Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 02-13-2016, 09:47 AM   #41
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Horizons View Post
, the IPS propellers of the 50 must be responsible for high fuel consumption. If the Boat Tests numbers are correct.
Many side by side comparisons using identical hulls and comparing IPS to straight shafts have been reported. Hands down the IPS are more efficient. My personal favorite is the Sabre 36 IPS. In this case the engine location provided a lot more usable interior space with a very unique layout.

Then there are the IPS unique issues to consider.
__________________
Advertisement

sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2016, 09:50 AM   #42
Veteran Member
 
City: Naperville
Country: us
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 45
Sorry guys, what's IPS?
__________________

chicagoq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2016, 10:11 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
City: Portage
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Temporary between boats
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 105
Integrated Propulsion System. A saildrive-like thingy.
Lost Horizons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2016, 10:43 AM   #44
Guru
 
RCook's Avatar


 
City: Holladay, UT
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Dream Catcher
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 37-065
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Horizons View Post
Integrated Propulsion System. A saildrive-like thingy.
With forward-facing dual counter-rotating propellers, sorta like my duo-prop sterndrive only turned around backwards.

More efficient than inboards for speedy boats traveling on plane, partly because the propshafts are more parallel to the water surface. Not sure they're more efficient at displacement or at speeds in the teens.
__________________
Richard Cook
Dream Catcher (Nordic Tug 37)
New Moon (Bounty 257) - FOR SALE
"Cruising in a Big Way"
RCook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2016, 12:52 PM   #45
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Horizons View Post
Once at a boat show I asked a Beneteau sales rep why fuel consumption of the ST50 is higher than that of ST52 according to the Boat Tests, which Beneteau was quoting in their marketing materials. The sales rep appeared to be surprised, started checking with his iPad, but could not find the answer. Took my business card and promised to get back to me. That was 3 years ago and I never heard from him since.

Major efficiency factors affecting fuel economy are, in descending order of importance, propeller efficiency, hull efficiency, and engine/transmission efficiency. Since hull and engine efficiencies should be relatively close between ST50 and ST52, the IPS propellers of the 50 must be responsible for high fuel consumption. If the Boat Tests numbers are correct.
The ST 52 was a completely different boat with straight drives, not IPS and with more lwl than the 50.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2016, 01:28 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
City: Portage
Country: USA
Vessel Model: Temporary between boats
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
The ST 52 was a completely different boat with straight drives, not IPS and with more lwl than the 50.
I know.
Lost Horizons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2016, 02:05 PM   #47
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagoq View Post
Sorry guys, what's IPS?
IPS is Volvo's name for their Pod systems of propulsion. Mercury has a pod system named Zeus which is somewhat comparable using Cummins engines.

It has gained a good bit of popularity in 40-60' boats based on better fuel economy and greater speed with smaller engines as well as handling characteristics. Typically in planing boats and not in full displacement.

Volvo Penta IPS - Volvo Penta IPS : Volvo Penta
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2016, 02:20 PM   #48
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
I think IPS popularity beyond the major advertising blitz is based on in order. #1 Joy stick high maneuverability factor. #2 builders can install in ways that free up more internal living space. #3 Speed which is always a major factor in new boat sales. #4 Claimed economy AT Higher cursing range. One interesting test was preformed on three boats from one builder(Hunts) and the results were interesting and would not in any way give a clear reason to chose IPS drives over inboard and IO drives on the basis of performance criteria..
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2016, 09:38 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
bluemainship's Avatar
 
City: tampa
Country: usa
Vessel Name: ocean paradise
Vessel Model: mainship 1 210cummins
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 26
IPS love crab trap ropes
bluemainship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2016, 06:58 AM   #50
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,530
"It has gained a good bit of popularity in 40-60' boats based on better fuel economy and greater speed with smaller engines as well as handling characteristics. Typically in planing boats and not in full displacement."

I believe the reason IPS is big with builders is far less experienced labor can be used during the boats assembly.

No skilled engine adjustments or shaft hassles.

And with mixed metals there will be plenty of work for aftermarket repairs (after the warentee expires).

