Go Back   TeamTalk > Maintenance Tips, How-tos and Refurbishing Topics > Underwater Running Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:06 AM
Skyskiguy Skyskiguy is online now
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: May 2012
Boat: 2015 X30, 6.2L
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,106
Very cool to see innovation. My guess is that most of your financial savings in fuel costs will be used up the first time you have to get that prop repaired/replaced. Now, if you want to save the fuel for environmental reasons then this makes sense. Also makes a ton of sense for the shipping industries where they could potentially save a TON of money over the life of the prop. But, very cool none the less!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:43 AM
mmskiboat's Avatar
mmskiboat mmskiboat is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Boat: ProStar
Location: East
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS LS1 View Post
Not sure if you got the point correctly
I think that I understood. More that it would not work for wake surfing due to weight and not being on plane. I was just saying that it should have some small gains in fuel on a ski boat and that even if small that over time that would add up. Not trying to compare the 2 of them. More just that I think it could work much better in a ski boat that a surf boat (which your point I thought highlights).
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-23-2019, 09:58 AM
88 PS190 88 PS190 is offline
MC Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Boat: 1988 MC Prostar 190, 351 Ford
Location: Midwest
Posts: 5,451
Send a message via AIM to 88 PS190
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscrib View Post
The prop data is in the report:
Correct - my point being if you were the owner of that boat you would perhaps try the same brand of prop in a few different sizes, pitches etc. to decide on what gave you the best combination of factors.

In re: planing vs. displacement - considering the company sales pitch is that they're currently focused on the shipping/freighter/tanker business they aren't making recreational props for retail currently I think they're solidly thinking the prop reduces consumption even on displacement non-planing operation no?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-23-2019, 09:59 AM
88 PS190 88 PS190 is offline
MC Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Boat: 1988 MC Prostar 190, 351 Ford
Location: Midwest
Posts: 5,451
Send a message via AIM to 88 PS190
Another thought - he mentioned improved steering on an outboard and particularly in reverse, I would think this would actually mean worse steering in reverse on an inboard as that sure sounds like the prop is directionally stable.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:10 AM
captain planet's Avatar
captain planet captain planet is offline
MC Platinum
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Boat: 2003 PS197, MCX, Powerslot
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 8,564
Tested and engineered at the university of michigaan so it's probably garbage. I didn't watch after I saw that.
__________________
2003 ProStar 197, MCX and Powerslot.

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty" - Thomas Jefferson
"Freedom is beneficial to everyone equally" - Ron Paul
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:33 AM
73blue 73blue is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2010
Boat: 2004 X-10
Location: Douglas Lake
Posts: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by kscrib View Post
The Sharrow Propeller™ MX-1 ... geometry was 15” x 15”.


They are a little vague - is the MX-1 a 15 pitch? .
Doesnt seem vague to me
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:18 PM
gwozhog's Avatar
gwozhog gwozhog is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Boat: Achilles sg124
Location: south
Posts: 1,227
I don’t care how efficient it is. Who is going to fix it everytime You hit a stump. I have had 6 prop strikes in the last year because they lowered my lake while they work on the dam. I bought an acme pitchblock after the second strike so now I fix my own and all my buddies props whenever they get damaged.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-24-2019, 08:44 AM
88 PS190 88 PS190 is offline
MC Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Boat: 1988 MC Prostar 190, 351 Ford
Location: Midwest
Posts: 5,451
Send a message via AIM to 88 PS190
With repairs - that's a double edge sword. You want a prop to be sacrificial compared to the strut and shaft and for some prop strikes an aluminum crazy prop would be a benefit.

I for one haven't wiped out a prop in over 10 years probably closer to 20. But that's because we run in a lake with almost no structure on the bottom.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-24-2019, 09:29 AM
88 PS190 88 PS190 is offline
MC Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Boat: 1988 MC Prostar 190, 351 Ford
Location: Midwest
Posts: 5,451
Send a message via AIM to 88 PS190
Some questions are getting answers.

SHARROW PROPELLER™ MODEL MX-1A (CNC MACHINED ALUMINUM) 3-BLADE
$4,500.00

Can buy special prop insurance.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-08-2020, 02:41 PM
3event's Avatar
3event 3event is offline
MC Devotee
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Boat: 2002 PS197
Location: WI
Posts: 1,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88 PS190 View Post
Some questions are getting answers.

SHARROW PROPELLER™ MODEL MX-1A (CNC MACHINED ALUMINUM) 3-BLADE
$4,500.00

Can buy special prop insurance.

Wow! For a low volume machined part, I suppose it's not going to be cheap but OTOH , ACME and OJ are probably not running high volumes with lots of setup efficiency either - inboard props still a modest market ... ? ...

I might try something new - on our lake we are deep all around, never a strike. But the most I'd consider is maybe 2X or 3X cost of traditional prop for a dramatic performance change. Otherwise I could afford to try new Acme or OJ options and see if I could get an incremental improvement that way.

At that price you're halfway to a nicely restored '85 S&S!
__________________
2002 ProStar 197
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 PM.


2020