Classic AquaSport
General Aquasport Forums => Aquasport Discussion => Topic started by: gran398 on October 21, 2013, 10:58:26 PM
-
The 19-1 Gull thread is fresh on our minds. The old photo illustrates a 55 HP Evinrude Triumph.
The 19-6...many were delivered with a 3 cyl. 70 HP OMC. A higher option was an 85 four cylinder.... or the ultimate...a 115 OMC.
The first Aquasport, the 22-2 Flatback. Contracted by the Bahamian government as an inshore patrol boat. Designed to run twin 55 HP Homelites. 110 HP total.
It's replacement, the '73 and beyond 22-2 twelve degree. Still designated for twins, but as a single, ran a 135 Evinrude V-4 as top power option.
Point is, these boats were designed to get up quickly and run well with minimum horsepower...and weight. We've discussed it recently. The power/weight ratios/COG's were the same then as now. The formulas haven't changed, just add the setback for closed transom calculations.
Raymond Hunt wrote the book on modern hull design.
Think we're missing the boat on classic hull design and performance. Captain Matt dropped down in weight/HP with his 22-2 Flatback. Kept close to WOT speed while hauling on average the same customer load daily.
Propped right, same hole shot. But significant fuel savings.
Less may be more.
-
We've discussed it recently. The power/weight ratios/COG's were the same then as now. The formulas haven't changed, just add the setback for closed transom calculations.
I may be off base here, but I believe I may have prompted parts of this post... Although the math may not have changed to calculate LCG and COB (COG's) a lot of us are doing modifications that add and subtract significant weight to the hull that may fall out of the original calculations for the original designed trim for the boat. Some of these may not be catastrophic or specifically dangerous, but result in a bunch of money and time spent to result in a rebuild that is disappointing in performance. Can some conditions be corrected by adding trim tabs, moving stuff around in the boat (ballast), etc? Sure, but why not figure out, reasonable close, what the expected trim and balance condition will be? I don't view this as being any different than any of us pointing out things like shoring and squaring the hull during a rebuild, or pointing out proper lamination schedules...
I think this is a topic that needs to be tackled openly... I am not trying to say that everyone needs to calculate it down to the 16th of an inch (or maybe a foot or so) or create a terror that really isn't there, but an individual going into these massive rebuild projects should be aware of the effects of trimming weight from the hull by using lighter materials, and then adding weights in places they were not imagined to be (ie; motor brackets, 4strokes motors, t-tops/towers, livewells, closed transom, etc.) and the dynamic effects on the boat from all of this. For example I have seen a lot of pictures of rebuilt flatbacks at rest that have a horrible trim, and ones that sit level and pretty. It is not to say that the ones that sit pretty were calculated, maybe some just got lucky, but I really doubt any professional builder is just totally winging it.
Then, the one question still remains, which I have seen asked a few times but never answered. Where is the designed/original LCG ar per the original design. This would be great to have as a reference for future rebuilds.
Not try to start a pissing match, just trying to spark a discussion that ends with some definitive answers.
:salut: :salut: :salut:
-
Amen to that...
-
Kinda like the old Buick GN. The motor was capable (with no mods) of pushing the car to 150+. But the body aerodynamics (or lack thereof) and suspension geometry dictated that the car wold most likely be dangerous at those speeds...so a governor limited the GN to 124 MPH.
So power is one thing. Useable power is another...
-
Exactly. These old flatbacks and twelve degree hulls weren't designed to run 55 mph. The idea was to provide an easy-planning, sweet running hull given the power available at that point in time.
The COG was mentioned since it has been discussed and is applicable. I too wish we had definitive numbers. Am sure they existed, but were lost long ago. Carl, you are on the right track with your estimates. Eugene stated there was a formula available, not sure where he obtained it however.
Couple of examples of how these boats run with what we consider low HP today. Skoot's 90 HP 19-6 easily ran in the mid twenties with 1000 ponds of men, gear, ice, beer, and food. My 22-2 planes and runs on a single 75 HP outboard.
Bottom line, these original designs run fine with moderate HP :thumright:
-
Exactly. These old flatbacks and twelve degree hulls weren't designed to run 55. The idea was to provide an easy-planning, sweet running hull given the power available at that point in time.
