1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Optimizing the performance of Boston Whaler boats
Hollywood1202
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:45 pm

1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby Hollywood1202 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:00 am

To me, my 1991 Outrage 17 sits very low in the water. It has Yamaha 115-HP and Yamaha 6-HP engines, an oil storage container on port side, and one battery on the stern side. The static waterline is about an 1 to 2-inches away from the side Whaler logos. When we are still and I'm at the back end of the RPS waves come over the transom. Is this normal?

I've grown up with a Outrage 18, Montauk 17, and a 15-footer. I don't remember this going on. The boat seems to take on a lot of water. It has five drain plugs that I plug when we head out. Two in the transom, on one each side where the oil and battery are, and one where the live well is located. The live well has been removed and the space is occupied by a 3.5 gallon tank for the auxiliary engine. Should I not plug these areas? The sump pump really throws the water out.

Another problem: I have noticed when I launch the boat the transom doesn't lift as it hits the water. I launch the boat very slowly and the lake water always comes over the transom. Any suggestions?

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby jimh » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:24 am

Describe the location of the engine splashwell drains relative to the static waterline at the transom. Location of waterline relative to the transom splashwell drains is a fixed relationship. Location of the decals on the hull sides is not always the same, as often different size decals are used or reapplied.

That water ships over the notched transom when the boat is launched from the trailer could be due to excessive weight on the transom or to the angle the boat enters the water from the ramp slope. But it does sound unusual.

Hollywood1202
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:45 pm

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby Hollywood1202 » Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:13 pm

All the drain plugs are below the water line. The description from the original brocher states that it is self bailing with optional Bilge punp which mine has.

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby Phil T » Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:44 am

Hollywood--I owned a 1991 OUTRAGE 17 with a F115 and now own a 1992. I have been warning owners on this model's weight sensitivity for almost a decade.

This model is very sensitive to stern weight. It is due to a reduced length-to-beam ratio. Many compare this model to a Montauk or Outrage 18 but they are NOT similar at all.

To lessen the load, move the battery and the oil tank to the console. The kicker has to go.

The F115 weighs 400-lbs dry, 420 wet. My splashwell was half-full of water before I moved everything forward. All tools and gear went into forward cooler. I kept NOTHING in the stern seat storage or livewell.

Moving everything helped a lot.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby Phil T » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:11 am

While they say this boat self drains, it will BUT it will fill up with 40+ gallons before it reaches static trim.

The deck drains around the edge of the stern seat storage floor via a perimeter groove to the thru-hull. The groove continues down to the bilge. Any flow greater than a trickle will spill into the bilge which is huge compared to the Outrage 18.

Before I moved the battery. Note the cuved channel on the right side. The drain is at 3 oclock. Note the drain continues down to bottom of photo.

sternstorage.jpg
sternstorage.jpg (65.85 KiB) Viewed 13491 times


Water from the floor will come into the bilge in the upper left and upper right from the floor channels and fill the very large recessed bilge. Note there are two openings at the bottom that goes to the fuel cavity. When you pull the plug, the water will fill up this entire area, into the tank cavity and up to the floor all the way to the console.

bilg3.jpg
bilg3.jpg (53.69 KiB) Viewed 13491 times


To combat all the water I shipped when backing into waves that filled and overflowed the splashwell and filled the bilge, I installed a 1200 gal/min pump and smooth sided 1 1/4" bilge hose

This is a very different drain/bilge setup than any other model I have seen.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby jimh » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:32 am

Hollywood1202 wrote:All the drain plugs are below the water line.


If a Boston Whaler boat sits at rest in static trim with the engine splashwell drains below the waterline, that is generally interpreted as an indicator of too much weight on the transom or in the stern of the boat.


Hollywood1202 wrote:The description from the original [brochure] states that [the boat] is self bailing with optional Bilge [pump] which mine has.


I am uncertain of your meaning. If a boat is self-bailing, it does not need a pump. That is the meaning of "self" in the term self-bailing. Boats that are not self-bailing need a pump to remove water that accumulates on deck or in the cockpit.

Boston Whaler boats generally will shed accumulated water in the cockpit, routing it into a sump area, which typically has a drain to the sea. If too much weight is added to the boat, for example by adding a heavier engine or adding an auxiliary engine, or both, the static trim of the boat will change to be more down by the stern. The change in static trim will reduce the effectiveness of the self-bailing by permitting water to rise to a higher level in the stern than was intended when the boat was in its proper static trim.

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby jimh » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:39 am

Phil T wrote:I owned a 1991 OUTRAGE 17 with a F115 and now own a 1992. I have been warning owners on this model's weight sensitivity for almost a decade.


Phil--your first-hand experience with this model is a source of much good advice. Thanks for contributing.

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby Phil T » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:44 am

I have met and talked to over 15 owners of the Outrage 17-I boats, many with lightweight two-stroke-power-cycle 90-HP engines, and oddly enough every single one reports the drains are at or below the water line.

The only owner that did not have this problem was Ron Lartz. He had a 50-HP on the transom.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby jimh » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:51 am

Phil T wrote:[The c.1991 OUTRAGE 17 boat] is very sensitive to stern weight. It is due to a reduced length-to-beam ratio. Many compare this model to a Montauk or Outrage 18 but they are NOT similar at all.


