ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Running Angle On Plane
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Running Angle On Plane
|
| Author | Topic: Running Angle On Plane |
| jimh |
posted 12-31-2005 11:50 AM ET (US)  
Here is a nice photograph showing my Boston Whaler REVENGE 22 W-T WD on plane and running about 30-MPH in smooth seas (quite a rarity for Lake Michigan offshore waters). This picture (taken by LHG) shows the boat running at an optimal trim. We were cruising along for some time and I had the engine trim adjusted for best results, probably going for a combination of best ride and best fuel economy. In other words, this is about the best trim I can get on the boat at a planing speed. To find the running angle, I measure from the horizon line in the background to the rub rail line on the boat. By careful measurement I have found the running angle of the boat to be 6-degrees. I have some other photographs of the boat running on plane and they also show a running angle of about 6-degrees. By eye the boat looks to be operating at a nice angle, however in comparison to some other measurements I have seen published, 6-degrees running angle on plane seems to be a bit high. I would be interested to hear from other experienced Whaler owners in regard to the running angle of our boats. In particular: --Do you think the running angle on my boat is proper? --Is a running angle of 6-degrees too high? --Do you have any data on (or good photographs from which I could measure) the running angle of your classic Boston Whaler boat on plane? |
| Sal DiMercurio |
posted 12-31-2005 12:05 PM ET (US)
Jim, the angle looks almost perfect. The angle of the top of the engine normally tells you if your trimmed correctly. If it's nice and straight at a level horizontal angle you are normally very close. Your boat is riding beautifully because if it were less of an angle you would have too much bottom being wet, thus much more drag. Nice boat. Sal |
| elaelap |
posted 12-31-2005 12:07 PM ET (US)
In my very expert opinion: Wow. |
| jimh |
posted 12-31-2005 01:02 PM ET (US)
Sal--Thank for the comments. One thing I had not considered was the angle of the gunwale line at rest. Maybe the boat rides with one or two degrees of trim at rest, so that should be deducted from the running angle on plane. Your observation about noting the engine trim to be nearly horizontal is interesting. I'll look for that in some other pictures. |
| onlyawhaler |
posted 12-31-2005 01:45 PM ET (US)
Beautiful Revenge I have always like the bow rail on that model. Very unique to Whaler and practical as well. Jim, is that your stern light that looks to be about 5-6 ft long? Is that the OEM light for a Revenge? Sterling |
| Bulldog |
posted 12-31-2005 02:07 PM ET (US)
Sterling, the Revenge stern light is required to be 30" above the bow light , which they mounted on the railing , the poles usually are about 7-8 feet long! On Outrages and most others they have the lights on the gunnels or bow. I put my light down on the pulpit allowing me to shorten the length of the pole about 28". Most people wonder why Whaler stopped making the 20' Revenge, it was only because they couldn't get the stern light stowed anywhere, not some balance thing! Jim your boat looks great and she is sure getting around the country! Were you carrying a full tank of fuel in that shot?.....Jack |
| Buckda |
posted 12-31-2005 05:27 PM ET (US)
Jim - Here's a link to a photo taken by John Flook of "Gambler" up on plane early last spring out on Lake Michigan. By the way, I have lots of photos of what you presume are "rare days" on Lake Michigan, you ought to get over to this side of Michigan a few more times a year to take advantage! Anyway - I think Gambler planes out a little "flatter" than Continuous Wave. Perhaps it is because my motor is raised so high? Link: |
| Sal DiMercurio |
posted 12-31-2005 07:31 PM ET (US)
Buckda, the reason your boat is planing flatter is,...your engine is tucked way in,....look at the angle of your engine compared to Jims. Tucked way in tight is going to force your boat to ride flatter, & have a wetter bottom ....thus more effort on the engines part to attain the same speed as Jims boat that has maybe 2 - 3 ft less bottom in the water. With the engine "un-trimmed" as yours is, [ tucked almost all the way in ] you will get less fuel economy. The angle at the rear of your engine says your pretty much un-trimmed as it's pointing up hill at a pretty steep angle. Sal |
| Buckda |
posted 12-31-2005 07:40 PM ET (US)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/Buckda/ 2005%20Fall%20Color%20Tour/7817fc87.jpg Better? |
| Sal DiMercurio |
posted 12-31-2005 09:05 PM ET (US)
Nope, your engine is still pointed up hill (lower unit farther forward than the leg) indicating zero trim & a very wet bottom = a very flat ride. If you punch it (WOT) with zero trim, your maximum rpms are gonna be about 500 lower than they should be. That engine needs to be trimmed back in order to allow some air to get under the boat allowing the boat to ride much free-er (new word = free-er) on top of the water instead of through the water. Look at the angle of the very top of the engine, it needs to be horrizontal, not leaning back,....if anything, it should have a very slight tilt to forward (downward slope from back to front) indicating you have trimmed the boat to ride on both air & water (the point just before porpoise). That should be the point of least resistance from the water. Sal |
| jimh |
posted 12-31-2005 09:43 PM ET (US)
Here is Dave's OUTRAGE 18 GAMBLER running on plane. I re-worked his original picture to level the horizon. Then I measured the running angle. I was surprised to find it was 4.75-degrees.