The COG was mentioned since it has been discussed and is applicable. I too wish we had definitive numbers. Am sure they existed, but were lost long ago. Carl, you are on the right track with your estimates. Eugene stated there was a formula available, not sure where he obtained it however.
Couple of examples of how these boats run with what we consider low HP today. Skoot's 90 HP 19-6 easily ran in the mid twenties with 1000 ponds of men, gear, ice, beer, and food. My 22-2 planes and runs on a single 75 HP outboard.
Bottom line, these original designs run fine with moderate HP :thumright:
What were your numbers running on one engine? RPM/speed? What was the load? I know what mine ran precisely with (1) 115 so I would like to compare.
-
What were your numbers running on one engine? RPM/speed? What was the load? I know what mine ran precisely with (1) 115 so I would like to compare.
222FFV 140hp. 120 gal fuel, 40 gallon livewell, 3 MEN and 2 150qt coolers full of ice, 4500rpm = 19-21 mph
By myself with 40 gal fuel and 4 gallon livewell with 20lbs ice 4500rpm = 25-27mph
If you were asking...
I still want more power. Just found a 2000 Yamaha 200hp OX66 with 500 hrs that I am about to pull the trigger on.
-
Farley, not sure at present.
My neighbor was with me, we were taking it off the lift to put it on the trailer.
The starboard engine wouldn't idle down. Wouldn't run less than 2200 RPM. Turns out the throttle cable at the helm for that engine had slipped loose from the set screw.
So went back to the lift, and he walked back to the truck to pull it.
Shut the starboard engine down. Then figured.... let's see if this thing will plane on one engine. So tilted the starboard engine up....and threw the pedal to the port engine.
She jumped right up :thumright: If had to guess, maybe she was running 23 mph? But not WOT....maybe 4600?
There was about 55 gallons of gas aboard. I'll get some accurate #'s this weekend and report back.
-
High hp outboards and ping pong ball type scuppers are just a tempary band aid for a poorly thoughtout and incorrectly balanced build
No matter how much research and calculation we do while building until that boat is in the water and rigged there is always a little uncertainty that the floor drains will be above the waterline and she will ride just right. Luckily we have this resource to make the odds more in our favor. Trim tabs will make a stern heavy boat stop porpoising at the expense of burning more fuel but won't fix a bow heavy boat from bow steering. If all your calculations are close to right it takes almost no power to plane a flat bottomed boat.
We all seem to build theses boats into way more than they ever where designed to be. It's amazing to me that the flat back hulls designed almost 50yrs ago are versatile enough that they can support a full transom, towers, heavier motors and all the other crazy things we put on them. This design carries weight well so they equally make great mullet boats, crab boats etc
For the record my 150 four stroke burns more fuel than the 175 pro XS opti I was running. No outboard motor made burns as little fuel as a opti max period. Although it's only a gallon or so more on a 1/2 day trip, by the time I factor in the almost $5K a year in DFI oil I was buying it's pretty much a wash.
Knowing what I know now about the characteristic's of these flat back hulls anything over a 150hp is a waste. The sweet spot for cruising is 28-30mph no matter what size motor you run or how you trim her out.
Capt Matt
-
True words Matt,
Speaking for the 12 degree crowd from the early 70's 22-2's who actually rigged and test ran these boats from 74'-78' working for an AS dealer through high school and with my father owning two 22-2's, one CC and one FF that were new boats;I had a lot of time at the helm and I can share some real knowledge. First the self bailing issue; a brand new 22-2 would self bail at rest with twin 65 Evinrudes so +/- 500#. Two people standing at the transom would get your feet wet at rest. If you notice the details of these hulls, the drains were about 2" below the floor height for a reason. The reason was the so the rigging trough would drain. The bottom of the trough was about a 1/2 inch above the bottom of the scupper drains. So the Walt Walters 22-2 was designed this way at the insistance of having all surface water never entering the bilge. Short of a hull breach, the bilge stayed dry by design. To this day, 40 years later my 73' 22-2 has no bilge pump, with no original access. The only way water can enter the inner hull is through the bow mounted vents or through the exit vent on the port side. The vent system was a CG requirement when in 1972, manufacturers were required to ventilate below deck tanks. 1972 was the first year for 12 degree 22-2 with a below deck fuel tank.
