Jim Michalak's Boat Designs
118 E Randall, Lebanon, IL 62254
A page of boat designs and essays.
(1July2012) This issue will rerun an old old article about propellor thrust. The 15 July issue will start a series about making an "instant" boat (originally aired on 15 Jan 2002).
THE BOOK IS OUT!
BOATBUILDING FOR BEGINNERS (AND BEYOND)is out now, written by me and edited by Garth Battista of Breakaway Books. You might find it at your bookstore. If not check it out at the....
ON LINE CATALOG OF MY PLANS...
...which can now be found at Duckworks Magazine. You order with a shopping cart set up and pay with credit cards or by Paypal. Then Duckworks sends me an email about the order and then I send the plans right from me to you.
A quiet moment at the Texas 200. That's John and Rosa Goodman in his Hapscut. Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc7ssNkiRn8&feature=youtu.be
Measuring Prop Thrust"THE MOST SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE EXPERIMENT IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE"!!!
Before I get started talking about propeller thrust I want to set the stage with a dedication to Albert Michelson who spent his life measuring the speed of light. Born in Poland, his family came to the US when he was a little boy. He became expert with optics. In the mid 1800's the speed of light was known in a general way and Michelson, along with his helper Morely, made a device that would measure the speed of light to a degree of accuracy never known before. In fact they thought it so fine as to measure the effect of the earth's orbital movement on the speed of light according to the "ether" theory of light propogation that was current at that time. So they measured and measured and measured. They did indeed zero in on the speed of light but saw no orbit effects. The speed of light was the same no matter how it was measured. Michelson had enough confidence in himself that he published the results even though there was no explanation to be had. That was in 1883. Then in 1905 along comes young Albert Einstein who knows about Michelson's results. Einstein doesn't really explain it except maybe to say "accept it because that is the way it has been proven. The speed of light is always the same no matter how you measure it." And with that basis Einstein went on to figure his theory of relativitly and the rest is history. So just because you can't explain something you measured doesn't mean it is wrong.
Some of you may recall that I've noted on several occasions the virtues of the program Hullforms. You can link to the Hullforms website in the links at the bottom of my page and download a free trial version. In one of the later trials there is an option that will figure (somehow) a drag vs speed chart for your hull given a certain weight and trim. I don't know how it is figured. In fact I'm not too sure the Hullforms writer took the results all that seriously since he presents several curves using the equations of several professors, and since he didn't put grid lines on his charts leaving you to think they are probably quite approximate. This is not an instantaneous program. You must "model" your boat first by plugging in the offsets that define its shape and you need to tell it the weight and center of gravity information. Anyway, here is a picture of my Hullforms AF4 model.
My real AF4 looks like this (back a few years ago when both the boat and I were younger and lighter)...
The Hullforms program predicts for this model, at a full weight of 800 pounds (about real life) and a cg location 11' aft of the stem, this drag vs speed chart (I've added grid lines to make guessing easier).
Well now, if such a chart is accurate can Hullforms be used to predict the performance of a boat given a certain weight and trim and power??
... seems to be something that no one wants to talk about (except trolling motor guys who refuse to talk about horse power). All gas outboards are measured in horsepower. Sometimes someone will tie his boat to a tree and measure the static thrust of the motor, but is that an indication of thrust at speed? The thrust of an aircraft propeller is said to decrease with speed and the thrust of an aircraft jet increases greatly with speed so knowing the static thrust may not be much of a help in predicting thrust at speed.
You might recall in the "horsepower" essay from a few issues ago that horsepower is basically speed times a load. Hey! That chart above is speed times a drag so it can be used to figure the horsepower pushing the boat. Does it work? Let's take an example. It is known that in real life my 15 hp motor will push my AF4 at about 18mph tops. But when I look at the Hullforms chart I see that at 18 (about 15.6 knots) mph the hull will have about 120 pounds of drag. 18 mph is 1600 feet per minute so the speed times the load is 190,000 pounds - fpm. A horsepower is defined as 33,000 pounds - fpm so the chart predicts 5.8 horsepower needed to get 18 mph on the AF4! Not much agreement there.
