I've noted occasional reference to horsepower required to move a given boat at a given speed. In fact it is pounds of propeller thrust that moves the boat...or airplane. Keeping that in mind helps keep the units of measure straight and is important when looking at the various efficiencies (prop, drive line and engine) as you work backward to the engine fuel map.
So called Overpropping
- Thread starter FF
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
psneeld
Guru
Terminology can get out of hand in the one or two paragraph world of the internet forum for sure....but then so can facts and opinions in general.
Here's something to feed the thoughts of those that really either enjoy all of this or think they actually know things for sure...
I was reminded when it was shared with me that even toy boat designers buy tank time. Many of the principles written about apply, maybe on a different scale, but are probably considered as well by any designer working on recreational vessels where similar concerns are thought about.
http://www.mandieselturbo.com/files/news/filesof5405/5510_004_02%20low.pdf
Here's something to feed the thoughts of those that really either enjoy all of this or think they actually know things for sure...
I was reminded when it was shared with me that even toy boat designers buy tank time. Many of the principles written about apply, maybe on a different scale, but are probably considered as well by any designer working on recreational vessels where similar concerns are thought about.
http://www.mandieselturbo.com/files/news/filesof5405/5510_004_02%20low.pdf
it is indeed thrust that moves the boat however that thrust is produced by engine torque. People are altering propellers with unknown effect on prop efficiency in order to change engine operating parameters in another unknown manner since they don't know actual fuel consumption changes. A big part of the problem with these discussions is that they start with what we have information about, the engines but we don't have needed fuel use data. RPM curves are misinterpreted to infer fuel use since actual fuel information is unavailable.
The blind men are indeed describing the elephant.
The blind men are indeed describing the elephant.
Irish Rambler
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2014
- Messages
- 1,733
- Location
- FRANCE
- Vessel Name
- 'Snow Mouse.'
- Vessel Make
- BROOM FLYBRIDGE 42.
psneeld, Excellent link, thank you.
That thrust is produced by the propeller. The propeller is turned by the engine/gearset combination.
sunchaser
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 10,196
- Location
- usa
- Vessel Name
- sunchaser V
- Vessel Make
- DeFever 48 (sold)
Nothing need be an unknown about over propping in boats or gear choices for industrial uses. With a bit of research and money spent, the risk/reward for one's particular case can be determined. Several on this forum are experts in this regard but understand the pitfalls of raising their hand too high on the internet.
As an aside, prop and engine selection for production boats like SeaRay, Carver, Bayliner etc is normally done for a half load condition. Then comes full tanks, monstrous dinghies, towing an even bigger dinghy, pots, pans, washers, dryers, fishing chairs and before you know it the vessels weight has sky rocketed. Then the black smoke and overheating begins. Curing the ills associated with over propping a large planing style vessel can cost a lot, especially if the engines have been cratered.
Quite simply, this discussion is about the pros and cons of wrong propping. On a lightly used trawler operating at less than 50% load, the engine will not unduly wear out if an inch or two out in prop size. But if your engine is right sized like Mark's Coot, best you right size the props.
As an aside, prop and engine selection for production boats like SeaRay, Carver, Bayliner etc is normally done for a half load condition. Then comes full tanks, monstrous dinghies, towing an even bigger dinghy, pots, pans, washers, dryers, fishing chairs and before you know it the vessels weight has sky rocketed. Then the black smoke and overheating begins. Curing the ills associated with over propping a large planing style vessel can cost a lot, especially if the engines have been cratered.
Quite simply, this discussion is about the pros and cons of wrong propping. On a lightly used trawler operating at less than 50% load, the engine will not unduly wear out if an inch or two out in prop size. But if your engine is right sized like Mark's Coot, best you right size the props.
Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,821
We just went back in the water after a haulout at Townsend Bay Marine in Port Townsend. I took the advice of many on this forum and reduced pitch by 2" on our 44" wheel. I had been fine with a bit of over propping, since we run at around 1/3 of available horsepower most of the time. My thought was that if you run at low power settings, the likelihood of experiencing any adverse effects from over propping are going to be pretty minimal, and I still believe that is correct.