|
| jimh |
posted 12-31-2005 09:52 PM ET (US)
Re the angle measurements: First I rotate the canvas of the image to get the horizon perfectly level. (By the way, I have done that on just about every picture which appears on continuousWave, it just looks better if the water is not running uphill or downhill.) I can arbitrarily rotate the picture and I do it in 0.25-degree increments until it is perfectly horizontal at the horizon. Then I save that image. Next I test rotate the new image until I get the gunwale line of the boat perfectly horizontal. Then I note how much rotation that took. Thus I can measure the angle to about 0.25 degrees. |
| jimh |
posted 12-31-2005 10:29 PM ET (US)
Here is a favorite picture of mine. I took this in 2003 as LHG and I were crossing from Nanaimo on Vancouver Island to Sechelt, BC on the coast, about a 25-mile run across the Strait of Georgia. This classic Outrage is also running at a 6-degree running angle, however notice how much hull is out of the water due to the effect of propeller lift from the twin three-blade stainless steel propellers. (I think they are LASER II Mercury propellers--well, it goes without saying they are Mercury propellers, eh?) Speed was probably about 27- to 28-MPH. |
| andygere |
posted 12-31-2005 11:23 PM ET (US)
Jim, Here's a photo of my former Montauk (taken by Hoop) on the California Delta, in flat calm conditions. It might be interesting to see how a cathedral hull Whaler's running angle compares to the deep V's. http://home.earthlink.net/~andygere/sitebuildercontent/ sitebuilderpictures/namaquoit.jpg Everytime I look at this photo, I wonder why I ever sold the boat. Here is a series of my current Outrage 22, running in snotty conditions just outside the Golden Gate Bridge. The running angle changes quite a bit, so perhaps these are not that useful. Elaelap took these during the Outboard Motor Shop salmon tourney in 2004. I'd say the running angle of your Revenge is spot on and looking sharp. T/T Whale Lure is showing so much hull not just from the props, but from those torquey 12 cylinders bolted to the back of it! |
| kamie |
posted 01-01-2006 01:21 AM ET (US)
Jim, Here are some of the shots I have taken, classic and new hulls included. kamie.homeip.net/kamie/html/other_whalers.html I will hunt around and see if I have any other shots that show better angles. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 01-01-2006 11:06 AM ET (US)
Jim, You boat is trimmed perfectly. It looks almost identical to my boat running on plane. There were photos of my boat in the 2005 NW Rendezvous thread but unfortunately the posters are not still hosting the photos they posted, grrr. (a pet peeve of mine) Dave, I agree with Sal. Trim your motor out for better performance. I'm always impressed when I see that photo of Larry's 18. Not his motors are tucked in quite a bit too. I suspect this is necessary because of the extreme rear weight is of the twin motors on their set back brackets. Boats with the center of gravity set well to the stern will tend to porpoise if he trim is not kept down. |
| Tom W Clark |
posted 01-01-2006 04:38 PM ET (US)
Jim, Here are a few photos of Whalers running on plane from this thread: http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000542.html
http://home.comcast.net/~p.butterfield/25_Revenge.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~p.butterfield/outrage.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~p.butterfield/montauk180.jpg |
| Sal DiMercurio |
posted 01-01-2006 06:32 PM ET (US)
Yep, the one with the Yamaha is riding nice because it's trimmed right. Sal |
| JMARTIN |
posted 01-01-2006 06:50 PM ET (US)
Looks like the angle I have on my notched transom Revenge 22. The stern spray looks the same. The angle your motor would be at if you were stopped looks the same. What propellor where you running? I still think the Revenge 22 can benifit from a lifting propellor. John |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-01-2006 08:52 PM ET (US)
Here's "Das Boat" my Nantucket running on plane in calm water...seems like theres a lot of boat in the water???? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v511/Yiddil/P5270325.jpg How does that compare.... |
