My next boat: Y2k!
12-24-2005 | 09:10 PM
#902
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 3
Re: My next boat: Y2k!
Hit the slopes and man... was it windy! 80+ mph wind gusts up in the Rockies. You could literally be pushed up hill at times. Once I got some speed down hill it wasn't to bad. A good day after all. Seventeen hour drive later, I'm back in California. I have to say Denver is not bad for winters. Temp went up to 61 deg at one point. If they only had a lake big enough for a real boat. 
01-20-2006 | 01:44 AM
#909
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 3
Re: My next boat: Y2k!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Posted by BBLADES,
I was with Mercury Racing during the development of the Maximus propeller.
Our original geometry we suggested was to have the prop built at 15.25" diameter. During the final stages of development, the main plant propeller Co. adjusted the print. The resulting propeller became 15 5/8".
This was not necssarily a bad thing because the additional diameter would work on some applications. But only SOME. Why do you think Mercury offers 3 different diameters in the Lab versions. They do this because additional diameter lifts the stern too much and can't be spun by alot of Bravo, BMax, IMCO drive boats due to seaking the surface. Sure it can be spun high and vented, but will this carry your bow? Maybe.
We also made the prop with a high degree of rake. The reason was because 5 blade propellers are notorious for stern lift, not bow lift. We needed to assist it holding the stern in place. Again, with the right application the Maximus kicks butt.
zt260, Oh yeah do Checkmates need bow lift! We typically wouldn't suggest a Maximus for your application.
[QUOTE]
After reading this posted above by BBLADES awhile back, and several other similar comments. I see a smaller diameter and less blades is better for less stern lift. So, if the drive is deep enough for a smaller diameter prop, say 14.5., you would have less stern lift and more forward propulsion.
Maybe that's why a 3 blade is faster than most four blades if the boat will handle ok with less blade surface area. First you will have to get the drive deep so it doesn't slip excessively when trimed up.
[Posted by BBLADES,
I was with Mercury Racing during the development of the Maximus propeller.
Our original geometry we suggested was to have the prop built at 15.25" diameter. During the final stages of development, the main plant propeller Co. adjusted the print. The resulting propeller became 15 5/8".
This was not necssarily a bad thing because the additional diameter would work on some applications. But only SOME. Why do you think Mercury offers 3 different diameters in the Lab versions. They do this because additional diameter lifts the stern too much and can't be spun by alot of Bravo, BMax, IMCO drive boats due to seaking the surface. Sure it can be spun high and vented, but will this carry your bow? Maybe.
We also made the prop with a high degree of rake. The reason was because 5 blade propellers are notorious for stern lift, not bow lift. We needed to assist it holding the stern in place. Again, with the right application the Maximus kicks butt.
zt260, Oh yeah do Checkmates need bow lift! We typically wouldn't suggest a Maximus for your application.
[QUOTE]
After reading this posted above by BBLADES awhile back, and several other similar comments. I see a smaller diameter and less blades is better for less stern lift. So, if the drive is deep enough for a smaller diameter prop, say 14.5., you would have less stern lift and more forward propulsion.
Maybe that's why a 3 blade is faster than most four blades if the boat will handle ok with less blade surface area. First you will have to get the drive deep so it doesn't slip excessively when trimed up.
