On the subject of weight aft due to an outboard: I happen to be beta-testing
a truly repulsive (perhaps un-propulsive) concept: putting an outboard on
the transom while still carryng the Atomic 4 in its berth. Actually, I plan
to pull the A-4 this spring.
My season with a Nissan 9.9 made me happy enough, and a main source of that
happiness was a good bracket from Cat Direct. My only quibble was that you
didn¹t get much help in figuring how high to mount it, but I think I did
okay. The weight puts the aft end of the boat about half to three-quarters
of an inch lower than normal. I believe this will be totally fixed when I
pull the A-4.
The motor weighs about 94 pounds and I also put a starting battery in the
stern lazarette for it.
I had a C-25 with an outboard and the bracket made me miserable because it
was hard to get up and down, and it wobbled when sailing, making me worry
that it would fatigue and fall off. The bracket I have now is strong,
all-stainless, and gives great confidence. The issue of a weight element aft
is mildly interesting to the intellect, but in practical terms I don¹t feel
it makes a terrible difference. Also, by merely sending crew forward, you
can trim it all out just fine. Most C-27s are squatting when you have
several grown men in the cockpit, as you can readily see by going alongside.
--Dave S.
On 2/6/08 3:20 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about on an outboard where you could pull it out of the water while
> sailing? My biggest concern would be the added weight so far aft.
>
> In a message dated 2/6/2008 2:46:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a certain unavoidable dichotomy about this. I cannot see how a
>> racing sailor would want it, but a cruising sailor would probably really
>> like it (depending on his waters). We grow a lot of marine flora and fauna
>> here in Connecticut, and I wouldn't want it, whether racing or cruising. But
>> wherever it could be kept clean, it would make a serious difference in
>> thrust, at a cost in drag (especially under sail).
>>
>> Similarly, there is an even simpler device said to give certain beneficial
>> effects to an outboard. Back around 1987, I was editor of Powerboat Reports
>> and we decided to test a device called the Dol-fin. I don't know whether it
>> is still available. Essentially, it is like adding stylish wingtips to your
>> anti-cavitation plate. There were various claims of fuel efficiency, speed
>> and control, I believe. As I recall (20 years ago now) there was no
>> appreciable difference in any parameter when we tested it in real-life
>> conditions. You were trading off some well-understood aerodynamic (er,
>> hydrodynamic) benefits versus wetted surface (wetted surface always means
>> drag).
>>
>> --Dave S.
>>
>>
>> On 2/6/08 1:56 PM, "tim ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> > Not to be unkind, but....ummm....
>>> >
>>> > man, how many ways does that thing say, " S L O O O O O O O O W."
>>> >
>>> > whatever maneuverability it provides, I hope it compensates for the
>>> > piggy-factor.
>>> > nothing like doubling your wetted surface, skin friction, turbulence
>>> > and....shudder...drag.
>>> >
>>> > Is it a recreational vessel or does it have some sort of limited
>>> > maneuverability function
>>> > in the commercial vane?
>>> >
>>> > Cutter as in "cutter rig" or cutter as in..."small, armed vessel?"
>>> >
>>> > --tf
>>> > not trying to be mean about the thing
>>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
> <http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000
> 02548>
>
