Subject: Re: VS: Re:: Re: : Re: [harryproa] Re:: Cruiser 60 questions
From: "Arto Hakkarainen ahakkara@yahoo.com [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Date: 6/4/2015, 9:16 AM
To: "harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Reply-to:
harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au

 

Found the source. This has been discussed on multihulls mailing list a few times. One message By Ken Harland from 2006 that I found easily:

"I undertook a similar configuration in a 32' cat also using two jet ski motors.  I was drawn to them for their compactness and relatively light weight for the horsepower. 

Unfortunately, I had tunnel-vision when it came to getting rid of the loud obnoxious two stroke hanging off my rear beam that I didn't research the project adequately. 

Jet drives real advantage come primarily when used on a planning hull design.  Although it can be argued that my 3000lb boat can and does plan, it won't under motor power, even with 70HP total!  I could never go faster than the old 9.9 used to push it!

And after multiple iterations, I never got a decent reverse system worked out.  I should have spoken with the local hot shots that drive 455 jet boats...they can't even back off the beach when lightly driven up on the sand - no matter how much horsepower!

I'm now using an 18HP 4 stroke Nissan that while it has nice power, unfortunately vibrates like you wouldn't believe!"
 
So he says that the total power of 70 hp with two jet ski motors resulted less speed than 9,9 hp two stroke outboard. The efficiency of propulsion system has really bog impact on the outcome of the whole system. Good efficient propeller is the way to go.

You can google more results with google advanced search By limiting the search to domain steamradio.com.

Arto


From: "ahakkara ahakkara@yahoo.com [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
To: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:33 PM
Subject: VS: Re:: Re: : Re: [harryproa] Re:: Cruiser 60 questions

 
Waterjets have been tried with poor results. The efficiency has been really poor on slow displacement vessel. Most likely you will end up burning lot of fuel with dissappointing speed and horrible mpg.

Arto 



Lähetetty Samsung-laitteesta


-------- Alkuperäinen viesti --------
Lähettäjä: "taladorwood@yahoo.com.au [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Päivämäärä: 04.06.2015 14.30 (GMT+02:00)
Saaja: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Aihe: Re:: Re: : Re: [harryproa] Re:: Cruiser 60 questions

 


The Sea Doo Spark costs $5K, The entire jet ski weighs 405 lbs / 184 kg,  Rotax 60 hp engine, it reverses by reversing the engine I think (that is how it works in the snow machines). I am guessing the engine and jet weighs around 200 lbs / 90 kg.

The Rotax will burn about 2 gallons an hour and they are reliable proven engines. The intake and outlet would have to be molded into the bottom of the hull but It seems to be a dirt simple installation. Probably put in a NACA vent.

I know that a jet drive is not nearly as efficient as a prop drive (it has a very small 5" prop). The fuel consumption will probably be double a fuel sipping diesel and it won't produce as much power.

I would be willing to bet the output of the 60hp jetski is comparable to a 30 hp diesel.

Hmmm..... $5K, no prop creating drag or increasing the draft, can go up to 90 hp easily.  I must be missing something very obvious......




Check Out the Sea-Doo SEA-DOO SPARK
 




__._,_.___

Posted by: Arto Hakkarainen <ahakkara@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a new topic Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___