The hull was designed for a single engine. The transom cut out for a 20" engine was 2" below the top of the transom. So for twins at a 26" standard spacing, it forced the rigger to bolt the engines on the lowest bolt hole on the inboard mounting side of the mounting brackets because of the cut out and would not allow for vertical adjustment to compensate for the deadrise change moving outward. Twins on these boats worked well but the optimum engine height was not obtainable. A single 135 on this boat was a pig for carrying a load. Twin 65's worked much better because they produced more static thrust with 6 cylinders (two three cylinder engines combined) instead of 4 for OMC V4. As Matt has suggested, 28-30 mph is a nice crusing speed for these hulls. So my comfortable crusing speed with twin 115's is the same as twin 65's of the day. My boat can be a chore to drive at 47mph with the 2X 115's and is not worth the fuel expense in the overall range. Not to say that trimming them out at WOT isn't a nice sound (like an MD-88 taking off!) Twin 75's are perfect for the 12 degree 22-2 for a combination of reasonable fuel consumption and nearly 40mph top end and sweet midrange at 4000 rpm's.
-
Agree with you both. Right at 29 mph is the sweet spot. Sounds good, easing along, run all day.
Maybe just a tad less for optimum cruising speed on the 170 and 19-6?
Hope the 240 owners will input their experiences as well.
-
On my flatty, with the good old Black Max 150 and a 19" pitch prop and three people she cruised @ 28.7 GPS/3800 rpm, and W.O.T. @ 39.4 GPS/5500 rpm. Keep in mind this was bone stock and full of soaked foam. I really think a dry, stock flatback would be just fine with h.p. as low as a 90 horse. She was a little slow getting up on plane compared to what others report, but once she was up there you could roll the throttle back and she would sip gas. Before I pulled her apart I would regularly run 25-30 miles round trip to the fishing grounds and I don't think I ever used more than 7 gallons per trip. Can't complain about that.
I agree that a 150 is going to be plenty, even with a heavy rebuild.
-
Exactly. These old flatbacks and twelve degree hulls weren't designed to run 55. The idea was to provide an easy-planning, sweet running hull given the power available at that point in time.
The COG was mentioned since it has been discussed and is applicable. I too wish we had definitive numbers. Am sure they existed, but were lost long ago. Carl, you are on the right track with your estimates. Eugene stated there was a formula available, not sure where he obtained it however.
Couple of examples of how these boats run with what we consider low HP today. Skoot's 90 HP 19-6 easily ran in the mid twenties with 1000 ponds of men, gear, ice, beer, and food. My 22-2 planes and runs on a single 75 HP outboard.
Bottom line, these original designs run fine with moderate HP :thumright:
What were your numbers running on one engine? RPM/speed? What was the load? I know what mine ran precisely with (1) 115 so I would like to compare.
Single '03 75 HP Merc 2 stroke, 1973 22-2 Aquasport, starboard engine raised:
25.8-26.0 mph on the GPS, 5100 RPM. 65 gallons fuel, 440 pounds of crew, no wind.
Captain John was aboard and took the #'s.
-
Single '03 75 HP Merc 2 stroke, 1973 22-2 Aquasport, starboard engine raised:
25.8-26.0 mph on the GPS, 5100 RPM. 65 gallons fuel, 440 pounds of crew, no wind.
Captain John was aboard and took the #'s.
Yep - saw it - 26 MPH on a single 75 at 5100. She might have done a little more trimmed out. :scratch: Pretty impressive. Scott's running an 18 pitch prop on these motas, which seems about right. Scott's boat runs well and is solid as a rock. And those twin 75s sound great when you wind them up a bit. It's music to a gearhead's ears! :salut:
-
I am wild about the performance of my 1976 12 degree 22-2 with the Suzuki DF175, but I am sure 150 would have been plenty. I am firmly convinced that putting a heavy V6 on these hulls is a mistake. My boat self drains at rest, even with the motor hanging out 18" on a Porta Bracket. It is so well balanced under way that it seems totally indifferent to heavy loads; my performance numbers hardly change with heavy vs. light. I put trim tabs on, and I love them, but they are not absolutely necessary.
