posted 05-29-2012 01:20 PM ET (US)        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzwbtRellM8

If I look at this picture of my 1992 Walkraound's engines from the side.

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b115/johndraby/23%20walkaround/ ?action=view¤t=whalerjune05001.jpg

posted 05-29-2012 03:02 PM ET (US)            

I assume it was rigged that way at the factory but I am the third owner.

posted 05-29-2012 03:18 PM ET (US)         

A Sea Star I (single cylinder) hydraulic is rated for 600 HP counter rotating. As an optional upgrade, you could add the quicker steering and duplication of the Sea Star II (twin cylinder system). Since front mount cylinders are blanced design, either system could operate an auto-pilot system.

With the side mount cylinders required with the original Dougherty designed Whaler Drive, you did have to have the Sea Star II if you wanted to use an auto pilot, since a single cylinder is unbalanced. My 25 Outrage has the upgraded twin side mount balanced cylinder system, and I think it performs well.

posted 05-30-2012 01:33 PM ET (US)            

I do not think your boat would have been rigged at the factory. It was likely rigged at the dealership it was delivered to. Now our boat I know for a fact was rigged at the factory. Our boat was built and rigged by Whaler to be their showcase display boat for their 1993 Miami Boatshow booth. The first owner (we are the second) saw the boat at the Whaler booth at the Miami show and bought it right off the showfloor.

Personally I like the single cylinder with less turns. While doing low speed maneuvers in cross wind situations it often takes a fair amount of throttle and wheel jockying to put this hull where you want it. The less time you spend spinning that wheel is less time the wind has to work against your intentions.

posted 05-30-2012 06:27 PM ET (US)            

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/ 23%20Boston%20Whaler%20Walkaround%20Whaler%20Drive/DSC_2081.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/ 23%20Boston%20Whaler%20Walkaround%20Whaler%20Drive/DSC_2079.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/ 23%20Boston%20Whaler%20Walkaround%20Whaler%20Drive/DSC_2083.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/ 23%20Boston%20Whaler%20Walkaround%20Whaler%20Drive/DSC_2127.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/ 23%20Boston%20Whaler%20Walkaround%20Whaler%20Drive/DSC_2129.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/ 23%20Boston%20Whaler%20Walkaround%20Whaler%20Drive/DSC_2066.jpg

posted 05-30-2012 11:44 PM ET (US)            

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/propellerTest/ whalerDriveDimensions600x450.png

This is a side view with vertical dimensions shown. It is from my 22-foot hull with Whaler Drive. In the view seen the engine is mounted at the lowest position. My present engine mounting is one-hole-up, or 0.75-inch higher. I have observed that the A-V plate on my boat runs in a position similar to that shown in Jeff's video, that is, the A-V plate is near the water line--just at it or just a hair above. You can see this in another picture:

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/images/propellerTest/AVPlate600x450.jpg

(This is the old engine and the old mount. The new engine and the new mount is 0.75-inch higher. If you add 0.75 to the 0.25-inch clearance shown, it looks like the A-V plate on my new installation will be 1-inch above the bottom of the Whaler Drive lower side.)

Using these photographs to make the same comparison I did with Jeff's boat and the Saltshaker bracket, I see that the Whaler Drive is also running mostly clear of the water when the boat is on plane, or at least about in the same clearance as the Saltshaker bracket runs on Jeff's boat.

posted 05-31-2012 01:03 PM ET (US)            

There is a dramatic loss of speed on classic Whalers with Whaler Drives vs. notched transom or bracket installations. We have not seen a corresponding loss of performance with Whalers equipped with the Saltshaker Marine brackets.

I speculate that may because the Saltshaker Marine brackets have less surface area and are less in contact with the water while at planing speeds.

posted 05-31-2012 01:11 PM ET (US)            

Conch is correct when he said: "Cylinder volume divided by helm displacement equals the number of turns."

Whalers equipped with twin cylinders typically used the Teleflex SeaStar II helm which has a 2.4 cu. in. volume. Single cylinder equipped Whalers usually use the SeaStar I helm (1.7 cu. in. capacity).

I should be remembered that Teleflex now makes SeaStar helms in 1.3, 1.7, 2.0 and 2.4 cu. in. volumes so you can fine tune the amount of effort and number of turns you are comfortable with.

posted 05-31-2012 02:28 PM ET (US)            

Jimh, looking at the pictures I think your Whaler Drive would not get clear of the water on plane. A lot of the drive would be out of the water but I think most of the bottom of the drive would be in the water.

posted 05-31-2012 02:41 PM ET (US)            

I will try and get video this summer with a GoPro showing the water flow at the back of the bracket. Last year I stuck my head down between the motors while on plane and remember seeing the back of the floatation box running above the surface of the water.

