Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-06-2014, 02:59 PM   #41
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayview View Post
Skidgear: While there could be a terminology issue here Operating on semiplane would worry me as that is exactly where the load is high and airflow low. IMO well below plane or on full plane, semi plane is to be avoided.
Yes, it's a terminology thing. The hull is semi-displacement, so I use the word semi-plane. There is a definable "hump", but the hull never achieves a classic plane, even at full power...even with very big engines. It lifts to reduce the wetted surface, but it won't get up and sit on top. The deep trawler type forefoot is always in the water. Maybe with a couple thousand horsepower...
__________________
Advertisement

Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 03:11 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Rebel112r's Avatar
 
City: Birch bay wa
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Rogue
Vessel Model: North Pacific 42
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 396
Back to original post by IMG. Those 3208 engines have probably got some years on them
__________________

Rebel112r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 03:11 PM   #43
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanF View Post
I think you missed my point.
Why does JD do a sea trial? To confirm that the engine will reach specified max RPM at WOT. Why? Because that tells them that the engine will be able to operate within the designed envelope. In other words too specification. Why? Warranty. To the end user. To the EPA. JD warrants that their engine will meet the criteria that they say it will in terms of emissions performance long life what ever. It is all warranty related. If it could not come back to bite them they would not care. In the end it is about preventing come backs- from what ever source. Could the engine in question be set up to run inside the emission /hp requirements with a different prop? Say it was "over propped" and could not reach full RPM. The answer is that yes the engine could be adjusted to meet the requirements and turn a different prop at different RPM and fuel delivery rates but every 6068 JD built would be different.
Now they do,in fact, do that - use one engine at different ratings in different pieces of equipment.
But it is not economically sensible to do that one engine at a time . There are only 3 variables. A given hull, a given engine and a given prop. Which one makes the most sense to change?
Can all of them be changed. Of course.
Absolutely spot on. And to your earlier post, the current practice of propping to maximum power does indeed result in the engine having a very easy time of it in the lower parts of the operating envelope. Very convenient for the engine OEM in terms of warranty.


By the way, aircraft engines are routinely derated (with a red line on the pertinent gage), FAA certified, and warrantied by the engine manufacturer.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 03:29 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Rebel112r's Avatar
 
City: Birch bay wa
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Rogue
Vessel Model: North Pacific 42
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 396
With that in mind, the reasons for not reaching rated RPM could be many. If the prop is clean and hasn't hit anything, i would be looking for engine issues. The basics all mentioned above, are cheap. Internal stuff not so cheap. Nozzles for those engines are fairly reasonable price wise, and not a lot of trouble to change. There are adjustments in the pump to increase fuel flow, frowned on by CAT. there is normally a sealed safety wire on the cover to keep you from tinkering in there. No way to tell on these older engines what flow is w/o hooking up guages. They are probably just getting tired. I worked around a bunch of trailers that were powered with 3208's, and their life span was short. These were not turboed. Good luck, hope it is just barnacles!Click image for larger version

Name:	ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1417897746.056399.jpg
Views:	60
Size:	166.0 KB
ID:	35156
Rebel112r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 03:29 PM   #45
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanF View Post
It is all warranty related. If it could not come back to bite them they would not care. In the end it is about preventing come backs- from what ever source. .
Nope, it is about making a product that fulfills if not surpasses requirements and expectations so the business and company can thrive and earn profits. Preventing come-backs does nothing for generating future business if the product is not reliable and price competitive in terms of initial purchase and operating costs.

Cat, Cummins, JD and a few other smaller size diesel manufacturers have long established track records by being far more than preventers of comebacks.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 06:54 PM   #46
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
eyschulman wrote;
"I have come across the statement many times that a engine over propped is over loaded all through the power curve"
Many times?? Hard to believe very many people believe that. Even an overpropped trawler is only overloaded at the upper end of the power curve or rpm range. If you're over propped 300rpm on an FL I can't imagine being overloaded at 1600. If I've got this wrong please enlighten me.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 09:12 PM   #47
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
eyschulman wrote;
"I have come across the statement many times that a engine over propped is over loaded all through the power curve"
Many times?? Hard to believe very many people believe that. Even an overpropped trawler is only overloaded at the upper end of the power curve or rpm range. If you're over propped 300rpm on an FL I can't imagine being overloaded at 1600. If I've got this wrong please enlighten me.
Look at my previous post. If the motor is over propped it will be generating more heat at each rpm than it would by intended design. Now the question is does the motor which was designed for dealing with that higher heat level at higher rpms where a turbo kicks in and where the lube pump and the coolant pumps work harder to do their jobs also be able to do a good job at the lower rpm with more heat than is expected by the original design? Therefor a over propped motor is challenged by overloading at multiple rpms not just WOT. That is my best understanding and explanation. Obviously some engines have the reserve to handle the problem and some may not. Maybe another way to look at it is that all motors put into gear are loaded and there is a designed load curve for that motor. When you challenge that motor to do more work anywhere along its curve than intended it is overloaded. Thus if you over prop at every rpm you are overloading relative to the design load curve no mater 1600 rpm or 3000 rpm. That more damage would likely result at the higher rpm is intuitive but that does not mean that over a long term the lesser effect of overloading at 1600 rpm will not be there. That is my best understanding of the situation and I am not a expert in this field.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 11:39 PM   #48
Guru
 
