outboard prop slip measurement on a 1990 Macgregor 26S

Joe

.
Jun 1, 2004
8,007
Catalina 27 Mission Bay, San Diego
This boat has a water line of 23.5 feet. The equation for theoretical hull speed (knots = 1.34*(LWL)**.5 says this boat has a theoretical hull speed of 6.495 knots.
Check you calculator.. the formula is: square root of (1.34 x LWL) or 23.5 x 1.34 =31.49 .... sq root of 31.49 is 5.61kts 5.61kts x 1.15 = 6.45mph.

Did I violate the laws of physics...
I'm not suggesting any such thing..... I'm just marveling at your casual use of the term "displacement hull" as it applies to your experiment...

I dont think this is even remotely true unless you have a damaged prop. Can you provide some more background on this (I would much prefer some reference link). If you make up the answer, fine also, just let us know.
It looks like cavitation because I can see air bubbles, I don't think it's ventilation(where air is entering the forward side, rather than "boiling" off the back side when cavitating). In any event, the prop appears undamaged.. so I surmise that the prop is unable to overcome the increasing resistance of the hull's displacement and its slippage increases to the point that the boat will slow down.

FYI, any hull has a drag vs speed curve and the wave making causes the drag curve to become steep in the range of the theoretical hull speed calculated number.
Actually, this is exactly my point..... if you simply say you are testing two props for your mac26s to determine which is most efficient.... that would make sense. Just leave any reference to "displacement" hull out of the discussion.
 

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
regarding the equation, I got the one I used from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed

Hull speed can be calculated by the following formula:



where:
I think my number is correct according to the Wikipedia reference. Maybe Wikipedia is off? Can you give the reference for the equation you used?

Check you calculator.. the formula is: square root of (1.34 x LWL) or 23.5 x 1.34 =31.49 .... sq root of 31.49 is 5.61kts 5.61kts x 1.15 = 6.45mph.
 

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
FYI, my outboard has through the hub exhaust so I see bubble at almost all speeds - its the exhaust.
I swapped the props back to what I originally had (3 blade 8 pitch) today. Before I took that high thrust prop off, I took this picture and you can see light coming in from the back side. This allows the exhaust to exit out the back end in reverse.
aprop1.JPG
 
Dec 2, 2003
752
Hunter 260 winnipeg, Manitoba
Looks like the error is in the math order of operations - square root of (1.34xlwl) vs 1.34x (square root of lwl). Gives two very different answers! All references I have checked indicate the second formula for hull speed.
 
Last edited:

Joe

.
Jun 1, 2004
8,007
Catalina 27 Mission Bay, San Diego
I think my number is correct according to the Wikipedia reference. Maybe Wikipedia is off? Can you give the reference for the equation you used?
My bad, Walt...... your formula is correct....sorry.... but in all honesty I wasn't trying to make this a theo. hull speed issue..... so I apologize if it seemed I was. My comments were an attempt to get you to remove the "displacement hull" moniker from your testing program.. you have a very specific set of test results that can only apply to your particular boat. You are only testing two specific props... in essence you are simply comparing one prop with another on one particular hull.... so it makes no difference whether it is a full displacement, semi-displacement or planing hull. That's it... sorry to be such a pest.
 

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
No problem in the slightest and your input here is valuable.. I am making up some stuff here so could be wrong and other opinions are good to add.

Regarding the use of the term "displacement hull" for the 1990 Macgregor 26S (this is the old style Mac - before the power sailboats), I didnt look up the exact definition of displacement hull but I put a close to 10 hp outboard at 450 ft elevation wide open throttle and achieved a speed 3% higher than the theoretical hull speed number from the equation. I believe that puts it right in the ballpark of operating where the wave making causes a the curve of speed vs drag to get steep. I thought that would be called operating in displacement mode.. could be wrong. Noted that all this data is specifically for a 1990 Mac 26S and not necessarily for any displacement hull

Another point was brought up that Ive heard elsewhere on the internet. With a prop, you can have a condition of ventilation or cavitation that will limit the thrust. Ventilation is air getting sucked down from the surface and I can get this to occur by doing a very sharp turn in choppy conditions with the outboard on the high side of the boat during the turn - prop gets near the water surface. When the prop ventilates, there is a very ABRUPT loss of thrust and with the loss of thrust comes an increase in RPM - since the torque on the prop just dropped way off. Ventilation was absolutely not occurring for the data I took. You can also see this in the data, there are no abrupt changes in rpm for any data points.

So another question is "do these under 10 hp outboard props cavitate". I have convinced myself that neither of the two props I tested in this thread have any issue at all with cavitation. Cavitation occurs where you are really stressing pressure boundaries and it seems to me that for our small under 10 hp outboards, we are just not operating with enough HP for this to occur..

Also, it seems to me that the onset of cavitation would result in a loss of blade lift and a resulting loss of torque to the motor. So at the onset of cavitation, you would feel a loss of speed (or no more speed) and also a "non linear" change (increase) in prop rpm.