However, I can report my run back from P.T. today was very encouraging and validated the idea that it is not a bad idea to avoid over propping. My results were the expected increase in max rpm from reducing pitch from 1925 of 2200 to 2075. Still a bit light, but close enough for now. EGT at max rpm, however, declined by 125 degrees, and this can only be good. The sweet spot for cruising (from feel) went from 1350 to 1475 rpm, yet fuel economy at the increased rpm is about the same per knot as it was with the more aggressive pitch at a lower rpm, so I don't think economy changed. I'll know more once I collect more comparative data, but for now, I am a converted over pitcher to a reformed right pitcher. The engine just seems "happier".
However, I can report my run back from P.T. today was very encouraging and validated the idea that it is not a bad idea to avoid over propping. My results were the expected increase in max rpm from reducing pitch from 1925 of 2200 to 2075. Still a bit light, but close enough for now. EGT at max rpm, however, declined by 125 degrees, and this can only be good. The sweet spot for cruising (from feel) went from 1350 to 1475 rpm, yet fuel economy at the increased rpm is about the same per knot as it was with the more aggressive pitch at a lower rpm, so I don't think economy changed. I'll know more once I collect more comparative data, but for now, I am a converted over pitcher to a reformed right pitcher. The engine just seems "happier".
SCOTTEDAVIS
Guru
I found the same thing, I went from 22X20 to 22X17 (4 blade) and wot went from 1800ish to 2100ish cruse went from 1400 to 1550 using less fuel 1.6 to 1.4 and runs cooler and seems happier (huh?) while making a slight increase in noise. Speed at cruse is the same. Still a little tight (OP) but I feel the re-pitch was worth it, I would likely be spot on with a 3 blade.
I think nothing wrong with a very slight OP but others are much smarter then me so YMMV.
Nomad Willy
Guru
I think I was the one that said my engine seems "happier" w a lightly pitched prop. At the time I was at 3050rpm on a 3000rpm engine (50rpm underpropped). I felt stupid saying my engine "felt happier" being such a subjective statement and thought no one would have any positive feedback from such a statement. But I couldn't find any objective way of expressing what I was experiencing. And there was no positive feedback .. until now.
Now I think I can. The engine is less loaded and the sound and feel of the engine is experienced by all on board. And if you jump back and say the boat's going the same speed and hence under the same load you'd be right BUT ... Each power stroke will be of less force as there are more of them and vibration will be less as there are more less forceful power strokes. Imagine how much vibration you'd have w a 100 cylinder engine .. or a one cylinder engine.
When I worked in the powerhouse (1400hp Enterprise engine) in Alaska at times the electrical load on the engine doubled instantaneously when they turned on the high pressure pumps on the dredge. The engine managed to handle that sudden load increase w only 2 or 3 rpm loss but the overwhelming experience being in the powerhouse at that time was the instantaneous increase in noise. Seemed to double or more. Incredible increase in noise and basically no increase in rpm. This engine was a straight eight w a flywheel weighing several tons.
But in our trawlers, cars and trucks higher rpm seems to generate more noise. The noise seems to be more rpm related .. less load related. SCOTTIEDAVIS wrote "seems happier (huh?) while making a slight increase in noise. Speed at cruse is the same."
But excluding such special events like harmonics and resonance (that are part of a n external condition) the amplitude of noise w more cylinders or a higher frequency (more rpm) is less. Higher frequency in our boats is a product of higher rpm so it would seem there should be less noise but the reverse seems to be true. Can anybod offer an explanation? Higher rpm is usually associated w increased power. But if it is not .. if we compare w the same load or amount of power being produced .. higher rpm and a constant load .. the noise still seems to increase w higher rpm. Like a truck going up a hill under high load. Downshift and maintain the same speed obviously w the same engine load but w less power per engine stroke the noise seems to increase ...... why?