River Cruiser's Avatar
 
City: UMR MM283
Country: US
Vessel Name: Northern Lights II
Vessel Model: Bayliner 3870
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,228
A friend has a Kings Craft with 6.354T 135 hp Perkins. The no load high idle is 2700, Kings Craft propped them so that at wot the rpm was 1800, IMHO extremely over propped. The owner was convinced it was propped correctly because that's how the builder manufactured the boat when new. I finally convinced him to give Marcus at TAD a call and to ask what Perkins would recommend for a wot rpm. Marcus told him 2600 rpm at wot. The owner talked with a guy that was Vice President of Kings Craft and when they built a 44' with diesels they propped it to run 22 mph and he said they would do that at approximately 1800 rpm. So it not only owners who believe that over propping isn't a problem but also some builder also. The owner bought another set of props that'll get installed next spring.
__________________
Ron on Northern Lights II
I don't like making plans for the day because the word "premeditated" gets thrown around in the courtroom.
River Cruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 11:47 PM   #49
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by eyschulman View Post
Look at my previous post. If the motor is over propped it will be generating more heat at each rpm than it would by intended design. Now the question is does the motor which was designed for dealing with that higher heat level at higher rpms where a turbo kicks in and where the lube pump and the coolant pumps work harder to do their jobs also be able to do a good job at the lower rpm with more heat than is expected by the original design? Therefor a over propped motor is challenged by overloading at multiple rpms not just WOT. That is my best understanding and explanation. Obviously some engines have the reserve to handle the problem and some may not. Maybe another way to look at it is that all motors put into gear are loaded and there is a designed load curve for that motor. When you challenge that motor to do more work anywhere along its curve than intended it is overloaded. Thus if you over prop at every rpm you are overloading relative to the design load curve no mater 1600 rpm or 3000 rpm. That more damage would likely result at the higher rpm is intuitive but that does not mean that over a long term the lesser effect of overloading at 1600 rpm will not be there. That is my best understanding of the situation and I am not a expert in this field.

The manufacturer establishes the maximum rated power curve (your "design load curve") for the engine with the marine gear installed. The maximum rated power curve is far above the typical prop curve...100% cushion for most of the rpm range for our engines, and probably yours. That means that for most of the operating range the cooling system was adequate at twice the power demanded from the prop. That's a huge buffer. You need to look at a prop curve and an engine max rated power curve. This becomes very clear when you compare the two.
There are some in the archives.

Also, it's best to think in terms of overall hull performance, as the hull reacts to prop thrust, not horsepower. A bigger prop should produce a given thrust (hull speed) more efficiently than the smaller prop. That efficiency gain feeds back to the engine in terms of reduced power for a given thrust. Reduced power/fuel flow equals less heat on the whole.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 12:11 AM   #50
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by skidgear View Post
Also, it's best to think in terms of overall hull performance, as the hull reacts to prop thrust, not horsepower. A bigger prop should produce a given thrust (hull speed) more efficiently than the smaller prop. That efficiency gain feeds back to the engine in terms of reduced power for a given thrust. Reduced power/fuel flow equals less heat on the whole.
So at what prop size increase does one finally say "big enough" if engine loading/HP/fuel burn is no longer used as a criteria for judging efficiency?