I believe the floatation box actually starts to loose contact with the running surface of the water a pretty low speed. This means of course it no longer can assist with providing floation at the stern. I firmly believe this is the reason the 23 Walkaround Whalerdrive will squat a lot in the stern while coming onto plane if you do not have the trim tabs in the full down position.

posted 06-01-2012 10:29 AM ET (US)            

But Tom is correct in pointing out that they are very vulnerable to being damaged. To passangers/swimmers they seem to scream out "step on me".

posted 06-02-2012 02:59 PM ET (US)         

First of all, the development of the Whaler drive had to accomplish two things for Boaton Whaler by the time 1987 rolled around. They had three hulls, the 20, 22 and 25 that needed to compete in the rapidly improving world of outboard boating. Armstrong type setback brackets on full transom hulls were all the rage, boats were going faster, and Whaler did not have anything except the terrible Sea Drives.

1. Counter rotating 25" engines were now on the market, and these BW hulls could not accompdate any of them! They all took 20" twins and only the 25 was rated for 300 HP.
So first Dougherty had to find a way to increase allowable HP, particularly on the narrow beam 20/22.

2. They had to find a way to accomodate twin 25" engines, which none of these hulls could handle.

So the Dougherty Whaler Drive solved both problems, and the WD had to be designed to give the boat ADDITIONAL LEGAL HULL LENGTH to get the higher HP ratings. That's why it runs in the water while on plane, hurting top end speed potential. After I bought my Sea Drive Blank 25 Outrage, and intalled the Armstrong bracket, in many ways making the boat similar to a WD model with 450HP rating, both myself and the selling dealer trined to get BW to give me a 450HP plate for mine. They refused, saying the free running bracket did not add to legal hull length, which left me with the 300 HP plaque (which I had already ignored!)

Regarding the VanLancker era 21 and 23 hulls, they are notorious for "squat" on getting up to plane. It is simply a characteristic of the hull design. They take more HP to plane than the classic boats do, and the older 70's era boats take even less than the 2nd generation hulls. My ribside and the 19 Outrage "slide" up on plane very easily.

posted 06-04-2012 05:55 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

...ADDITIONAL LEGAL HULL LENGTH to get the higher HP ratings.

---

posted 08-16-2012 12:15 PM ET (US)            

To get back to your initial hypothesis of the bracket running free of the water while on plane, I can for certain say that it does. I shot video from my GoPro a couple days ago from under the deck of the Salt Shaker Marine bracket that clearly shows the floatation box at displacement speeds and how it transitions to running free of the water once on plane.

Here are a few images of the camera.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/Misc%20Whaler/ IMG_6060.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/jeff_rohlfing/Misc%20Whaler/ IMG_6062.jpg

posted 08-20-2012 01:51 PM ET (US)            

Here are the videos:

Under the swim deck of the Salt Shaker Marine Whaler Drive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mdU0pHMCdA&feature=youtu.be
at the Beginning we come up on plane and run about 25 - 28 mph

32:35 we back down off plane
43:20 Moderate displacement speed
43:55 Moderately power on to plane
51:25 Moderately back off plane
1:00:00 Removal and inspection of camera

Video of the gear cases running from the stern of the Salt Shaker Marine Whaler Drive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUydDEHv3Og&feature=youtu.be
7:00 begin to idle out of South Manitou Harbor
8:08 power on to plane and quickly back off
8:26 great shot of gear cases under water with props
9:03 power back on plane and trim up
9:10 trim up and power to WOT
16:00 running in 1-2 seas on Lake Michigan
48:05 back off plane

posted 08-20-2012 02:19 PM ET (US)            

It is interesting to note the relative calmness of the water in front of the engines.

posted 08-27-2012 10:18 AM ET (US)            

This last Lake Huron trip, we had lots of rough water. On the roughest day, I spent about 1 hour behind a 22 Revenge with a whaler drive. I never felt the revenge was out driving my boat. I found that I had to slow down and run at slower speeds than the Walkaround wanted to run to keep from running up on the revenges stern.

whaler23 who comments in LGH's link is the person I purchased my boat from. This is the same guy who broke off one of the outriggers on a slip, put his foot through the battery compartment door the day I pick up the boat, left the fish box drains out and had trouble docking during the test drive.

