Hi Jusak, there are some contradictions in the numbers you quote. I take it that the engine is a QSC 8.3 with setting 500 hp @ 2600 rpm. In the runs with 18 t displacement you clearly operated below the cavitation limit (see attached diagram). Yet the full power rpms were lower than the nominal (2600 rpm), in spite of a gearing that would let the engine run on the regulator limit, particularly when cavitating.
With the present ratio (53/43), the jet will absorb about 370 hp @ 2400 rpm, 420 hp @ 2500 rpm and 460 hp @ 2600 rpm. The engine is running “light” with this gear ratio and should have overspeeded to slightly above 2700 rpm both in the first runs and the later with 16,5 t displacement. We must get clarity on this before looking into anything else. Since the pump power varies with rpm^3, it is very important that the tacho readings are correct. I suggest you start with the following:
• Check tacho calibration carefully. Perform readings without parallax faults.
• Check that the throttle lever can reach full travel.
• Check engine inlet pressure after intercooler (connection and value: see engine manual).
• Check exhaust temperature (connection and value: see manual).
• Check fuel flow (this engine is electronically controlled; connect scanning computer).
• Check speed at 2200 rpm, 2300, 2400, 2500 and max (2600?); two way runs.
The Qsc engine has a completely flat power curve on top, and I would have selected the gearing 52/44 instead. It would have been better for the engine (lower rpms, no risk for overspeeding, better fuel economy). But this is not the basic problem.
With the uncertainties regarding test values in this case, there are three possible scenarios:
A. The engine is producing full power (368 kW). I use a regression analysis (ref. see below) to find resistance in this speed range. Your operating readings (13 kn/18t; 23,5 kn/16,5t) combined with the available thrust are used to adjust the regression constants. You find the resulting drag curves in black on the attached thrust diagram. The propulsive efficiency is 44%, and the thrust is 2*13600 N.
Note that the drag and thrust curves are very close from 16 kn and upwards. Any minor increase in drag (weight increase, sea-state et c.) will cause a dramatic speed loss. If this is the case at hand, you would need about 2*600 hp to reach 28 kn with 16,5 ton.
B. The engine is lacking power (not completely run-in, hot fuel, low-energy fuel, slightly low regulator setting et c). In this case we might have a maximum power of ~440 hp (323 kW), which is shown in red in the diagram. Now it would be possible to reach about 27-28 knot with 2*500 hp.
C. The pump is not performing according to specification. I have seen Castoldi impellers with bad castings resulting in bad blade shape. In the end, the thrust was reduced due to increased cavitation.
The truth probably lies somewhere in between. When you have performed the checks in my list, we have better basis to judge from, but the main issue; the weight, still remains.
When trouble-shooting you have to be systematic and meticulously careful with details. In this case, we first check the Engine performance, then the jet performance before we focus on the hull. The golden rules for troubleshooters are:
** All calculations are wrong!
** All measurements are wrong!
** All Components are faulty!
** Everybody involved is lying, either trying to hide a mistake or because they do not understand the importance of their observations!
Ref: “Resistance Prediction for Hard Chine Hulls in the Pre-Planing Regime”, by Radojcic, Zgradic, Kalajdzic and Simic; Polish Maritime Research 2(82) 2014 Vol 21, pp 9-26.