And what current reputable manufacturers of boats and diesel engines subscribe to this new concept?
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 01:50 AM   #51
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
I have to say I have been reading about this stuff since 2007 when I lost an engine with 275 hours. I went back east to Mack Boring for several days ripping apart the same version of the engine I lost and questioned the resident experts. I corresponded with many other engine owners who lost engines with low hours. I corresponded with mechanics who where responsible for these motors. I have been an avid reader of the posts on Boatdiesel.com and articles related to this issue since 2007. One of the things I have learned is that somewhat like religion there are different camps and some strong opposing views regarding propping and overloading, and of course every side seems to be certain of the truth. I am not certain of the truth but I have formed some opinions, but I still look for answers.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 10:30 AM   #52
Guru
 
City: Carefree, Arizona
Country: usa
Vessel Name: sunchaser V
Vessel Model: DeFever 48
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
eyschulman wrote;
"I have come across the statement many times that a engine over propped is over loaded all through the power curve"
Many times?? Hard to believe very many people believe that. Even an overpropped trawler is only overloaded at the upper end of the power curve or rpm range. If you're over propped 300rpm on an FL I can't imagine being overloaded at 1600. If I've got this wrong please enlighten me.
Actually Eric, many people believe that. But not us with trawlers especially of a vintage that are long ago gone in the build cycle. Most of us on TF have go slows that could never reach the hump and start planing. For the most of us with way too big engines where max HP or RPM will never be seen or dreamed of, an over prop situation will do little damage for the first few thousand hours.

As we titillate over boats made 20, 30 or 40 years ago about prop sizes, 90% (or more) of the plus 30' vessels made in the last 20 years are "go fasts" where design RPM is critical or the engine will suffer from early demise as laboriously can be read on boatdiesel threads. As example, NT, AT, Fleming, GB, OA, Horizon, Offshore, Azimut, Searay, Meridian etc - or better said the majority of vessels you see for sale in the back of the boating mags.

When you get into special build boats like Ed's Devlin, MJM or many other down east designs where 80% load at speed is quite normal, prop sizing is done so max design engine RPM and optimum fuel burn can be achieved without the engine overheating. I suspect Ski's special build is the same, but best he comment on that.

For the go slow new build trawlers like Nordhavn where 10,000 + hours on an engine are expected, prop sizing is done to match the engine. Again, for the first few thousand hours a too big prop on a Nordhavn may be attractive to a few new owners, but with the smaller engine they use and operate well up the HP curve over propping will eventually show up as a negative. Especially on a dry stack where high EGTs resulting in elevated ER temps are an issue

On TF - Willy and Coot seem to rightly balanced with props and small engines. They are in the minority. The rest of us lug around our ballast AKA too big an engine because we have them. Some, like mine, are too big by far but at low load and right props will never wear out from use, only time or lackluster maintenance.

I've no issue with what Skidgear and others are saying about the virtues of over size props on our go slows.. But only because on low hour vessels the engine will give out for other reasons before the over loading issue arises.
sunchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 11:42 AM   #53
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
So at what prop size increase does one finally say "big enough" if engine loading/HP/fuel burn is no longer used as a criteria for judging efficiency?

And what current reputable manufacturers of boats and diesel engines subscribe to this new concept?
I didn't say fuel burn isn't a criteria for judging overall efficiency. It obviously is. I was just pointing out that prop efficiency is a factor in establishing power/fuel burn. So if you want to discuss what happens to the boat when a larger prop is installed, it has to be rolled into the matrix.

Unless one is willing to change gear ratios to take full advantage of a bigger prop, only modest size increases make any sense. And then the discussion of is it worth the expense gets into the mix. I got into this discussion when I said I'd keep the OPs 25x17 props even if they were slightly oversized. Why? Because I'd like to keep a semiplaning speed capability, but am also willing to lop off a couple knots at the high end for some efficiency at low and mid range. Would I go out and drop a couple of grand to buy bigger props....no. But if I came across a good deal, I'd jump at it. By the way, "big enough" for our boat would be dictated by hull clearance and hull speed with the engines at idle.

