On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 00:22:29 -0000, "Phil Rushton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think I would have described the prop as an egg whisk! >Brian, that skeg looks very substantial and best left untouched. Someone >must have been badly advised when they lowered the stern tube!! >If you are fitting a new (and bigger) engine I am sure it wouldn't cost too >much to raise the height of the stern tube so you can get the benefit of >swinging a much bigger prop - think of all the fuel you will save and the >extra thrust!! Thanks, Phil. I really don't know why the previous owner did it! I mean, I can see that a 48" prop might have been a bit of a nuisance, but coming all the way down to a 20", and ensuring that a larger prop couldn't be fitted, and undertaking a lot of work in the process ... it just doesn't make sense! There are logistical difficulties in the way of getting the stern tube raised, and that;'s been putting me off, but maybe I'd just better grit my teeth and get it done! bjg
