Jump to content

60 x 10 engine size


Featured Posts

I am sure no one is following my search at the moment so I will keep asking questions on different threads.  I will tie it in to one when I start to build.  We have decided on a 60 x 10 widebeam and speaking to one builder today he said the canal line 52 is the correct engine for canals and rivers.  He said if you go too big the engine never reaches its optimum operating state.

what do you think?

is it a good engine?

should I spec another?

hoping again for the benefit of your experience.

phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure if this is helpful or not; but we have a Barrus Shire 40hp in our 57 x 10.10 WB and it does us well on the canals and Rivers; Thames, Lee & Stourt.

Sorry, can't offer any advice on the engine you've mentioned - but I'm sure others will be along shortly that can share their experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bettie Boo said:

not sure if this is helpful or not; but we have a Barrus Shire 40hp in our 57 x 10.10 WB and it does us well on the canals and Rivers; Thames, Lee & Stourt.

Thanks again Bettie Boo.  The canal line produces 52hp but I think they have recently changed base engine manufacturer so am after advice on power and quality.

phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bromleyxphil said:

I am sure no one is following my search at the moment so I will keep asking questions on different threads.  I will tie it in to one when I start to build.  We have decided on a 60 x 10 widebeam and speaking to one builder today he said the canal line 52 is the correct engine for canals and rivers.  He said if you go too big the engine never reaches its optimum operating state.

what do you think?

is it a good engine?

should I spec another?

hoping again for the benefit of your experience.

phil

Plenty big enough power wise, as to build quality I have never owned one so cant help. By the way that's a sensible beam, gives you plenty of space without being a pain on some of the smaller canals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bromleyxphil said:

Thanks again Bettie Boo.  The canal line produces 52hp but I think they have recently changed base engine manufacturer so am after advice on power and quality.

phil

The hp it produces may be limited by other factors. I have a Isuzu 55 on my 57 x 12 widebeam. The engine should rev to 3,000rpm, however it was over-propped (19" dia x 13" pitch prop) so it would never rev more than 1,950rpm in gear on open water. I had the prop re-pitched down to 11.5" and they took half an inch off the diameter. It still only revs to 2,250rpm but it produces a lot more power. If I look on the Isuzu power curves for my engine I can see that at 2,250rpm the engine produces about 44hp, so basically that's all I'm getting. But there is plenty of power - the pilot said the same thing when we crossed from Portishead to Sharpness.

Perhaps I could have reduced the pitch further to get more revs from the engine, but Noris' said you don't want a prop that's too flat or it will have no "bite" (that's a technical term apparently). I never really got to the bottom of why my engine can't get close to maximum revs.

The other thing to bear in mind is cooling. Having all those horses is good but they will need to be cooled, so make sure that your builder is planning on installing two skin tanks in your engine hole - one along each swim. The basic rule of thumb is 1ftsq of skin tank area per 4hp, so for your 52hp engine you'll want a minimum 13ftsq properly baffled skin tank area in total. Ask me how I know about this...-_-   

Isuzu Engine BHP.pdf

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bettie Boo said:

not sure if this is helpful or not; but we have a Barrus Shire 40hp in our 57 x 10.10 WB and it does us well on the canals and Rivers; Thames, Lee & Stourt.

Sorry, can't offer any advice on the engine you've mentioned - but I'm sure others will be along shortly that can share their experiences.

40hp is on the low side. Have you punched the tide on any tidal waters? If your engine can achieve close to max revs in gear then it's probably producing enough power.  

Immediately after my prop was re-pitched I took the boat upstream from Leleham to Reading on red and yellow boards on the Thames and always had plenty of power. Mike the Boilerman of this forum gave me a lift back to the boatyard in Laleham to get my car and the blokes in the yard were impressed that I'd make it to Reading in those conditions in under two days.    