I mostly cruise around at about 25 kts, and I get about 4 NM/gal. with a light load. WOT is 34.5 kts and drinking fuel at 17.7 gph, so nearly 2 NM/gal even at WFO. And I gotta tell ya, the sound that Suzy makes as she revs up to 6100 is pretty darn cool! Worth a few extra gallons from time to time!
Bottom line, with a lot of very helpful advice from people on this forum, I really think my set up is about perfect! Thanks CAer's :)
-
I am wild about the performance of my 1976 12 degree 22-2 with the Suzuki DF175, but I am sure 150 would have been plenty. I am firmly convinced that putting a heavy V6 on these hulls is a mistake. My boat self drains at rest, even with the motor hanging out 18" on a Porta Bracket. It is so well balanced under way that it seems totally indifferent to heavy loads; my performance numbers hardly change with heavy vs. light. I put trim tabs on, and I love them, but they are not absolutely necessary.
I mostly cruise around at about 25 kts, and I get about 4 NM/gal. with a light load. WOT is 34.5 kts and drinking fuel at 17.7 gph, so nearly 2 NM/gal even at WFO. And I gotta tell ya, the sound that Suzy makes as she revs up to 6100 is pretty darn cool! Worth a few extra gallons from time to time!
Bottom line, with a lot of very helpful advice from people on this forum, I really think my set up is about perfect! Thanks CAer's :)
Sweet ride! Dorado, Gause, Aeon, Hammerhead, Bayside and others are also pleased with the original hull design.
You are correct regarding tabs. Biggest benefit is adjusting for working weight on the deck. This hull in general doesn't need tabs.
Another thought....engine trim. Most boats run sweeter as you trim up the engine(s). The 22-2....seems to run best in a neutral to very slightly trimmed position. Sounds better, cruises better with the bow just slightly up.
-
I usually run the motor at the 45 - 50% trim level. The Porta Bracket and the trim and the tabs offer so many different combinations and I am still experimenting with them. The boat wants to run level. You really have to get extreme with the controls to make it squat or nosedive.
I fished with a guide last week who runs a new 22 Dorado. Same bracket and DF175 motor as my Aqua, and the two boats handle almost identically. The Dorado was a bit heavier as he had a tower and large baitwell, but his performance figures were almost exactly the same as mine. He was really pleased with his setup too.
-
When I was younger and dumber my buddy bought a 69 22-2 flatback with twin Johnson 50's on it. We promptly blew up one of the 50's so he bought a new Johnson 110 or 112 and that boat went fine with that motor. I have no idea on numbers but it towed us waterskiing and went offshore a couple of times with 2 or 3 guys and a half dozen 6 gallon gas tanks, ice, beer, etc.
If I were repowering today I would almost definitely go with a Yamaha F150. I currently have a 98 Yamaha 200 SS series and I'm seeing 25mph at 3200, (22FF with 12 degrees at transom). It's pretty efficient for a carb motor if I keep it at these RPM's. I think I'm getting around 3 MPG and 8 GPH if I did the math right, (no fuel management system yet, but Christmas is coming). There are plenty of boats around here in the 23' range running F150's such as the 23 Sea Ox. Most of us aren't too concerned with going much over 25-28 especially with today's gas prices.
-
I looked at increasing the horsepower for my 1974 170, and had a good used Evenrude 115 lined up but decided on spending a few more dollars buying a lightly used fresh water 1998 75 HP Yamaha 2 stroke that is replacing the blown 70 HP Johnson VRO that was on my boat when I bought it- I have bought all my supplies, parts, etc. to refurbish the old girl and I am just waiting on warmer spring time weather to begin my re-build- I figure the three cylinder Yamaha 75 will be plenty of motor for the 170- especially after a new floor is installed and possible any wet foam is taken care of- I am not a speed freak so moderate speeds with corresponding fuel savings are big on my list of wants for a fishing boat in the Chesapeake bay, 25 (+) cruising speeds on calm days are just fine with me- I don't plan on carrying more than one and possibly two passengers with me on my fishing trips as two in a 17 footer seems just about perfect- dependability is the most important function of any boat motor- and the 2 stroke Yamaha's have a good reputation for dependability-
-
FOR ANYONE WHO IS CONSIDERING A 17ft AQUASPORT'S NEEDED POWER
HERE IS AQUASPORT'S OWN "DATA SHEET", compiled in 1970 on its 17 foot model:
The horsepower used then was a 2stroke carbureted 85hp Johnson outboard,
driving a 13 1/4" diameter by 17" pitch 3 bladed propeller.