Phil's comment about length-to-beam ratio sparked my curiosity. I found the following data

MODEL        LENGTH  BEAM  Length-to-Beam ratio
OUTRAGE 17 17.25 6.66 2.59:1
OUTRAGE 18 18.5 7.16 2.58:1
MONTAUK 17 16.58 6.16 2.69:1


I think the difference among these models and how sensitive they are to additional stern weight is more likely due to the design of the stern. There is a very open stern in the MONTAUK 17 and OUTRAGE 18, while the OUTRAGE 17 has a substantial aft deck with hatches. The deck and hatches probably add considerable weight to the hull at the stern compared to the completely open stern and transom of the MONTAUK and OUTRAGE 18 boats. This added weight most likely is the cause of the greater sensitivity of the OUTRAGE 17 to stern weight.

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby jimh » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:20 pm

I was looking at the c.1991 OUTRAGE 17 boat in older Boston Whaler literature. I noticed that there are two distinct versions of the boat, one shown in the 1990 catalogue and another in the 1991 catalogue. In the two versions, the stern deck is different. The earlier version of the boat has a rather large stern deck. The later version (c.1991) has a stern deck but it is different. I show the two versions below. Both are listed as having a dry hull weight of 1,020-lbs:

Outrage17-1A.gif
c.1990 OUTRAGE 17
Outrage17-1A.gif (16.73 KiB) Viewed 13472 times


Outrage17-2A.gif
c.1991 OUTRAGE 17
Outrage17-2A.gif (20.64 KiB) Viewed 13472 times


In this particular discussion, what stern deck configuration does the boat under discussion have?

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: Which version

Postby Phil T » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:31 pm

The rounded splashwell was only produced for one model year. A separate thread would be appropriate for a discussion in detail of the many changes made in 1991.

We are referring to the hulls in the1991 model year.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby Phil T » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:38 pm

I think the lack of rear buoyancy is a result of

- less foam in the stern area with the deeper bilge and the recess for the baitwell.
- lack of beam on this model also causes it to be very tippy and along with it less displacement and subsequently buoyancy.
- added weight of the fiberglass cap for the stern seats and baitwell surround also contribute to its bias rearward.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this model. It just has it's quirks.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

jimh
Posts: 11659
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:25 pm
Location: Michigan, Lower Peninsula
Contact:

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby jimh » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:48 pm

Phil T wrote:I think the lack of rear buoyancy is a result of

- less foam in the stern area with the deeper bilge and the recess for the baitwell.
- lack of beam on this model also causes it to be very tippy and along with it less displacement and subsequently buoyancy.
- added weight of the fiberglass cap for the stern seats and baitwell surround also contribute to its bias rearward.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this model. It just has it's quirks.


I don't think foam plays a part. I think you probably mean that if there is more open space available to fill up with water, then water can accumulate in that open space and add weight to the boat. Foam creates reserve buoyancy by filling up space that otherwise could be filled by water.

The beam of the c.1991 OUTRAGE 17 is wider than the MONTAUK. However, I suspect the hull shape of the OUTRAGE 17 probably had a deeper V-hull (higher deadrise angle) at the transom, although that is just speculation. I haven't seen one or measured one. But the mention of being "tippy" sounds like a deeper V-hull boat.

And, yes, I bet the superstructure added at the stern to create the deck and livewell area probably weighs at least 50-lbs, if not more. That is a direct contributor to stern weight.

Your advice to minimize stern weight by limiting added gear or by relocating the battery is a good approach.

Re the initial comment that water ships ever the stern of an OUTRAGE 17 when being unloaded from a trailer: did you experience this problem, too?

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby Phil T » Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:57 pm

The hull shape of the 1990-1995 Outrage 17 is nothing like the Montauk, rather it is similar to the Outrage 18.

Here are a few photos:

From the rear:

keel.jpg
keel.jpg (63.73 KiB) Viewed 13450 times


Looking aft from forward of the console:

underside.jpg
underside.jpg (53.6 KiB) Viewed 13450 times
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

User avatar
Phil T
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Was Maine. Temporarily Kentucky

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby Phil T » Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:09 pm

As for shipping water on launching, this is another activity one must do with care.

I launched at a ramp that was outside the no-wake zone in Portland (Maine) harbor that was very active with commercial fishing boats, 400 person ferries, tankers, tugboats, USCG Safe boats and older 47' MLB's and all types of recreational boaters. Boat wakes and the sea state was always active.

Timing for launching and retrieving was very important, especially with the Outrage 17. Sometimes you had to go quite quick or pull the trailer out.

If you launched too fast, the stern would dive, water would fill the splashwell and overfill (between the top of the splashwell and the underside of the cap lip) into the bilge.

Adding a layer of foam insulation the space between the top of the splashwell and the underside of the rear cap stopped the overflow long enough to
I added the insulation foam to my 1991 and will do the same to my 1992.
1992 Outrage 17
2019 E-TEC 90
2018 LoadRite 18280096VT
Member since 2003

AdamT
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 3:20 pm

Re: 1991 Outrage 17 Stern Waterline

Postby AdamT » Tue May 24, 2022 4:01 pm

Phil T wrote:I have met and talked to over 15 owners of the Outrage 17-I boats, many with lightweight two-stroke-power-cycle 90-HP engines, and oddly enough every single one reports the drains are at or below the water line.

The only owner that did not have this problem was Ron Lartz. He had a 50-HP on the transom.


I have a 1991 with a 1991 Yamaha 90-2 stroke that is being repowered. The rear drain plugs were 1-2" above the water line after relocating the battery to the console and adding a second battery.