SO I MAKE A THRUSTOMETER...
I tried to think of ways to measure the thrust at the prop as the boat was underway. If I were a true tinkerer's mechanic I think I would try something like this: the motor mounts on a transom bracket that is hinged at the top and has a "load cell" sort of thing on the bottom. I thought that might be a small hydraulic cylinder more or less like an auto's brake cylinder with a pipe that leads to a pressure dial on the dash. As the motor pushes forward at the prop the cylinder gets pinched against the transom which is resisted by the oil inside with increased pressure. Read the pressure in the cylinder with the gauge and you can figure out the total force on the cylinder and from there you can figure the thrust at the prop. This could be a permanent thing although I've never heard of it being done.
Not being a true tinkerer I settled on a method that relied on 2x4's, duct tape and a bathroom scale. Here is a photo of my Thrustometer.
The outer frame of the thing bolts to the real transom. The inner frame which has the motor mount is pivoted inside the outer frame. As the propeller thrusts forward the inner frame wants to swing its top aft. In doing so it pinches an ordinary bathroom scale which you can read very easily. The scale does not read the prop thrust as 1 to 1. Since the motor mount pivot is about 20" from the prop thrust line and the scale is about 33" above the pivot, the actual thrust at the prop is about 1.65 times the scale reading.
This bolts to the transom with two small bolts. I don't think it will take for very long the stresses of trailering so I mount it on the hull after the boat has been launched. Also the thrustometer is not braced in any way to take reverse thrust of the motor so that is a no no. I tried to keep the motor mount as close to the real transom as possible so that the motor geometry would be as close to the real use geometry as possible. I thought the limiting factor here would be the motor's clamping handles and I left just enough space for them. But in use I found I can't tilt the motor forward with the thrustometer so care is needed that way in addition to not being able to use reverse. Plan ahead.
DOES IT REALLY WORK?????
These bathroom scales are wonderful things and I must take one apart sometime to see what makes it tick. This one cost $3 at Dollar General. When I hang a motor on the Thrustometer it's weight alone puts pressure on the scale. No problem since the scale has a wheel to zero that out so all tests start with zero.
First testing was done with a 1956 Montgomery Wards 12, a Gale made motor that is essentially an OMC. I could tell the moment I popped it into fwd that the Thrustometer was OK. Testing actually only takes a few minutes using a gps. Starting from idle in fwd let the motor and boat settle to a certain throttle setting and write down the speed and scale reading. Increase throttle to a new speed and so forth right up to full throttle. Afterward figure the prop thrust using the 33/20 factor of the Thrustometer's geometry and that is the prop thrust, right?
In detail I don't think it really is the prop thrust because the drag of the lower unit never gets into the system. The lower unit drag I think cancels itself out and never gets measured. So the prop thrust is no doubt actually greater than what I am measuring. BUT THAT IS GOOD! I think what is really being measured here is the thrust actually pushing the boat forward. It is the force that counteracts the drag predicted by the Hullforms chart!
Also I think that in detail the Thrustometer seems to slow the boat down about 1mph. At least with the two engines I used I got that result both times. It could be the extra weight in the stern, something AF4 has never cared for. Also I noticed a lot of splashing going on back there that is not present usually. The Thrustometer mounts totally above the bottom of the hull so I don't really know what the splash is about.
Here is a photo of the Thrustometer in action with a Montgomery Ward's 15 mounted (another Gale OMC motor from about 1960).
I plotted the results of the two motor tests and got this:
Here is a chart of the testing results on top of the original Hullforms prediction.