Current manufacturers aren't going to change their warranty recommendations because as Bryan pointed out earlier, the current propping practice nets that huge cushion and a very lazy life for the engine unless it's operated on the pins all the time. It would be interesting to see what they'd say if a boat company came along with a requirement for variable pitch props...overpropping to the extreme. Would they stand behind their maximum rated power curve when the engine could be operated up against that curve at virtually every rpm from idle to maximum. I suspect not....and there goes your point about engine OEMs encouraging hard use of their products.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this stuff is commonplace in the propeller airplane and helicopter world where a modifier wants to reengine with a different brand that happens to have more horsepower than the original. Since the original gearbox/transmission was likely approved for the power rating of the original engine, the easy way out (without recertifying the gear train for more power) is to limit the output (typically torque) of the new engine with red lines. Pilots are used to respecting operating limitations and it works fine. Nobody in their right mind would risk damaging the equipment because it's expensive and dangerous. Another example is a twin engine helicopter. Main transmissions are typically sized to handle the reduced power of two engines operating at the same time. In the event of one engine failing, the remaining engine accelerates and its reserve power (still less than the limit for two engine operation) gives a decent engine out capability without exploding the gear train. So, there are two sets of redlines on the torque gages. Some of this is being automated with limiting devices, but pilots don't like them...if they are in extremis, they want the option to pull the guts out of the transmission/remaining engine. Yes, different reasons for limiting engine output, but the same fundamentals. Boat and engine manufacturers stick to the current propping philosophy to protect against the least common denominator operator. That's OK, but it doesn't make overpropping or variable pitch props a mystery. or mortal sin.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 12:23 PM   #54
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunchaser View Post
Actually Eric, many people believe that. But not us with trawlers especially of a vintage that are long ago gone in the build cycle. Most of us on TF have go slows that could never reach the hump and start planing. For the most of us with way too big engines where max HP or RPM will never be seen or dreamed of, an over prop situation will do little damage for the first few thousand hours.

As we titillate over boats made 20, 30 or 40 years ago about prop sizes, 90% (or more) of the plus 30' vessels made in the last 20 years are "go fasts" where design RPM is critical or the engine will suffer from early demise as laboriously can be read on boatdiesel threads. As example, NT, AT, Fleming, GB, OA, Horizon, Offshore, Azimut, Searay, Meridian etc - or better said the majority of vessels you see for sale in the back of the boating mags.

When you get into special build boats like Ed's Devlin, MJM or many other down east designs where 80% load at speed is quite normal, prop sizing is done so max design engine RPM and optimum fuel burn can be achieved without the engine overheating. I suspect Ski's special build is the same, but best he comment on that.

For the go slow new build trawlers like Nordhavn where 10,000 + hours on an engine are expected, prop sizing is done to match the engine. Again, for the first few thousand hours a too big prop on a Nordhavn may be attractive to a few new owners, but with the smaller engine they use and operate well up the HP curve over propping will eventually show up as a negative. Especially on a dry stack where high EGTs resulting in elevated ER temps are an issue

On TF - Willy and Coot seem to rightly balanced with props and small engines. They are in the minority. The rest of us lug around our ballast AKA too big an engine because we have them. Some, like mine, are too big by far but at low load and right props will never wear out from use, only time or lackluster maintenance.

I've no issue with what Skidgear and others are saying about the virtues of over size props on our go slows.. But only because on low hour vessels the engine will give out for other reasons before the over loading issue arises.
Most of the boats on this forum are not really "go-slows", but semi-displacement hulls that were supplied with power plants that are way over powered, but not overpowered enough to get them over the hump and into a "semi-planning" range . Arguably the most ridiculous design spec of them all. Why did they do it? Because Lehmans were cheap, fuel was cheap, and people wanted twin engine safety. (I also wonder how well behaved those old Taiwan hulls would be if pushed harder toward the 13-15 knot range). Anyway, at least the Grand Banks and OAs and tugs with semi displacement hulls can get up and go. That said, boats like the twin 375 Grand Banks, for example, got a little stupid with huge excess installed power to gain an extra knot or two at the top end. Anyway, even the Lehman/Perkins boats...and particularly the twins...would benefit from a reasonably larger prop (I'm going to stop calling it overprop because of the negative connotations of the term. If done properly, there are only positives).

The engines in hulls you mention that suffer an early demise are typically those where the engine OEM stuffed 50 pounds in a 10 pound bag by turbo charging and intercooling a basic design that was never up to it. Different issue from this.


If I had the dough to purchase a long range cruiser like a Nordhavn, I'd think hard about a variable pitch prop to maximize efficiency.

Your last few paragraphs appear to be at odds with an earlier remark that engine manufacturers encourage hard use of their engines. If the engine is "good to go" anywhere under the manufacturer's maximum rated power available curve, the engine should do just fine with a larger prop (and appropriate limitations). Once again, I'm not speaking of an "overprop" where the operator has been operating in an over fuel condition without knowing it. I'm speaking of a properly thought out size increase with attendant limits.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 12:31 PM   #55
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
Tom,
Re "a engine over propped is over loaded all through the power curve" .. I don't believe it. That an over propped boat is over propped throughout it's rpm range. I have no idea how I came to believe what I believe and could probably express it handily w graphics and load curves. Can't present that so I'll need to do it in text.