Most of the "popularity" seems to be from magazine writers that get a ride on a new boat , and have space to fill, and advertisers to worship.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2016, 10:12 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
Conall63's Avatar
 
City: Cape Coral, Florida
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Gra Go Deo
Vessel Model: Roberts TY 43
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 191
I have a Deere 6068TFM for my single screw set up. My boat has a fairly short LWL@ 40', with a guestimated weight of 65-70K, and a heavy displacement to length ratio of around 450. I tend to cruise in the 1500+ range keeping below hull speed, and see about 7 knots with a burn of 2.1 per hour.

Recently, on my 230 nautical mile gulf crossing, we averaged about 2.8 NMPG. The bottom hasn't been cleaned in five months.

I know this isn't really apples to apples, but it's the same/similar engine in a heavy cruising boat.



Conall
Conall63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2016, 01:29 PM   #52
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conall63 View Post
I have a Deere 6068TFM for my single screw set up. My boat has a fairly short LWL@ 40', with a guestimated weight of 65-70K, and a heavy displacement to length ratio of around 450. I tend to cruise in the 1500+ range keeping below hull speed, and see about 7 knots with a burn of 2.1 per hour.

Recently, on my 230 nautical mile gulf crossing, we averaged about 2.8 NMPG. The bottom hasn't been cleaned in five months.

I know this isn't really apples to apples, but it's the same/similar engine in a heavy cruising boat. Conall
My SD boat at 46ft WL with twin JD 6068s at 7.4k burns about 3gal/Hr not much different then your boat. the light 33,000lb and slightly longer waterline are factors. This is also an example of twins not burning much more than a single to push a boat.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2016, 04:54 PM   #53
Veteran Member
 
City: Naperville
Country: us
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 45
Some other observations:
From this website:
Approximate Diesel Generator Fuel Consumption Chart
If you compare 20kw vs 40kw. At full load 20kw uses 1.6 GPH, while the 40kw at 1/2 load uses 2.3GPH. That's a whooping 40% difference for the same payload. Isn't that an indication that smaller engine might play a role here? However it seems at higher capacity the smaller engine does not show much advantage.
chicagoq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2016, 05:35 PM   #54
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagoq View Post
Some other observations:
From this website:
Approximate Diesel Generator Fuel Consumption Chart
If you compare 20kw vs 40kw. At full load 20kw uses 1.6 GPH, while the 40kw at 1/2 load uses 2.3GPH. That's a whooping 40% difference for the same payload. Isn't that an indication that smaller engine might play a role here? However it seems at higher capacity the smaller engine does not show much advantage.
It is hard to say what is going on there. In general one gallon of fuel burnt gets about 20 +/_ Hp. no mater the size of the engine. If it takes X amount of HP at the prop or props to push a boat to Y speed the fuel burn should be close. At idle and lower speeds there may well be an inefficiency of a larger displacement engine vs. a small one. This may not be as much an issue with electronically controlled common rail engines which adapt fuel burn to load much better than mechanical systems. Generators in general do not like being run at lower loads and may well be designed accordingly. That larger motor may be wasting fuel at a lower load a common rail sx can fix that and because of pollution issues may soon be all you can buy.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2016, 10:22 PM   #55
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Gloucester, MA
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,197
I think the moral of the story is to not believe anything you read on BoatTest.com
__________________
www.MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2016, 11:02 PM   #56
Wannabe
 
Britannia's Avatar
 
City: SF Bay Area
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Stillwater
Vessel Model: Kadey-Krogen 54
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 766
Many generators (mine included) run at constant rpm. Is it possible that at half load there is wasted energy due to the higher than necessary rpm? Could explain extra fuel consumption.
Britannia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2016, 11:06 PM   #57
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
I think the moral of the story is to not believe anything you read on BoatTest.com
I don't see anything wrong with their numbers.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2016, 07:01 AM   #58
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,530
"If you compare 20kw vs 40kw. At full load 20kw uses 1.6 GPH, while the 40kw at 1/2 load uses 2.3GPH. That's a whooping 40% difference for the same payload. Isn't that an indication that smaller engine might play a role here?"

Same for propulsion engines , oversize will frequently be out of the efficient BMEP, so 20-40% more fuel burn is easy.

Old TT get away with it as most have car rared HP , not cont. duty rating of an industrial engine .

Simplest for a NA engine is to figure it takes 3 cubic inches to make a HP .

So divide the engine displacement by 3 and figure that is the efficient HP , then observe what percentage of the HP your fuel burn is requiring.

The further you are from the 3=1 HP the further you are from an efficient BMEP.
__________________

FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012