Now I think I can. The engine is less loaded and the sound and feel of the engine is experienced by all on board. And if you jump back and say the boat's going the same speed and hence under the same load you'd be right BUT ... Each power stroke will be of less force as there are more of them and vibration will be less as there are more less forceful power strokes. Imagine how much vibration you'd have w a 100 cylinder engine .. or a one cylinder engine.
When I worked in the powerhouse (1400hp Enterprise engine) in Alaska at times the electrical load on the engine doubled instantaneously when they turned on the high pressure pumps on the dredge. The engine managed to handle that sudden load increase w only 2 or 3 rpm loss but the overwhelming experience being in the powerhouse at that time was the instantaneous increase in noise. Seemed to double or more. Incredible increase in noise and basically no increase in rpm. This engine was a straight eight w a flywheel weighing several tons.
But in our trawlers, cars and trucks higher rpm seems to generate more noise. The noise seems to be more rpm related .. less load related. SCOTTIEDAVIS wrote "seems happier (huh?) while making a slight increase in noise. Speed at cruse is the same."
But excluding such special events like harmonics and resonance (that are part of a n external condition) the amplitude of noise w more cylinders or a higher frequency (more rpm) is less. Higher frequency in our boats is a product of higher rpm so it would seem there should be less noise but the reverse seems to be true. Can anybod offer an explanation? Higher rpm is usually associated w increased power. But if it is not .. if we compare w the same load or amount of power being produced .. higher rpm and a constant load .. the noise still seems to increase w higher rpm. Like a truck going up a hill under high load. Downshift and maintain the same speed obviously w the same engine load but w less power per engine stroke the noise seems to increase ...... why?
Last edited:
sunchaser
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 10,196
- Location
- usa
- Vessel Name
- sunchaser V
- Vessel Make
- DeFever 48 (sold)
Thanks for sharing Delfin. As you have noted in the past, your Cat engine's basic design was intended as a genset. The rotating and up/down moving parts were designed to be in sync at 1500 or 1800 RPM so very long service hours and optimum fuel economy could be derived. It makes sense that the closer the engine gets to this design RPM the happier it sounds.
Would the on engine alternator have greater capacity? Is your Cooling system pump RPM related?
Would the on engine alternator have greater capacity? Is your Cooling system pump RPM related?
Vashon_Trawler
Guru
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2013
- Messages
- 598
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- M/V Sherpa
- Vessel Make
- 24' Vashon Diesel Cruiser
I'm going to join the "my boat felt happier" by reducing my prop pitch group. The PO of Sherpa installed a 16x12 with the current engine, which was way overpitched and only allowed 2900 WOT. I've since installed a 16x8 and can achieve 3600 RPM WOT (maximum WOT RPM per Volvo). I certainly can "feel" the difference and experience less vibrations and reduced prop walk. I haven't experienced an appreciable difference in speed or economy. My cruise RPM is adjusted for about 53% load as shown in my engine's load/RPM graph.
I also have peace of mind that I can deliver needed HP in an emergency and I am not causing pre-mature wear while cruising. I'll stick with manufacturer recommendations and prop accordingly--to each his own though.
I also have peace of mind that I can deliver needed HP in an emergency and I am not causing pre-mature wear while cruising. I'll stick with manufacturer recommendations and prop accordingly--to each his own though.
Last edited:
eyschulman
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,288
Another vote for not over propping. I am so convinced that the motor is happier with lighter propping that I use under propping. I advise this only with common rail fully electronic motors that are used at less than peak out put such as trawlers and boats used mainly at hull speed. For boats that travel at high speed most of the time the desire is to pull as much HP as possible and that does not work with under propping.On older motors running at lower loads this may cause fuel build up, on the modern motor the fuel burn is automatically adjusted to the load. The net result of underpropping a common rail motor is similar to down ratting and using less fuel and less HP somewhat like taking an M4 and making it an M1 or M2
Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,821
Tom, I hadn't thought about the alternator output increasing, but of course that would have to be so. Temps have never seemed much of a problem at whatever rpm. I suppose the thermostat dominates cooling efficiency, but when open the coolers are sufficient to keep us in range. In southern waters, the difference might well be noticeable. Hope to find out....
