Take the swim platform off, then there's no more of this in and out off the back of the boat stuff to worry about.

EXACTLY! I have the WORST luck of anyone I've ever met lol if I haven't died yet, everyone else should be fineeeeee lol

Yes you see now 👍

Where's that measurement at Philly?
I'm waiting Tic Toc

genius.


maybe I will start just grappling my way up the side of the boat or the nose when I am in the ocean taking a swim, I mean it seems completely easy to do.....never even knew why I ever used the swim platform and the back of the boat to begin with.

In my younger years I could pull myself out of the water over the side of the boat. Now the only way I'm getting out of the water without a platform or ladder is if I install one of those handicapped car lifts you see in the public pools.
I researched the Slingshots before my purchase and never came across the hull issues that have been discussed. The boat ran great and was a blast to drive.
I can't speak for all the Slingshot hulls but if Vance hasn't had an issue I think the '03 models are safe.
That boat spends more time out of the water than in! And I don't mean on the trailer.

Agreed... The boat needs to be all around usable boat. I can easily control the throttle when the kids are running with us but taking ASD's on and off not so much :angry-smiley-038:

I get it... some tail is cool to have. Had some of that on my last boat :D

https://youtu.be/vdxf692yaQY

"Daddy why can't we go on the boat???" Because dear, I was too worried about you getting hurt on real drives and props so I opted for these made of safety glass. And they broke

No swimming in that scenario either! Lol

Probably no worse than a C.C. with fours egg beaters.

Phil is our safety barometer. Oh god

Bravos blow. We all get it. The only other reason I would say a normal drive might be safer other than a cavitation plate is with normal drive anyone near the drive can gauge how close they are to the prop. With ASD's only being shafts there is no height and nothing protruding from the water. Almost like an anchor. nothing to really gauge where the prop is...I guess the solution is to raise it above the water.

got to have priorities

I don't know if you realized I've made the prop guards for these since like 2003 and this eliminates this exact issue and covers far more of the propeller than a cav plate on a Bravo does.

bingo!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]562471[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]562472[/ATTACH]
It's a big difference, seems much more than 4". And height as well. Again, just me I guess...

I picked up on that earlier in the thread. Still doesn't address the fact that arnesons are essentially buried in the water like an anchor. At least with bravos the top cap is exposed at all times even when not trimmed up. This at least offers some guidance as to where the prop is...with the arneson it might as well be a rock on the bottom of the ocean.

Not even sure why people are arguing the fact that the risk level is higher with a fully submerged prop that hangs further off the back of the boat. let's argue for the sake of arguing.

You could get one of these add on platforms. You could then run any drives you wanted without losing an eye and be able to pitch a tent on the back. Win, win

Too be fair you should have had the pictures at the same angle or straight down transom

Google images.... I tried

[ATTACH=CONFIG]562476[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]562477[/ATTACH]

Not a bad idea bck

What if you get an Arneson boat and have Ric make you some prop shaft adapters to Bravo props?? Holy $HIT I just solved this whole thread!!

NEXT!!!!!

Nice try, but Rik beat you to it way back on page 3. Plus we would've lost 3 great pages if that was the answer.

That's my line.. Ok thanks
On that note I found you a Christmas present.. Just a bit of helicopter time (they're heated) dangling it in the water like a fishing lure and you're all set. Flip the switch... go ahead. (was built in Chicago actually)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]562478[/ATTACH]


NEXT!!!!!

Well how about at least getting a picture of a Bravo on a standoff box to be more comparable at least. Your photo is of the drive mounted to the transom not on a box.. There is a difference there, the length of the standoff box...

I don't really understand the statement "buried in the water" as even off plane the drives are nearly at the surface. If, for argument sake, one would like the propeller guards can be painted a bright color to draw attention to them. Granted in muddy water they would not be visible, but the same can be said for a Bravo in muddy water.

Actually makes the swim platform halfway usable also.

Yeah I didn't get that argument either. Those surface drives are "buried in the water" and not visible...kind of an oxymoron..?

I think if you found the right boat with arnesons, adding a couple of the aforementioned prop guards and the swim platform in the above pictures makes it 100% usable and safe, probably more so than Bravos at that point...

Not sure what's so confusing. An ASD prop sits much further back on the boat, yes. The prop is fully submerged when anchored,yes. For an unsuspecting swimmer there is no sign something is underwater. Much like stepping on an anchor (that's my metaphor). As stated earlier at least with a bravo you can always see the top cap offering a slight indication that something might be underwater. I could even argue that the ASD is a tripping hazard to someone that doesn't know any better.

Granted the drive can be trimmed to the moon, that might solve that issue...

If you can see the top cap of a Bravo off plane (which I doubt you can on a 388), then you can certainly see the transom assembly (probably 6"+ higher than the top cap) which means you would definitely see the top of the extension box of the ASD sticking out of the water. I get what you're saying about sticking back further from the transom than someone might expect, but the argument that they're more submerged or hidden doesn't make any sense when they're actually significantly closer to the surface than a Bravo...

what a dumb discussion all boats have props sticking out back and need care when swimming

No one is saying they sit deeper. Anything that is submerged might as well be invisible. If it's invisible and it sits back further there is higher risk of being hit. That's my simple reasoning. I'm done beating a dead horse

If anyone feels unsafe swimming around their arnesons I would be more than happy to trade them for my bravos!

I have read previously on OSO some 38' Hustler's are a handful to drive from the upper 80's to 105 mph, was it the boat? Or is it the driver? The Hustler's that raced F-2 (500 carb motors) back in the day looked pretty dam good to me, but that was an 82 mph 85 mph boat, mostly. I have am neutral, I like the 388, I think with the Arneson drives it would be a great boat to own for a hot-rodder, I read earlier posts regarding children and sharp propellers. In my college days my fraternity brother cut the top of his foot severely on the propeller on my Volvo 280 outdrive attached to my 18' Donzi, sh*t happens.

Back to handling aspect of the hull, I had read where Black Cloud ran close to 140 mph, how did that boat handle at 110 mph, 120 mph, 130 mph, 140 mph, the same ? Or did it handle differently depending at different speed ranges ? Meaning is there an area between 90 mph to 100 mph that is a problem in regards to handling but after 100 mph all is good?

Teach me...

And what is a thread without pictures, so here ya go.

Would you rather talk about cams and lob..... becouse we can that hasn't been talked about in a while.

:lolhit:

I looking for info like this as well... which started the thread. I also have heard of some handling issues. Some say above 85. Some say 95. Some over 100. Maybe depends on the year and rigging? I talked to a guy that just sold his trip 500 388. He said 105ish and not a single handling issue. Maybe props as well. I've heard on bravo boats the p5x spinning out are the ticket at factory height. And some say extension boxes are no help. Basically it's hard to make heads or tails of th info and thought the owners could chime in with their experiences

Yes there is a thread discussing handling problems as speeds approach 100 and what was done about it. Don't quote me on it but If I recall correctly it was designed to be a 85 mph hull and needed some mods to work properly at higher speeds. The changes made to the bottom to make it more stable at higher speeds compromised the stringers so the factory made some changes and everyone lived happily ever after (except the people that bought the early ones and wanted to do 100 I guess).

Black cloud is local to me and the bottom was reworked by the factory to make it stable at speeds above 100mph you can say all the bad things about the arnesons all you want but ,with me before the arnesons i was good for two busted gear sets a year since i added the kits all i add now is gas and oil

You Hustler guys should be on top of this. Rims, strake changes, shiny parts.

This thread is like Tims threads, we`re getting nowhere!
:D