With a boat that has the correct propeller there is only one engine speed where the engine in loaded to the prop correctly or ideally. WOT. At all engine speeds below rated power rpm the prop presents a load less than ideal. That's why FFs "Cruise Prop" delivers slightly lower fuel burn to move his boat at a given speed. It works (no doubt) but the gain is very small .. I think 5% or less has been posted on the forum at least several times.

1. Starting w a correctly propped boat/engine/prop combination WOT gives a correctly loaded engine. Let's say 2500rpm.

2. Now lets over prop 100rpm. There's still only one engine speed where the engine is loaded correctly .. 2400rpm is now max power and max engine speed. But at WOT and 2400rpm the engine is overloaded. At some point in time as we decrease rpm the engine is loaded correctly. What that rpm is unknown unless it's determined by fuel consumption. As an example let's say it's 2300 (but I think it would be lower). At any engine speed below 2300 the engine would be at less than full load. For example let's say the engine manufacturer lists a safe continuous load for the engine at 10% less than full power and the engine burned 10gph at WOT propped correctly to rated rpm. As one decreases the rpm of the 100rpm over propped engine one will reach a point where it will burn 9gph. Let's say that's 2300rpm. Lets establish an ideal engine load below max continuous power (2300rpm) that will not prematurely wear out the engine and will create enough heat to prevent cold running problems. Lets say 55 to 75% power. To run our engine ideally we'd need to burn 5.5 to 7.5gph. Anything below 5.5gph would be underloaded. We can establish what rpms this best load range is by fuel burn monitoring via objective observations.

3. Now if we over prop the engine another 100rpm (2300rpm at WOT instead of 2400) the maximum continuous power (10% down or 9gph) would be lower of course but as we decreased rpm (as before) the minimum rpm (of the "best load range") also drops ... but nowhere near idle speed. So at the rpm where the engine burns 5.5gph all engine speeds below that point will be underloaded. So even an over propped engine will have much of it's lower rpm range as in an underloaded state. So an over propped engine is not always over propped. Basically because the load curve of the prop and the engine are not straight or the same otherwise. As the engine speed goes down at a linear rate (flat line curve) the prop load curve is very curved so the load at half speed is much less than half load.

I've made some slight errors but but in the interest of post length left them in. I hope my point is there to see.

I include this because I think it's related.
I think the prop load curve for props w less pitch and more diameter is more curved (more convex w the curve down) so the prop load is less at the half way point. The prop load drops off faster than w a prop w more pitch and less dia. But if you are applying enough power a larger dia prop will give more thrust and efficiency. So a trawler could increase dia and decrease pitch gaining speed and thrust at WOT but loosing efficiency at lower speeds .... where most trawlers run.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 01:28 PM   #56
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post
Tom,
Re "a engine over propped is over loaded all through the power curve" .. I don't believe it. That an over propped boat is over propped throughout it's rpm range.
This came up when eyshulman tied engine cooling to the "overload" term. Cooling is unrelated to the power "overload" issue in the first place. Further, application of the term "over prop" to a correctly installed larger prop (cruise prop in FF's terminology) greatly confuses the subject. A correctly installed larger prop in a boat that was originally propped for max rated power is by definition not over propped...nor is it over loaded if operated within defined parameters.

By the way, I've been searching for prop curves for various prop sizes as installed in various sized/shaped hulls for years. The best I can find is comparative data for different engine/prop combinations in a given hull. If you have a source that defines specific propeller performance curves and shapes, I'd appreciate the reference.
Underway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 04:52 PM   #57
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
I believe the term over propped refers to the condition of placing too much load on a engine. It is not the size of the prop or the pitch or the transmission ratio but a combination of all three that counts. One can increase the size of a prop to gain efficiency provided the room to swing it and at the same time decrease the load on the engine if the pitch is reduced or the transmission ratio changed. What counts is the amount of rotational force(work)the motor has to do to turn the system. I look upon over propping and over loading as any combination of transmission and prop that causes the motor to work harder at a given rpm then the builders specifications call for. The results of this extra load are no doubt variable by motor and degree of abuse. A high output modern light diesel run over propped-overloaded at high rpm may well have a catastrophic event with low hours while a over stressed motor of a lesser degree run at 1600 rpm may not fail at all during its recreational boat life..
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 05:54 PM   #58
Guru
 
Nomad Willy's Avatar
 
City: Concrete Washington State
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Willy
Vessel Model: Willard Nomad 30'
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,724
When you'all say "larger prop" I assume you mean over propping .. that is running a boat that cannot reach rated rpm. Fred's cruise prop.