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 4,279
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Insequent
- Vessel Make
- Ocean Alexander 50 Mk I
Your alternator output may not have increased much at all. Their output curves are typically like the one below. Ideally you have the alternator pulley sized so that alternator max rpm is just reached at engine WOT rpm. That way you get as high as possible output at your engine cruise rpm.
Brooksie
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,310
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Island Seeker
- Vessel Make
- Willard 36 Sedan
I can't believe, when faced with solid written evidence that propping to put your engine in its lower specific fuel consumption area at cruise speed can be trumped by "feeling" the engine is "happier". Sounds like something my wife would say...
Nomad Willy
Guru
Brookse,
An engine "feeling happier" has been "felt" by numerous members. And slightly better fuel burn or a wash has also been reported.
Every boat is different though. If your boat had a 6-354 Perkins engine and you over propped it you almost certainly would experience a lower fuel burn assuming good or lucky choices were made re gear ratio, prop configuration and other variables that effect fuel consumption. Just because you're over propped dosn't mean you're guaranteed better fuel burn. There's only a range that will prove beneficial and on some configurations better fuel economy may not be achieved. Obviously a mechanically controlled engine over propped will burn less fuel at WOT simply because of lower rpm. Over propping will make a mechanical engine more efficient at some engine speeds and less efficient at others. Lots of variables.
Over propping is like over drive in a stick shift car. The reason for over drive is mostly for fuel economy and the same laws of physics apply to both boats and cars. The effect electronic controls have on this question is not something I know about. But I don't doubt that the previous posters on their fuel burn statements. I believe some of the skippers here on TF about burning more or less fuel but I don't believe many when they talk about specific gph consumption .. too many variables.
An engine "feeling happier" has been "felt" by numerous members. And slightly better fuel burn or a wash has also been reported.
Every boat is different though. If your boat had a 6-354 Perkins engine and you over propped it you almost certainly would experience a lower fuel burn assuming good or lucky choices were made re gear ratio, prop configuration and other variables that effect fuel consumption. Just because you're over propped dosn't mean you're guaranteed better fuel burn. There's only a range that will prove beneficial and on some configurations better fuel economy may not be achieved. Obviously a mechanically controlled engine over propped will burn less fuel at WOT simply because of lower rpm. Over propping will make a mechanical engine more efficient at some engine speeds and less efficient at others. Lots of variables.
Over propping is like over drive in a stick shift car. The reason for over drive is mostly for fuel economy and the same laws of physics apply to both boats and cars. The effect electronic controls have on this question is not something I know about. But I don't doubt that the previous posters on their fuel burn statements. I believe some of the skippers here on TF about burning more or less fuel but I don't believe many when they talk about specific gph consumption .. too many variables.
eyschulman
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2014
- Messages
- 1,288
When I say my engines feel better I am leaving out the observations of my pyro gauges boost gages and the load readings along with the fuel burn data constantly on display. What happens with my motors with less prop pitch is more rpm to get to the same speed and same load. Any fuel burn difference at a given speed and load which might be very slightly affected is so small it does not register and is more theoretical than practically measured. If my props were over pitched the data would show it and engines would not be felling happy. The pyro would develop a fever and the load would be overbearing even the coolant might start complaining.
Delfin
Grand Vizier
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 3,821
The relevant information is that the engine is running cooler and consuming the same or lower fuel per knot of speed. Can you explain how this is trumped by theoretical evidence that this isn't the case when it is measurable in the real world? The "feeling happier" comment in my case is derived from pretty intimate awareness of the sound of the engine before de-tuning the prop and the sound after de-tuning. It could be complete b.s. of course, but then again, I have the empirical evidence of cooler temps and what looks like the same fuel consumption based on the Floscan to validate that purely subjective observation.
markpierce
Master and Commander
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2010
- Messages
- 12,557
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Carquinez Coot
- Vessel Make
- penultimate Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
The sound of a "happy" engine is largely related to the individual boat's peculiar harmonics/vibrations. For instance, my JD4045 sounds/feels happier at 1100 RPM ("no-wake" speed) rather than minimal idle of 750 because there is less vibration because the engine runs smoother. "Happy" cruise is up to 1800 (1.7 GPH) as the engine runs smooth operating at 45 percent capacity. There is minor vibration of the propeller shaft between 1900 and 2100 RPM so I avoid that. Wide-open is at 2400 (100 percent, 4 GPH) with minimal speed gain compared to a "high cruise" at 2200 (attaining hull speed at 75 percent load, 3 GPH), but 2200 approaches double the fuel consumption for a one-knot increase and increased engine noise.