In Summary:
1. the boat begins to "plane" at 19.9mph at 3000rpm
2. most efficient "cruise" occurs at 25.9mph at 3500rpm
3. max speed is 37.4mph at 5000rpm
SEE "COBURN & SARGEANT'S" OWN TEST DATA SHEET BELOW
( To see the entire article go to the thread titled "The 1970 17ft Aquasport of Coburn & Sargeant" )
(http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/data//500/AQUASPORT_S_1970_17ft_MODEL_DATA_SHEET_enlarged.JPG) (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=8561&title=aquasport&cat=500)
-
I am still working on the ole' 240 seahunter. As some of you know, i have extended the hull 3 feet, rather than add a bracket. The transom needed to be replaced anyway. I am leaving the fuel tank, at least the rear one in the original location, hoping to balance the boat correctly. I did buy a hard top for the boat off a dual console 285 mako. I am rigging for a single outboard, maybe 175 zuke, or 200 something else, not sure yet, but I have a paralift I may put on it, but some kind of jack plate for sure. Ideally I want the outboard to be mounted as close to the boat as possible, to prevent squatting. Not many 240 owners on here, but hp recommendations would be appreciated. I ideally want to plane off at a pretty low speed and cruise about 30 mph. WOT no more than about 35. I have seen a few 240's for sale over the years, some even with a single 115, and guy selling it said it ran file, around 30 mph. Obviously mine will be heavier, and I am a diver as well as a fisherman, so sometimes it may loaded down with tanks and such. The Dorado 30 is the boat of my dreams, and I am trying to rebuild the 240 in a similar fashion, length to width ratio, and low power-easy planning, and shallow draft, but the ability to handle offshore, in moderate weather, running in the high 20mph range to around 30 mph.
http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery ... &protype=1 (http://www.classicaquasport.com/gallery/member.php?uid=6236&protype=1)
Oliver
-
Oliver, looking forward to the progress.
Adding the three feet, the hardtop, carrying divers, tanks, equipment, ice, food and drink, etc....even with the shallow V, you're going to need some power.
My 22-2 jumps on plane with 150 HP, but that's running twins... so have more torque on the hole shot than a single 150.
My thinking on your rig would be 225 to 250. You'd have the power to carry everyone and everything, and the quick throttle response needed for running offshore.
-
Yeah, that is what I was thinking,200-250. A 2 stroke Yamaha would work well, but they are gas hogs, and I really want to try to get something that gets decent fuel mileage. I was really thinking about a suzuki 175. I hear they are great motors, and can easily replace a 200 V6 two stroke. It is just under 500 pds, so I could mount it on my paralift(it says on the side, MAX Engine Weight 500 pounds). Not sure about a 175 though. I am not at the motor buying stage yet, but I am going to start keeping an eye out, and if I see a good enough deal I may buy something. I hear that motor get great fuel mileage, so that would at least cut down on the amount of fuel I would have to carry. A 225 optimax is also just under 500pds, maybe another option.
With the weather warming up I am going to try to get the project moving forward again:)
Oliver
-
:?: I don't understand the need for the high power OB's on the old boats. They were designed to run 35 to 40 max. i run a new 90 hp Suzuki with lots of cubes, a 2:59 lower unit ratio and a 14" prop and it is great for the 12 degree 22-2 FF. Lots of torque and it runs 31 WOT with light load and 27 loaded Since I cruise around 20-23 mph in the fuel miser range 98% of the time for this engine I still have 20-25% reserve hp to get in faster if I want, but I watch the weather when I am offshore so it is not a problem.