Is it the boat or is it the operator?

I think any of the guys who were on the North Channel trip will support the statement that the Holly Marie with her twin engines can maneuver in tight spaces at slow speeds. Her weakness is moving backwards with a wind pushing on her bow.
I am also pretty confident that none of those guys felt the 23 walkaorund was not keeping pace or was having trouble with radical changes in direction caused by the hull bouncing off the waves.

It would be interesting to get an owner of a notched transom to comment about the stern squat. Does it effect all 23 walkarounds or just the whaler drive version.

posted 08-27-2012 12:04 PM ET (US)            

I too will have to agree with John, the 23 Walkaround does have more of pronounced squat just before achieving plane than some but, the standard 21 Walkaround, 23 Walkaround, and the subsequent 21 and 24 Outrages built on these exact same hulls do not. And lets be honest, these hull designed lived for more than 3 years. The 21' hull design that the Walkaround and Outrage was built on ran production from 1991 - 1995. The 23'9" hull design that the 23 Walkaround, Walkaround Whaler Drive and the (24') Outrage where built on ran production from 1991 - 1997.

posted 08-27-2012 04:18 PM ET (US)         

It was a huge improvement over the Yamaha 3-bladed SS props they were using, and no loss of top speed either.
I know that certain people here don't like the Vensura prop, but that has not been my experience, and the fact the Mercury still produces and sells them indicates there much be an application for it.

posted 08-27-2012 10:15 PM ET (US)            

Left to right: A modern V-hull with Euro-transom, a classic 22-foot Whaler with Whaler Drive, a 23 Walkaround with Saltshaker Bracket

Note that the buoyancy box on the Saltshaker Bracket is confined to the center section, but on the classic Whaler Drive the buoyancy box is almost the full width of the hull.

posted 08-27-2012 11:05 PM ET (US)            

Now you can say that the classic 22-foot hull was in production longer, from about 1978 to perhaps 1993, or 15-years, but there are other considerations. At that time, making molds was a slow, difficult, and expensive process, done mainly by hand by skilled labor. You first hand-made a plug, then made a mold from the plug.

These days plugs for molds are cut from foam and computer controlled multi-axis machines, and modern boat builders like Boston Whaler seem to think nothing of tooling up a mold with a unique hull design for every boat in the their catalogue. Previously a hull might be used under several different models, and not because the hull was perfect for each model but because the business plan called for re-using a hull for a long time to get the cost of the molds in line with production. So the classic hull designs tended to have longer lives. Was that because they were perfect hull designs? Or was it because it cost too much to make a new mold?

posted 08-28-2012 07:39 AM ET (US)            

LOL. Larry is it time for a new prescription on your glasses? One can easily see from two photos that the E-TEC is not the same size as the 4.2L Yamaha.

posted 08-28-2012 08:36 AM ET (US)            

And for even more help in making a comparison, the same three engines overlaid atop each other. Notice that the Yamaha Offshore F250 is much taller than the others. The E-TEC 225 is taller than the older Yamaha, but actually that portion of the cowling of the E-TEC is mainly an air-water baffle and sound insulation.

All three are about the same width. I think I cropped off an inch or two of the Yamaha Offshore when I cut it out.

posted 09-03-2012 08:46 AM ET (US)            

Look at the first of the three-panel images above, where I have shown the three engines with the waterline as a uniform level in all three views, and you can see that the Yamaha twin engines on the Saltshaker Bracket are immersed more deeply than the others, and especially so compared to the Evinrude on the Whaler Drive.

I have not measured the distance photogrammetrically, nor have I put an Architect's scale on it, either, but just by eye--and not a trained eye--it looks to me like the Yamaha twins must be immersed about a foot or so deeper than my Evinrude.

I am assuming that all the engines are 25-inch shaft engines--that's right, isn't it?

This means the tip of the skeg of the engines on the 23 Walkaround have to be a foot deeper in the water. I did not realize that the 23 Walkaround had so much more draft than my REVENGE 22. I think the deeper draft must be in part from a deeper V-hull. Have we ever figured out what the deadrise angle is on a 23 Walkaround hull?

It would be interesting to compare to the classic 22-foot Whaler hull deadrise angle. As best as I can determine, the deadrise on a classic 22-foot Whaler hull at the transom is about 14-degrees.

There was a quite a discussion about deadrise angle of a 22-foot hull a few years ago. See

posted 09-03-2012 11:00 AM ET (US)            

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b115/johndraby/23%20walkaround/ ?action=view¤t=whalerjune05012.jpg