OP
OP
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
>The relevant information is that the engine is running cooler and consuming the same or lower fuel per knot of speed.<
Cooler running is by definition less efficient , the engine converts fuel to HEAT and heat is what spins the prop.
>The "feeling happier" comment in my case is derived from pretty intimate awareness of the sound of the engine before de-tuning the prop and the sound after de-tuning. The "feeling happier" comment in my case is derived from pretty intimate awareness of the sound of the engine before de-tuning the prop and the sound after de-tuning.<
Just as your car sounds like it is working hard going up a hill and sounds happier with less load on the way down.
The fuel consumption for a few hundred RPM change will probably be hard to find a few % is usually within the error rate of many flowscans.
A few hundred hours may tell,
Remember what is called overproping is not in any way overloading ,
it simply matches the engine power curve and efficiency to the vessels actual needs .
Cooler running is by definition less efficient , the engine converts fuel to HEAT and heat is what spins the prop.
>The "feeling happier" comment in my case is derived from pretty intimate awareness of the sound of the engine before de-tuning the prop and the sound after de-tuning. The "feeling happier" comment in my case is derived from pretty intimate awareness of the sound of the engine before de-tuning the prop and the sound after de-tuning.<
Just as your car sounds like it is working hard going up a hill and sounds happier with less load on the way down.
The fuel consumption for a few hundred RPM change will probably be hard to find a few % is usually within the error rate of many flowscans.
A few hundred hours may tell,
Remember what is called overproping is not in any way overloading ,
it simply matches the engine power curve and efficiency to the vessels actual needs .
SCOTTEDAVIS
Guru
Over propping is simply the installation of a fixed pitch prop that will not let the engine achieve the manufactures rated max RPM range on that specific platform.
My wife like most woman is very perceptive, if your wife has a "feeling" perhaps she should be in as an adviser. Men tend to be.... how do I say this .... hardheaded and stubborn as to their beliefs.
I can dig up evidence to support most any belief, the reliability or accuracy is always what needs to be questioned.
I can only offer the "facts" as to how they effect me but I am not a fan of gross over propping weather in an aircraft or a boat.
Large slow turning non-turbo diesels are going to be fine with a small amount over propping when not run on the pins for long periods of time, this is my educated opinion. Turbos will get into high EGT's in this condition as any truck driver can tell you.
We all can hear that an engine at idle is noisier at higher rPM.
I think intake air noise will be more at higher RPM. Pumps and alternators turning faster and trannys too should be a bit noisier.
Not sure about exhaust because while pops are faster they have less force I suspect.
But we are usually not talking about doubling RPM just a 10 or 20 % change. So the noise should change little as well.
I think intake air noise will be more at higher RPM. Pumps and alternators turning faster and trannys too should be a bit noisier.
Not sure about exhaust because while pops are faster they have less force I suspect.
But we are usually not talking about doubling RPM just a 10 or 20 % change. So the noise should change little as well.
Last edited:
OP
OP
FF
Guru
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2007
- Messages
- 22,552
Detroit is now building their large truck engines to be run at about 1000 RPM in cruise.
When these find their way into large boats , the lack of engine noise will become remarkable!!
Just dont go out in a lightning storm.
When these find their way into large boats , the lack of engine noise will become remarkable!!
Just dont go out in a lightning storm.
Nomad Willy
Guru
FF what ever you're talking about I'd like to know but I suspect it's some monster engine the size of my house
Pics and specs please sir.
Pics and specs please sir.