I very happy with the performance and get 7+ mpg consistently. got to love having over 500 mile range on a tank of gas. That really makes crossing to the Bahamas easy with respect to gas. I have a 6" hydraulic jackplate so I can put the motor a little lower for taking off and then lift it about two inches above the bottom for normal cruise. The permatrim plate and tabs help also. It is all about the set up. no problem pulling the kids skiing either. These are not hulls designed for high speed which is why it takes so much hp to get them to go fast. Too much wet surface area which is great for easy planing, but not high speed. My boat was set up for cruising I guess is the bottom line. If I want to go fast I hop in my Checkmate with 140 Tower of Power Merc, but that does not work for trips to the Bahamas, the NC loop, Charleston Harbor and big inland lakes. All about preferences I guess.
Now I know lots of folks will criticize this set up as underpowered, but what does that really mean. If I am going 20 miles offshore does it really matter if it take an extra 4 seconds to get on plane? The crap about the engine working harder is BS also as outboards hardly ever have many hours on them and this engine is operating right in the 3500-4500 range for the speeds I like to run so it will be still running strong decades from now and I usually run 200-300 hours/yr. Never hurt those 9.9s and 15's I used to run WOT for hours when I was a kid either so to me that is a mute point. Then there is the get out of the storm comments, but I run inshore bays and only about 20 miles out so I can get in fast enough without any problems and I have a great canvas set up. How fast can you run in rough seas anyway.
If you have a need for speed, the spend the money and go big with hp and at the gas pump. If you want to run where these early hulls were designed and get great efficiency go for lower hp and save a tone of money. The new 60's most company's make would easily equal the 70-75's twins in hp the older boats ran and would also give great gas mileage.
Just another point of view :lol:
-
Hi D,
There will always be the urge to overpower these hulls and I can admit that I have wanted to cross the 40mph mark in mine for years on my 170 ( I might make it with the "gelcoat on the bottom" of my rebuild). I think I did it with the original 115/150 (decal'd) but didn't have a GPS back then.
You're right though, these hulls were designed for around 70hp and as the models grew in length, dual 70's.
The newer boats were designed for the larger engines, so a single "150" could be installed instead of twin 70's.
-
i originally planned on running a 150 or 175 optimax on my flatback but i couldnt pass the price on a great running 225efi merc with only 130 hours on brand new OE powerhead. way more power than any FB needs, so ill prop her for a "fast" cruise like i originally did on my 200 osprey. i had a 35 mph cruise turning 3700 rpm
-
After reading all of this info I stand content with the performance of my osprey 200. (19.6) With Yamaha f115 I have a nice cruise of 31-32mph @4200 RPMs with a top speed of 39-40 at 5600. I was always chasing a faster speed and was thinking of a larger motor but sounds like I'd give up a lot of other important benefits. She balances pretty well even with a heavier 4 stroke with scupper above water line at rest and the fact that fuel consumption is so minimal. This is running loaded with 3 men, ice, livewell full & coolers ...... With a T-Top. I also have added a jackplate with 6" setback and Lenco trim tabs...... I'm running a 13 x 17 stainless prop.
Now if Yamaha would come out with a 150hp 4 stroke less than 400lbs I'd be thinking twice..😜😜
-
Anyone think a 2005 Yamaha F150 would be sufficient for a 81 222 CCP? 20 degree vee.
-
If you are not looking for speed - it's going to take all of that to get her on plane.
-
I'm happy noodling around at 22-24 knots. Conditions out front where the boat is in Westport are rarely conducive to going flat out. If you want to keep your back & fillings intact that is.
It really doesn't worry me if it takes 5 seconds longer to get on the plane.
-
But by all means...if you think I'm dreaming considering the 150hp feel free to tell me so. No offence will be taken.
-
Exactly. These old flatbacks and twelve degree hulls weren't designed to run 55. The idea was to provide an easy-planning, sweet running hull given the power available at that point in time.
The COG was mentioned since it has been discussed and is applicable. I too wish we had definitive numbers. Am sure they existed, but were lost long ago. Carl, you are on the right track with your estimates. Eugene stated there was a formula available, not sure where he obtained it however.
