Efficiencies for Surface drives.

[gonzo]

If you are looking at a whole package, talk to Sonny Miller at WWW. CAL500.COM He manufactures the drives, and will calculate propeller, HP, etc. Where in the UK are you? We will be in the UK for the team meeting of the Cowes-MonteCarlo race in mid March.

 

[fpjeepy05]

I guess what I was getting at is in a conventional inboard straight shaft an overloaded boat just goes slower. And an over loaded SP boat can critically over load an engine, but if one can adjust immersion (as in Arneson) then load on the engine can also be controlled as to not cause damage, and prop efficiency can be relatively constant (as shown by Ferrando)
Right?

 

[gonzo]

Not at all. The dynamic behaviour of the boat and different loads has to be calculated to the design the propeller. Off the shelf components bolted together will give mediocre performance at best. At worst, they will produce an unsafe to operate vessel.

 

[fpjeepy05]

Never suggested "off the shelf components bolted together" or an improperly designed prop.
So you are saying that if a boat is overloaded and the prop immersion is reduced the engine will still be overloaded? Or the boat will not go as fast? Because if I were to add significant weight to anyone's boat, I doubt they would be surprised if the boat went slower.

 

[gonzo]

If the boat is overloaded there are several scenarios. It can be trimmed down by the bow, in which case the propeller will be at the right level, but the boat will oversteer and broach. It can be down on her lines but level. Then, if you trim up the drive, the thrust will not go through the CG and the boat will porpoise. There is a different change if the propeller goes in and out of the water than if it is completely submerged all the time like in a straight inboard. The type and diameter of a propeller are more critical in the surface drive.

 

[fpjeepy05]

Attitude and prop immersion do not have to be mutually exclusive. Things that can be used to change attitude include CG changes, trim tabs, and rocker plates. Also changing prop immersion does not mean that you have to change thrust angle; an example of such would be the SCS drive (Sage #8).

 

[mydauphin]

I love those Cal500 drives; interesting the rudder in front of props, I guess that is ok on a race boat. How would it work at lower speeds?

 

[gonzo]

I agree that a boat with more load and same power will go slower. However, the whole behavior can also change, depending on the design characteristics.

 

[jmiele3]

Well, I tend to agree with Gonzo and Fpjeepy... Higher load at same power will reduce the speed. Changes in drive trim, use of trim tabs, or ballast can compensate to a great extent, depending on the hull design. When we are designing a system for a vessel, the most common problem in addition to heavier weight is the shifting of the LCG. We tend to try and design the propeller for a slip of between 6% and 11%, the higher number at full load. This is definitely where trim tabs and trimmable drives become more important. Effectively, the main advantage to a surface drive is providing the lift necessary to achieve plane. A heavier vessel becomes more difficult to get over the "hump"... However, though there will be some reduction in speed, the impact is minimized at higher speeds.

One other factor to consider... Vessel efficiency deteriorates over time, particularly regarding maintenance or lack thereof. Very seldom is a propulsion package as efficient 4 years later as it was on the day of commissioning.

I hope this helps answer your question... I won't compare to what others do, but I can tell you that on virtually every project, we are providing calculations on different sea states, and vessel loads so that customers can accurately determine the actual performance and efficiency of the drives under different conditions.

 

[sandhammaren05]

There seems to be a dark art in the finding of the efficiencies of surface drives. Does anyone have advice or actual figures on the efficiencies of a lets say ASD 10 unit. All the factory will do is size them , I would like to know what percentage of engine power gets through to the prop. I know i need 530 KW to reach my topspeed for a given hull resistance. This is effective power , the installed power needs to overcome the gearbox, shaft losses and equal the the effective power. Therefore the effective power gets divided by the efficiencies to give me a KW rating that i need to find in the engines. I hope that is clear enough. Many thanks Matt

I've recently checked the sparse data on efficiencies published by Hadler and Heckler and question if maybe there's more to the story. I have not found other data on partially-submerged efficiencies, thrust and torque coefficients in the public domain. Anyone out there know of a source-?

 

[PetterM]

here is a couple on more commercial style SPP's:

http://www.icmrt07.unina.it/Proceedings/Papers/c/44.pdf

http://www.rolla-propellers.ch/Roll...lers-Methodical_series_model_test_results.pdf

 

[sandhammaren05]

here is a couple on more commercial style SPP's:

http://www.icmrt07.unina.it/Proceedings/Papers/c/44.pdf

http://www.rolla-propellers.ch/Roll...lers-Methodical_series_model_test_results.pdf

Thanks! I can compare the info with known case where I know the data. I tried to arrange a visit with Phil Rolla, no luck. One email response and then dead. I think he's more into art now.
Joe

 

[sandhammaren05]

here is a couple on more commercial style SPP's:

http://www.icmrt07.unina.it/Proceedings/Papers/c/44.pdf

http://www.rolla-propellers.ch/Roll...lers-Methodical_series_model_test_results.pdf

Hi Petter, I've checked the Genoa results against known cases and they're so far out in left field as to be useless. I think I know why. The Rolla data are apparently useless or I need help: I cannot extract thrust coefficients as a function of advance ratio from what's presented. I need that in order to test the data against reality. Another thing is that in both the Genoa and Rolla cases the results are presented for negative trim. I don't understand why that would be of interest. I am at least able to make some sense of the Hadler-Heckler data in one application, I cannot even get into the ballpark with the Genoa data. Joe

 

[sandhammaren05]

There are a number of litterature references in another thread under this main title. Look for papers by M.Ferrando and A. Scamardella, something like "Performance of a family of SP propellers....".

PERFORMANCE OF A FAMILY OF SURFACE PIERCING PROPELL
ERS by Ferrando, Crotti, Viviani. I have tested that data against known numbers from two tunnel boat racing classes. The data are so far wrong as to be useless. In one case over 2x the required shp is predicted; in the other the efficiency is negative in the range where the F! boat runs. The data on the web from Rolla are also, so far as I can see, useless for testing against known results. There seems to be no data available publicly since the Hadler-Heckler paper, which makes at least some sense for one of two racing classes where it can be compared. Joe

 

[baeckmo]

Hi Joe, I'm a bit surprised that there is such a discrepancy between your observations and the figures in those two reports. Could you give an example from your scene so that we can find out where the problem lies?

One side, where I would take a deep look is the dissolved air content in the various waters, since the bubble expansion (when microbubbles come out of solution) before the final expansion, is not linear with size or speed. This means that there is an "incubation period" that will vary with speed.

This is seen in cavitation in closed systems, where a velocity increase (say doubling the rpms of a pump) will not result in the expected loss of cavitation performance in terms of the NPSH required.