I took the Mac 26S out yesterday and ran the outboard a bunch (also sailed a bunch) trying to note any indication of something resembling cavitation. This is with the three blade 8 pitch prop and I just don't think there is any cavitation going on that I can either see or feel. Also please take a look at the data and curves early in this thread. The speed vs rpm curves are smooth. I think cavitatation would have caused an obvious discontinuity in the curves - but there isn't any.

Yesterday I took some pictures of the prop wash (and thanks again for making it so nice to post pictures here!!) These pictures are for the three blade 8 pitch prop but the four blade 5 pitch prop looked and felt similar (just with a lot more noise and vibration on the boat for the same speed).

The picture below is the prop wash at about 3.5 mph (3 knots). You can see the thrust exiting the back of the prop but you can also see a bubble stream from the through the hub exhaust.
propslow.JPG


The picture below is at wide open throttle doing mid 7's mph range and up againts the hull speed limit curve. You can see more output - since its higher rpm/ thrust and also see the bubbles - which once again I think are just the through the hub exhaust.
propfast.JPG
 
Last edited:

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
FYI, I edited the title to say Mac 26S..
Another picture from yesterday..
sail5.JPG
 
Last edited:

Joe

.
Jun 1, 2004
8,007
Catalina 27 Mission Bay, San Diego
That's pretty cool..... I'm convinced that the "cavitation" I experienced is brought on by extreme slipping.... what else could it be... the pitch is too great for higher rpm's.... it can't overcome the increasing resistance to higher speed without planing. Some have suggested going with a higher thrust (smaller pitch) prop to maintain power at that stage.

I plan to order a high thrust prop.... and make a similar test as yours... although it will be less technical in nature.

I can test in the bay.... and the ocean... so it might be interesting to compare data for different conditions... we also have interesting, measureable tidal currents in the Mission Bay entrance channel. I would also make a fuel consumption comparison.

The goal is to determine which prop will offer the greatest range of performance and efficiency.
 
May 4, 2005
4,062
Macgregor 26d Ft Lauderdale, Fl
I would think the 4 blade would have better bite, more maneuverability. since its has lower pitch.
fwiw, on planing boats I watch for pitting on the back of the blades, as indicator for
captivation.
https://www.boattest.com/view-news/3643_does-your-prop-have-secret-cavitation

I'm not sure I put enough hours on my engine to show a problem.

Wow, Walt, that is awesome! not too much wind at dusk?
 
Last edited:

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
If you perceive you have a problem with a prop and need to go so something else (like high thrust), I would suggest to first take some measurements with your old prop ..
1. Peak speed at wide open throttle (Joe mentioned different conditions - also interesting). You would have to be careful about duplicating conditions for each test and the only condition easy to duplicate is no wind, no current, no waves.
2. start at zero speed, measure the time it takes to get to some speed close to the peak
3. Bite? I dont even know what this is or how it applies to a sailboat.. how do you measure it (same as #2?)
4. Get going some speed in forward (maybe 3 knots) and time how long it takes you to come to a stop in reverse
5. Joe mentioned fuel consumption - also good. This test will take a while to be accurate and hope if you report the data, you take the time to be accurate

With the new prop, do the same measurements under the same exact conditions. Then you can actually see if you solved your perceived problem.

For my case, the three blade 8 pitch and the four blade 5 pitch both take about 9 or 10 seconds to take the Mac 26S from 0 to 6 knots. If you want to call this "hole shot", I could not tell much difference. I started to do #4 (reverse test) but that four blade prop is so much better in reverse that it started to damage my outboard reverse hold down mechanism so I stopped that test. No doubt at all that the four blade prop with the symmetrical blades and large hub is WAY better in reverse. The three blade 8 pitch prop had a higher peak speed which probably doesn't matter unless you did a real bad job of timing tides and get stuck in some bad current and even then the very small percent different in peak speed probably isn't significant. My perceived problem is to keep noise and vibration down and the three blade 8 pitch prop is way better for this - so that is what went back on the boat.

I didnt measure and compare fuel consumption with either prop but I would guess that the three blade 8 pitch is slightly better and the only reason I have is that it just looks like its more efficient in forward - plus operates at about 1K lower RPM.

FYI, I had stopped at that spot for a potty break for the dog after a long downwind sail. I sailed both Jan 1 and Jan 2

.
 
Last edited:

walt

.
Jun 1, 2007
3,511
Macgregor 26S Hobie TI Ridgway Colorado
Another thing you hear on forums.. you need a high thrust prop for current.

I think my actual measured data said this is BS at least for the props I tried (the four blade is "high thrust").. so another topic.

Current is a body of water that is moving with respect to the ground. I think the wave making drag that creates our theoretical hull speed is local to the water around the hull. Ie, the boat speed is limited by theoretical hull speed regardless if the body of water the hull operates in is moving - or not moving. If a hull can achieve 6 knots in not moving water, the same hull would do 3 knots going against 3 knots of current and 9 knots going with 3 knots of current.

Whatever prop gives you the best peak speed with no current will also give you the best peak speed in current.

Acceleration in current important? I got about the same acceleration with either prop.