Couple of examples of how these boats run with what we consider low HP today. Skoot's 90 HP 19-6 easily ran in the mid twenties with 1000 ponds of men, gear, ice, beer, and food. My 22-2 planes and runs on a single 75 HP outboard.
Bottom line, these original designs run fine with moderate HP <!-- s:thumright: -->:thumright:<!-- s:thumright: -->
What were your numbers running on one engine? RPM/speed? What was the load? I know what mine ran precisely with (1) 115 so I would like to compare.
Fitz,
What sort of performance do you get on your 22 footer with the twin 115's? I am looking to buy the same boat that has twin 115 hp Suzuki 4-strokes. I know they are different motors, but any thoughts on speed would be appreciated as I do not believe that fuel burn will be applicable between the 2 different engine types.
Below is a link to the thread I started on the topic.
http://classicaquasport.com/smf/index.php?topic=14198.0
-
I won't speak for Fitz (but will quote him):
My 73` 22-2 has twin 115 Mercs, this is the 12 degree bottom. Looks nice, plenty of hole shot, etc ,etc. Runs 46 mph and will beat you to death in any kind of chop running that fast. I really wish she had twin 75`s or 90`s max. The boat runs great at 25-29 mph. I dont need 230 hp to do that along with 10 GPH @ cruise. Every boat has that sweet spot where it does everything well at a certain speed and trim.
You see, you're trying to compare two different hulls here.
The one you show is a deep v hull design, Fitz's is a mod ve. Beam widths are similar but the weight of hull and motors is not.
Light reading.
http://classicaquasport.com/smf/index.php?topic=11302.0
http://classicaquasport.com/smf/index.php?topic=13090.msg140714#msg140714
Good luck. :thumright:
-
Good job Bob,
Couldn't have said it better myself, or did I?
Anyway still wishing for lighter weight in the rear. I do miss the old days when we would rig them with twin 65 hp Evinrudes, run out to the gulf stream out of Daytona about 45 miles out on 30 gallons of gas, fish and come back on plane at about 22 mph and get on top on the swell and cruise all the way home. The boat would still run about 32 mph with 5 people on board and loaded with gear.
-
I was power shopping for the 22-2 (12°) this weekend, and decided to ask some commercial fishing buddies what they are running. A substantial portion of the local dory fleet is running 90HP E-tecs on 22' boats very comparable in weight but with flat bottoms. When I told them I was looking at something in the 150 class (as it seems a lot of guys here are running) the majority of the responses were simply "why?". The conditions here on the west coast are rarely good enough to run at the kind of speeds a 150 would get me, and the weight and fuel savings are considerable. These guys have me thinking now that an E-Tec 90 or 115 might get me where I need to be. Is this a bad, or worse yet unsafe idea? I will not running with a tower or livewell or any wildly heavy items. The Evinrude dealers are running a 10 year warranty promo until April 1st, so I have a little time to figure it all out. Any insight here would be very appreciated.
-
I was power shopping for the 22-2 (12°) this weekend, and decided to ask some commercial fishing buddies what they are running. A substantial portion of the local dory fleet is running 90HP E-tecs on 22' boats very comparable in weight but with flat bottoms. When I told them I was looking at something in the 150 class (as it seems a lot of guys here are running) the majority of the responses were simply "why?". The conditions here on the west coast are rarely good enough to run at the kind of speeds a 150 would get me, and the weight and fuel savings are considerable. These guys have me thinking now that an E-Tec 90 or 115 might get me where I need to be. Is this a bad, or worse yet unsafe idea? I will not running with a tower or livewell or any wildly heavy items. The Evinrude dealers are running a 10 year warranty promo until April 1st, so I have a little time to figure it all out. Any insight here would be very appreciated.
I grew up surrounded by the commercial fishing industry and thus commercial fisherman, this being my fathers career. I can speak from experience when I say that I've never ever met a commercial fishing captain (not referencing charter captains) who concerned himself with the speed of his vessel. So although it's never a bad idea to gain advice and suggestions from those who spend their life on the water, in this instance regarding engine horsepower, I wouldn't rely on their seaworthy experience to properly gauge the size hp engine you should hang on your 22-2. And this is because how they use their boat and how you will use your boat is the difference between you joyriding and they making a living.