Skid,
At this time I have no load or power curves to present that would help or I would have included them in post #55.
If you "correctly" install a "larger" prop on a boat it will attain rated rpm at WOT as if necessary you will change prop pitch or/and diameter or the gear ratio in the Tx.

eyeschulman wrote "over propped refers to the condition of placing too much load on a engine." Kind of .. IMO if a boat is over propped it can't make rated rpm and is over propped while not even running. It's over loaded of course when it is being over fueled but if it was propped correctly it simply could'nt run in that state .. because at any throttle setting the engine load from the prop is not so much that the engine will not be able to turn the prop (and hence the engine) fast enough to burn all the fuel injected.
And again over propping can be done safely if the engine is not run in an overloaded state or without sufficient load to heat the piston, valves, combustion chamber and oil to a high enough temperature to prevent cool running problems. I can't remember what causes cylinder glazing but I think it involves piston side loading and of course engines need to have mechanical forces high enough to prevent this as well. I think cool running problems start to occur at at higher engine loads than glazing so if one runs hard enough to prevent cool running problems glazing will probably not not occur. How high a load one needs to prevent cool running problems is open to much debate but IMO it starts below 50% load. So if your engine can burn more than twice as much fuel as you burn normally you could be under loading .. IMO.
Remember the PMM tech editor said that 75% load or greater needs to be applied usually while cruising to attain safe operating temps. As you can see my personal red line is far below that. Very few skippers normally run at or over 75% load. It's probably just 2 or 300rpm below max rpm on most to many engines. Think of a FL120 at 2200rpm. And of course coolant temps should not be considered re loading issues because coolant is artificially controlled by the thermostat. Oil temp of about 175 degree should be a good benchmark.
__________________
Eric

North Western Washington State USA
Nomad Willy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 07:13 PM   #59
Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,291
Coolant temp can remain normal while there are significant hot spots in engine and is not a good indicator of over loading. An exhaust pyrometer is the better way to evaluate how hard your motor is working. Heat is related to the work level demanded. When a motor is over propped it causes greater work and heat at any rpm than the designers planed for at that rpm. There is a safety cushion built in but it is there for a reason. The cooling Sx and lube system become very much involved because the pumps and distribution are tied to rpm. If one tampers with the load so it is greater along with the linked increase of heat at lower rpms the safety margins will be encroached and depending on how far the encroachment goes there may be apparent damage. My opinion in this mater is that the amount of fuel saved by the typical recreational boater by tinkering with propping above the recommended settings is insignificant when taken into total boat costs. Some people including myself believe in under propping particularly with common rail electronic motors, and that can start another whole bag of worms discussion.
eyschulman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 08:46 PM   #60
Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by manyboats View Post

If you "correctly" install a "larger" prop on a boat it will attain rated rpm at WOT as if necessary you will change prop pitch or/and diameter or the gear ratio in the Tx.

eyeschulman wrote "over propped refers to the condition of placing too much load on a engine." Kind of .. IMO if a boat is over propped it can't make rated rpm and is over propped while not even running. It's over loaded of course when it is being over fueled but if it was propped correctly it simply could'nt run in that state .. because at any throttle setting the engine load from the prop is not so much that the engine will not be able to turn the prop (and hence the engine) fast enough to burn all the fuel injected.
And again over propping can be done safely if the engine is not run in an overloaded state or without sufficient load to heat the piston, valves, combustion chamber and oil to a high enough temperature to prevent cool running problems.
We're into a definitions clash. I'm suggesting that the term "over propped" is universally identified with the over load condition at maximum rated power, and is universally associated with the classic propping methodology. When I say "correctly retrofitted with a larger (cruise) prop" I mean that the engine is correctly "derated" (in aircraft parlance). Appropriate gage markings are established, and if necessary, throttle stops and EGT gages are added to the installation. It meets the new maximum rated power and is therefore propped correctly.

Until everyone starts differentiating terminologies, these discussions will always result in misunderstandings and confusion. Maybe there's a better catch phrase..perhaps "cruise prop with de-rated engine". Any suggestions?
__________________

Underway 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 04:14 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