| Perry |
posted 01-01-2006 09:43 PM ET (US)
Yiddil, your motor looks to be trimmed "IN" too much. That is why there is a lot of boat in the water. Jim, I was interested in your method of determining the trim angle. You use the gunwale as a reference point, correct? Are you sure the gunwale line of the boat is perfectly horizontal while sitting at rest? One way to find out is to put a level on the gunwale while the boat is at float with no one aboard. What if you used the water line on bottom paint (like the one Yiddil posted) would it be a more accurate way of determining trim angle? |
| jimh |
posted 01-01-2006 11:16 PM ET (US)
Here is Tom Clark's REVENGE 25 picture. I rotated the canvas to level the horizon, then measured the boat's running angle: 6.25-degrees. The fact that the point of view of the picture is not quite orthogonal to the boat and shore may introduce some errors. In the other shots I measured the boats were against a pure horizon line, and the pictures were taken at more or less abeam the boat. The best pictures for measuring at those with an open horizon in the background and taken from directly abeam.
|
| Tom W Clark |
posted 01-01-2006 11:43 PM ET (US)
Jim, I agree the shore may not be entirely parallel to our course line but even of we assume the photo is perfectly level, the camera is being a bit astern beam will tend to over state the angle a bit. Imagine the extreme: the camera is almost behind the boat. The apparent angle relative to the horizon would be very great. In this photo you will note I still have the motors fairly trimmed in. We were just coming out of Quartermaster Harbor and my boat is running slowly; just at minimum planing speed. When I am cruising at a more typical 30-35 MPH the boat rises up out of the water more just as your boat does in your photo. |
| erik selis |
posted 01-02-2006 04:25 AM ET (US)
Jim, you have a fine looking boat there and as most have said, I also think she is trimmed out just right. Sal said it: the top of the engine cowling is parallel to the horizon and that's the way it should be on flat calm waters. Interesting picture of LHG's 18-ft Outrage. Lot's of air under the boat. On flat waters I always trim my engine until the boat starts to porpoise and then trim back a bit. It's hard to say for sure if the engine top is horizontal at that point but it seems to be. On rough days or when taking sharp corners fast, I trim the engine in somewhat so the "V" in the hull can do it's job. Happy New Year to everyone. Erik Tony: do testicles do that? :-0 |
| minitauk85 |
posted 01-02-2006 05:59 AM ET (US)
Jimh- try this one out, although I think it might be deceptive due to being on a lake without a true horizon line, this "felt" like optimal trim.-k http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b268/ktswhaler15/60d24c05.jpg |
| jimh |
posted 01-02-2006 11:43 AM ET (US)
Here is Andy's former boat, a classic MONTAUK 17. It appears to be on plane with a flatter running angle than the v-hull classics. This looks to be about 3-degrees. Perhaps there is a trend here; the flatter hulls run on plane at a flatter angle?
|
| macfam |
posted 01-02-2006 07:09 PM ET (US)
jimh, The quality of this picture is not the best. My brother and I were taking pictures of each other on a very gray day, and pretty choppy, so clarity is compromised. Here is his shot of my boat. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/macfam/MS724RM.jpg The horizon is very clear, and the bottom paint line can be used as a reference for static trim angle. I don't see a noticeable difference in running angle on plane between my 25 and your 22. I think there was a bit of trim tabs use during this photo to smooth things out. If I were to run in as smooth waters as your photo, I don't use trim tabs, and I do trim the motor out. I get consistently higher rpm and speed. I'm assuming that I also get better fuel economy. |
| jimh |
posted 01-02-2006 08:41 PM ET (US)
Here's macfam's REVENGE on plane. The running angle looks to be about 5-degrees.
I measured from the gunwale line, not the bottom paint, to be consistent with the others. If measured from the bottom paint line, you would include the static trim angle. On this boat, it looks like that would be a degree or so of bow up trim. So the change from static to plane angle would be one degree or so less. |
| Moe |
posted 01-02-2006 09:44 PM ET (US)
Here's how I understand it... The most efficient hull angle should result in the lowest load on the motor, meaning the highest rpm, and often, the highest speed, at a particular throttle setting. In other words, trim up (out) a little at a time (removing bottom from water), until the rpm stops rising (because increasing angle of attack is increasing the frontal area of drag). That may or may not result in the outboard being trimmed at its optimal angle with the prop shaft (and the top of the cowling on some) parallel to the surface and line of travel, which also depends on the load balance of the boat. On small boats like our 150 Sport, 50 pounds moved from stern to bow makes a lot of difference. With our 50 quart cooler in the stern area and the two of us aboard, we do achieve that level motor at max rpm trim. However, with that cooler in the bow area, max rpm at WOT comes with the motor trimmed up (out) well past vertical. The reason for putting the cooler there is so we don't have to run with the motor trimmed down (in) to hold the bow down in heavier seas (i.e. bow lower than optimal). We can run with the motor level then too. -- |
| Sal DiMercurio |
posted 01-02-2006 10:48 PM ET (US)
Mcfabs boat is riding very pretty. Notice how level the top of his engine is. Sal |
| kingfish |
posted 01-02-2006 10:56 PM ET (US)
Moe- My experience is that the critical parameter in your example is speed, because the motor can be trimmed out to a point of diminishing returns, where the prop starts to lose bite, but the RPMs continue to increase, while the speed starts to fall off, especially at higher speeds. With a high performance (bow-lifting, raked, cupped) prop, again particularly at higher speeds, optimum trim may beyond perpendicular with the line of travel or the water surface. John |
| jimh |
posted 01-02-2006 11:12 PM ET (US)
[Moved separate discussion to separate thread. See http://continuouswave.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/004099.html for commentary on Tom Clark's famous OUTRAGE 18 wave jumping picture.] |
| jimh |
posted 01-02-2006 11:27 PM ET (US)
Going back to the first picture in the discussion (my REVENGE 22 W-T WD), that trim is about as high as I can get the bow. Due to the trim tab effect of the Whaler Drive, I don't think the bow will lift much higher. There are some sea conditions where a nice light bow trim would be good, but I think with that boat, 6-degrees is about the limit. I can get the bow trimmed down lower if I wanted to. I can trim the motor higher and farther out, but the bow doesn't come up much more, if any, and while the engine speed will start to spool up, the boat speed doesn't increase. I think this is also a factor of the Whaler Drive, as the engine mounting height is the equivalent of about a "two-hole up" mounting on a standard transom (even though the engine is mounted as far down as possible). On boats with engines mounted a bit lower and on a standard transom, it is probably possible to use more trim out and lift the bow higher. I really like the classic MONTAUK 17 trim at a very low 3-degrees. That boat really is planing on top of the water. |
| jimh |
posted 01-02-2006 11:36 PM ET (US)
Here is Andy's Outrage 22 Cuddy running in rough water. The running angle in this picture is 9.5-degrees. That looks good for those conditions.