Think about this for moment. Let's say you get 1970's 22-2 whose dry hull weight is approximately 1800lbs. Let's say it's got a 60 gallon fuel tank (1800 + 360 = 2160). Add your body weight and another with average weight assumptions (2160 + 375 = 2535). Since you stated you won't be running with heavy gear, let's just skip over whatever total weight of gear is commonly used on boat. Add weight of minimum 2 batteries (80lbs) + weight of console and rigging and anchor (approx 150lbs). 80 + 150 = 230.
Now add 2535 with 230 = 2765. What am I forgetting...oh yeah, and engine. Etc 90 runs about 320lbs and a 115hp closer to 400. Let's say you go with the Etec 90 (2765 + 320 = 3085). Let's stop there cause hopefully I've made what will be my point. Pushing a 3,100 lb vessel with a 90 hp is at the very most underpowered. You will not be able to jump out of a hole, even with trim tabs and jack plate; You will have an very very lengthy time to get on plane; In situations of high seas when you need to power through head on waves to keep bow up, you won't have the power; And most importantly, no matter what the brand of outboard, you will dramatically decrease the longevity of a 90hp hung on a 22-2 due to consistent over stressing the motor by running consistently at the high end of spec rpm range (you'll need to do this to main plane). So, just a few things to think about before you buying that nice lightweight etc 90. In my opinion, one should outfit a hull with an outboard that can provide an all around safe boating experience, no matter the conditions. I wouldn't get caught up with not getting a larger outboard because you don't need to go faster. Rather, get an the hp outboard that has the power to allow the 22-2 to perform at its peak, all the while not over stressing the outboard by doing so.
-
That is why I love this forum. Thank you for the detailed response. The time you spent typing that wasn't lost on me. I very much appreciate it.
-
That is why I love this forum. Thank you for the detailed response. The time you spent typing that wasn't lost on me. I very much appreciate it.
My pleasure. And this of course is just one man's opinion. But I recon you'll hear the same or similar from other members, regarding matching hp to hull. I don't own a 22-2, though I've been a passenger in many, and none of which had less than a 150hp. But these boats were outfitted for fishing, so the extra hp is needed because of the added weight of bait wells, tower, fishing gear, etc. Good luck.
-
I've just last summer re-powered my deep vee 222 CCP with a Yamaha F150. Frankly I couldn't be happier with the performance. It gets pretty wooly out front of Westport and the motors responsiveness helps enormously, particularly getting in & out of the harbour entrance when there is swell about...... like last summer. 2 Hurricane swells.........
The boat with 2 adults, 50 gallons of gas & all of our fishing gear happily does 34 knots and cruises at 24knots. Its very comfortable at that speed & it really isn't practical or safe to go any quicker out front most days, with that hull.
That being said, I don't think I'd want any less power. Strikes me anything smaller & you would be constantly wringing the motors neck, particularly when the seas are up and you are running with them.
Horses for courses I guess, but I like that I have a little power up my sleeve to get out of trouble. My $0.05 FWIW
-
Thanks gents. Guess I am shopping for a 150.
-
I repowered my 22-2CCP with a new 200 Optimax this year and am impressed. The old 2.4L engine ran well, but as the saying goes "there's no replacement for displacement." The 3.0L Optimax pulls like a bankrupt dentist and gets very good fuel economy across the RPM range. The new 200 Opti is about the same weight as the old motor, so the scuppers are still above the water line and I don't have the stern droop that some heavy engines cause. The old Mercury controls all work with the new motor, but I did upgrade to the new digital plug-and-play gauges, so I have fuel flow, water temp, speed, and all the high-tech features that the old motor lacked. Very happy with the results! She runs mid-40s with a 19 pitch prop - I could probably go to 21 ptich and get more top end, but as many here have said - she really likes running 25-30. These boats are just not very happy over 40 MPH.
BTW - the price was right on the 200 Optimax and Mercury was including a 5 year warranty - don't know if that is still available - but it tells you a bit about the expected reliability of these motors. :thumleft: