Same here - I can't imagine a reason why a #6, as hydrodynamically efficient as they are, could be faster...

-#6 is still dragging the skeg AND the bottom half of the gear housing bullet (fairly large in diameter due to the lower gear).
-Arneson's are dragging the skeg and ONLY the bottom half of the prop shaft housing with NO gear, just a small diameter tube with bearings inside.

Should be less drag, period.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bufTna0WArc

Steerable....trimable propellor.

I'm not an engineer. When I think of Mercury Racing's drive under power being trimmed, I see the entire propshaft (front to back) being trimmed. When I think of the Arneson I see the front of the propshaft attached to a fixed point and the rear of the propshaft being trimmed. And there is my non professional look at that.

Hell, who says it's even true? Just one guys spreads this and it's gospel. But maybe I'm just being a penis Erectus though?

Look at the schematics and technically it is the entire propshaft trimmed. Ride in an Arneson boat compared to exact same boat w bravo style drive and you'd be sold. Boat is a 100x better w arnesons

Has anyone ever got one to work on a single?

Post the schematics of both drives, I would enjoy viewing the full range of motion from an engineering standpoint.
Thanks

800 hours now on my triple Arneson ASD 8's and still going strong. The setup works well on my 50 Nor Tech Vee. Only thing I have done is change the bellows a couple years ago as part of preventative maintenance.

Bob

Post a picture

Can't remember any other triple engine "bravo" boats making runs to the Virgin Islands or Cuba or Mexico on their own bottoms either!