I thought they matched pretty well all things considered. The big "hump" predicted by the low speed professor never happened with my AF4 even though I went looking for it with several test runs in that speed range. Perhaps if you are properly prepared you really can use the Hullforms charts to predict speed for new hulls or effects of weight and trim.
Note that the MW12 and MW15 lines don't agree above "hull speed". (They were for all purposes identical up to that speed.) I think they should agree and can't think of any reason why they don't. I thought when I did the MW15 tests that the Thrustometer might have been binding somewhere to give the odd results but I ran that motor a second time with the same results. To be sure I gripped the Thrustometer together with my hands which sprung the scale beyond the range of the test and it bounced right back to zero freely when I released pressure.
Secondly it is interesting to wonder where all the horsepower goes. Only about 30% of the rated power is used to push the boat forward.
So I'm waiting for an Einstein to show up to explain it....
THUS I WROTE IN 2003...
...And then Eistein emailed an explanation. Except I've forgotten his name. Anyway, the horsepower rating of your motor may be very optomistic for use in this sort of analysis for several reasons.
1...The manufacturer probably lied in the first place (except in the case of a 10hp motor where they are sometimes under rated). So my 15 might be a 14 or 13 or something.
2...In the old days power was measured with just the powerhead on the measuring brake and did not include losses in the power train. I think newer motors have the measuring brake connected to the prop shaft so that transmission losses are included in the power rating. They say the losses due to the power train are about 10 percent. So now my old 15 is maybe really 12 or lower at the prop.
3...I suspect the drag of the lower unit in the water can be considerable. I have no idea what it is but I have seen "racing" lower units and they are indeed sleek and small compared to the usual factory "torpedo". Their props are tiny too as I recall, very steep pitch and they must cavitate terribly until the racer gets up to speed.
4...And then Einstein emailed to say the BEST efficiency of any water prop is maybe 50 percent! So if my engine says 15hp on the cowl, maybe 12 of that is getting to the prop and 6 of that is actually effective in pushing the boat, which is what the Hullforms program was predicting! In fact now I think I'm doing pretty good. Where goes the other 50 percent? I would guess it is used up swirling the water around.
BRUCESBOAT, POWER SKIFF, 19' X 5', 250 POUNDS EMPTY
Bruce was looking for a large powered canoe but couldn't find one for sale. He said they still make them by hand in Maine but he was in California and you couldn't expect to buy one anyway unless you showed up with money in hand on the day the builder happened to finish one. So he wondered if the row/sail skiff Woobo couldn't be redone as a long lean powerboat. It's not the first time that has been mentioned. Ray Laviolette had the first plumb bow Roar, predecessor to Woobo, built up in Michigan for rowing and both he and his builder thought the shape could be modified for low power.
Brucesboat followed pretty quickly from that. I kept the plumb bow, easy to build and lots of folks like its looks. The multichine shape is very good in rought water. it's not as stable as a flattie of course but sometimes I think it is safer in that you must walk on the center of the boat because you can;t step on the slanted bilge panels. Your weight is always close to centerline where it should be. I made the main cross section 6" wider than Woobo and a bit deeper. From the center aft the bottom is straight and flat. The sides could be that way too, but I pinch them in a little and sweep the sheer up in the stern a bit for looks. I gave it a skid/stiffener on centerline so she would stay put on the water. These multichine boats have little lateral resistance on their own and sometimes would just as soon go sideways as forwards.
I'm a big chicken on power and would keep this one at 10hp max. I think the main problem will simply be the weight of the motor, fuel and skipper in the stern. I've never designed a downward hook into the bottom to cope with bow wanting to go skyward, although some swear by that hook. The boat could be trimmed with wedges glued to the bottom stern if needed.
I kept Woobo's light taped seam construction and the plywood bill looks like three sheets of 1/4" and four sheets of 3/8". That's about 250 pounds of plywood and I would expect the finished boat to weigh about that much. The bow is boxed in with a storge/buoyancy chamber, the middle has a stout boxed thwart, and the stern is boxed in with a draining motor well. There are actually two places in the boat long and wide enough to lie down in. It might be a reasonable expedition boat given a small motor that burns little fuel and a canoeist skipper who is used to roughing it.
