason that Merc doesn't make the TRS is that it cost too much to make and they had to cost down, to survive. They are not doing too good at this point either. According to Merc numbers the the broken Bravo percentage is higher then the TRS was. As for Money the Konrad cost less then the merc stuff to replace it. But Now I am beginning to agree with Fogducker you can't read, I posted it LOOK again. Your on the boards a lot it must be Spring Break. Oh I just remember your Motto " Don't confuse me with the facts My mind is made up" Have a nice day.

[HOWARD O]

This guy has some queer fascination with Arneson drives for some reason. Here's a post HE started (many years old) where he asks about it and then goes on trying to refute everyone's opinion, stating that he had talked to owners and such. Beyond strange..........

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38882

He's a whack job, end of story. :propeller:

[HOWARD O]

Okay, you will be hard pressed to find a post from Boatless that does NOT have to do with Arneson drives.....clear back to March of 2002!!! :screwy:

Hey Boatless, you have Arneson posters on your ceiling or what? :flash:


-------------------------
Chris, Arneson patented a 'Counter Rotating Propeller" design back in the 80's.

What happened to it? I guess the market was not there for the concept then. Maybe they will re-introduce it in the...

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25636
----------------------------

You can ski behind an Arneson, as you are only sking at about 35 mph max, there is little to no rooster tail at the slower speeds.

Saw an Eliminator with an ASD6, the family ski's, tubes and wake...

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=23671
------------------------------

Maybe you should consider the Arneson Drive like what's on George Desmond's boat.

Reliable and fast..

Best of both worlds...

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=26885
---------------------------------

Spend the 16K on your engine and see how long your outdrive last! Then you will be spending more and more on your I/O to keep it working and before you know it you spent another 16k in maintainance.

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40260
-----------------------------------

An I/O will not stand any better of a chance of keeping the propeller in the water than an Arneson.

Think about it, if the boat's bottom is out of the water so is the propeller reguardless of...

http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=42058
-----------------------------------

[BigGrizzly]

Yo see guys Boatlass, is a Chris Allard want-a-be, but he still call screw drivers + and - instead of Philips and flat. The mouth is like the butt hole, everybody has one. the trouble is he speaks out of the wrong one. On other sites it is the same thing, He is pro Arnie and anti Konrad. He has several times told high horsepower guys , if they don't bite on the Arneson to go bravo instead of Konrad. I think he was 14 or 15 when he showed up first.

[Ed Donnelly]

In some respects he is still 14 or 15..
But now he is a legal barfly.
What a lofty goal in life..............Ed

[HOWARD O]

H, you have too much time on your hands :)

Once in a while, I just have to MAKE the time! :D