|
| Moe |
posted 01-03-2006 01:09 AM ET (US)
Very good points, John. We don't experience continued rise in rpm when speed stops rising, unless I go even further out and the prop ventilates. But it would definitely be something to watch for. I also meant to add that boats with trim tabs can do what we do with the cooler forward to lower the bow, rather than trim the motor down. -- |
| andygere |
posted 01-03-2006 01:21 AM ET (US)
Here are a few more data points for the study. The first is Royce's Outrage 25 Cuddy, taken on the same day as the above photo of my boat. This is just inside the Golden Gate, and Royce had slowed down for the photograph. The grinning crew member is none other than elaelap. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/andygere/Golden%20Gate%20Whalers/ IMG_0230.jpg The next photo is another Montauk, this time it's Jim Hooper's (Hoop) on the California Delta at the first NorCal Rendezvous. For this picture, Jim was accelerating as we left a no wake zone, resulting in a higher running angle than that seen in the photo of my former Montauk, which was at speed with the trim dialed in. |
| Perry |
posted 01-03-2006 01:34 AM ET (US)
I think the first five pictures are a good example of a classic Whaler's running angle on plane. It is much easier to judge the running angle while a boat is riding in relatively calm water. A snapshot of a boat in rough water captures it in a moment in time. The bow of a boat planning in rough water will rise and fall and not give a very accurate representation of how its running angle on plane is compared to a boat in calmer water. |
| elaelap |
posted 01-03-2006 12:06 PM ET (US)
Perry makes an important point: "A snapshot of a boat in rough water just captures it in a moment of time." Here's a photo of Andy's fine OR 22 cuddy in lumpy water off the Golden Gate Bridge. Her bow's in the air because she's plowing up a swell, not because that's her normal planing attitude: http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b309/elaelap/SalmonDerby019.jpg Nose down in the trough: |
| Barry |
posted 01-03-2006 06:45 PM ET (US)
I noticed that all of the Boston Whaler 2006 Owner's Manuals that I looked at state: "In most cases, best all-round performance is obtained with the engine adjusted so that the boat will run at a 3° to 5° angle to the water." |
| jimh |
posted 01-03-2006 09:23 PM ET (US)
Another Revenge 22 W-T WD with a single engine, RJG's nice boat running in the river behind his home. These views show a running angle of about 5-degrees. For true vertical I used the tree trunks in the background (which are now cropped out of the picture).
You can see the engine is trimmed in a bit further than in my pictures above, and thus a lower running angle. |
| derf |
posted 01-03-2006 10:42 PM ET (US)
There are a few factors that might affect trim a little: Motor height. Prop choice. Bottom paint. Lower unit differences, Doel fin? Misc. stowed equipment. Fuel level. Velocity, boat may be more efficient at 20 knots than 30. Still, your 6 degree planing pics look better than the non 6 degree planing pics. Flatter bottoms do seem to plane flatter to me, having owned a Carolina Skiff. |
| LHG |
posted 01-05-2006 04:14 PM ET (US)
I'm not sure the rub rail/shear line is a completely accurate method of determining running angle. I think it is the KEEL angle that counts. Isn't it first necessary to determine the rub rail angle to the boat's keel, since all classic Whalers tend to rise to the bow. In other words, if an 18, 20, 22 and 25 hull were sitting on a concrete floor, what would the "rubrail" angles of each be? I don't think they are all the same, with the 18 being much flatter (lower in the bow) than the 22 or 25. I have noticed that the 22' hull, in particular, rides much higher in the bow than does the 18, which tends to ride flatter, probably because of a deeper V on the larger models. And I am also convinced that the prop being used makes a difference here. I have observed two Whalers noticeably increasing their running angle just by use of a different prop. As further evidence that the deadrise angle in part determines running attitude, I would agree than the 1st generation Outrages (19' and 21'), 16'-17's, etc, ride flatter (less running angle of keel), because of non-deep V hulls |
| LHG |
posted 01-05-2006 04:23 PM ET (US)
Forgot to mention, on Jim's photo of my 18 Outrage, although I never see it, I would guess that the photo shows the hull coming off a slight roll in the sea conditions. I would think the normal place to cut the water would be about where the "W" of the boat name is. But you can clearly see the lifting power of the twin Laser II props on this light weight hull. The boat rides very high in the water at all times when on plane, giving it a superior ride in my opinion. I have noticed that Dave's boat rides higher in the water since he installed his Laser II |
| |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.