Brian Nimmo built the prototype:
He brought it to Rend Lake with fresh paint and a new 10hp four stroke...
And I hopped aboard for a ride. He had his gps with him...
Very nice I thought. He will be using it to run rivers. We figured we were at about 800 pounds total. At 8 mph she started to lift on plane and at full throttle was doing 15. She banked her turns nicely, something you can't expect a true flattie to do.
Plans for Brucesboat are $30.
Some of you may know that in addition to the one buck catalog which now contains 20 "done" boats, I offer another catalog of 20 unbuilt prototypes. The buck catalog has on its last page a list and brief description of the boats currently in the Catalog of Prototypes. That catalog also contains some articles that I wrote for Messing About In Boats and Boatbuilder magazines. The Catalog of Prototypes costs $3. The both together amount to 50 pages for $4, an offer you may have seen in Woodenboat ads. Payment must be in US funds. The banks here won't accept anything else. (I've got a little stash of foreign currency that I can admire but not spend.) I'm way too small for credit cards.
I think David Hahn's Out West Picara is the winner of the Picara race. Shown here on its first sail except there was no wind. Hopefully more later. (Not sure if a polytarp sail is suitable for a boat this heavy.
Here is a Musicbox2 out West.
This is Ted Arkey's Jukebox2 down in Sydney. Shown with the "ketchooner" rig, featuring his own polytarp sails, that is shown on the plans. Should have a sailing report soon.
And the Vole in New York is Garth Battista's of www.breakawaybooks.com, printer of my book and Max's old outboard book and many other fine sports books. Beautiful job! Garth is using a small lug rig for sail, not the sharpie sprit sail shown on the plans, so I will continue to carry the design as a prototype boat. But he has used it extensively on his Bahamas trip towed behind his Cormorant. Sort of like having a compact car towed behind an RV.
And a Deansbox seen in Texas:
The prototype Twister gets a test sail with three grown men, a big dog and and big motor with its lower unit down. Hmmmmm.....
And the first D'arcy Bryn is ready for taping. You can follow the builder's progress at http://moffitt1.wordpress.com/ ....
And the first Brucesboat, very complete and I got to ride in it at Rend Lake. A full report soon.
OK, so he found a major league goof in my plans on fitting the bilge panels. He did some cut and fit and did a great job of salvaging the work, but I have corrected the drawing for the aft end of the bilge panel (I drew it in upside down!!)
The Texas Hapscut, built by John Goodman, is shown here doing a low flyby on the Texas200. This year he took his wife! This boat looks like it is motor planing but it is not, just using strong steady Texas200 winds. (He has scarfed some material on the stern to finish the boat with a built in motor well like Laguna. Good idea.) Full report soon.
This is the Paulsboat sailing canoe. It is done and as you see here has been sailing. You might search youtube for "paulsboat" and watch. Built by Paul Moffitt of the famous boating Moffitts. Full report soon.
AN INDEX OF PAST ISSUES
A NOTE ABOUT THE OLD WAY BACK ISSUES (BACK TO 1997!). SOMEONE MORE CAREFUL THAN I HAS SAVED THEM. NOW IT IS A QUESTION OF REINSTALLING THEM IN AN ACCEPTABLE FORMAT.
BACK ISSUES LISTED BY DATE
Mother of All Boat Links
The Boatbuilding Community
Kilburn's Power Skiff
Bruce Builds Roar
Rich builds AF2
JB Builds AF4
JB Builds Sportdory
Hullforms Download (archived copy)
Puddle Duck Website
Brian builds Roar2 (archived copy)
Herb builds AF3 (archived copy)
Herb builds RB42 (archived copy)
Barry Builds Toto
Table of Contents