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 50hp Barrus shire in my 57 x 12 widebeam I, like Blackrose had to have it repitched to get the engine to rev. It will now reach 3000 rpm in open water and performs not bad on the Trent. On canals its more than up to the job at all times.

As for engines I am in the Kubota/Yanmar/Isuzu camp in that order in marine terms thats Beta/Barrus Shire/Vetus I think, just my thoughts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, blackrose said:

40hp is on the low side. Have you punched the tide on any tidal waters? If your engine can achieve close to max revs in gear then it's probably producing enough power.  

Immediately after my prop was re-pitched I took the boat upstream from Leleham to Reading on red and yellow boards on the Thames and always had plenty of power. Mike the Boilerman of this forum gave me a lift back to the boatyard in Laleham to get my car and the blokes in the yard were impressed that I'd make it to Reading in those conditions in under two days.    

Fair play Mike, anytime we have been on the Thames it's been summer and green boards only.  And being not much of a risk taker, I for one wouldn't have been comfortable in cruising on yellow or reds.  We made sure we were well off the river before winter set in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, blackrose said:

The hp it produces may be limited by other factors. I have a Isuzu 55 on my 57 x 12 widebeam. The engine should rev to 3,000rpm, however it was over-propped (19" dia x 13" pitch prop) so it would never rev more than 1,950rpm in gear on open water. I had the prop re-pitched down to 11.5" and they took half an inch off the diameter. It still only revs to 2,250rpm but it produces a lot more power. If I look on the Isuzu power curves for my engine I can see that at 2,250rpm the engine produces about 44hp, so basically that's all I'm getting. But there is plenty of power - the pilot said the same thing when we crossed from Portishead to Sharpness.

Perhaps I could have reduced the pitch further to get more revs from the engine, but Noris' said you don't want a prop that's too flat or it will have no "bite" (that's a technical term apparently). I never really got to the bottom of why my engine can't get close to maximum revs.

The other thing to bear in mind is cooling. Having all those horses is good but they will need to be cooled, so make sure that your builder is planning on installing two skin tanks in your engine hole - one along each swim. The basic rule of thumb is 1ftsq of skin tank area per 4hp, so for your 52hp engine you'll want a minimum 13ftsq properly baffled skin tank area in total. Ask me how I know about this...-_-   

Isuzu Engine BHP.pdf

Off topic.

I have the same trouble with my Isuzu 70 only revving to 1900, it will rev to about 2200 out of gear, so maybe the throttle stop is set incorrectly. My prop is 19” dia x 15” pitch, the boat is 60 x 11.

What made you have the prop re-pitched in the first place and how did you come to those figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/08/2017 at 08:57, WotEver said:

The fact that it was preventing the engine from revving above 1900, surely?

The downside of reducing the pitch and diameter to allow the engine to rev higher rarely gets a mention. The engine will also need to run at  higher revs to achieve any given cruising speed. = more noise. 

And as Crowther pointed out, less effective braking. Stopping another situation when peak engine power might be needed, and a blade optimised for forward power will by definition not be capable of extracting peak power from the engine in reverse, as blades are designed asymmetrically. I.e. to be more efficient in forward than astern.

There is an argument that the blade is best sized to get full engine power in astern not ahead. This will result in the boat being rather over-propped in ahead.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

blades are designed asymmetrically. I.e. to be more efficient in forward than astern.

Unless it's an Axiom... ;)

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

There is an argument that the blade is best sized to get full engine power in astern not ahead. This will result in the boat being rather over-propped in ahead.

What a logical suggestion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, F DRAYKE said:

Off topic.

I have the same trouble with my Isuzu 70 only revving to 1900, it will rev to about 2200 out of gear, so maybe the throttle stop is set incorrectly. My prop is 19” dia x 15” pitch, the boat is 60 x 11.

What made you have the prop re-pitched in the first place and how did you come to those figures.

Yes, as WotEver says - I had my prop pitch reduced in order to allow the engine to rev higher and get some more power. The actual amount of pitch reduction was decided by myself in discussion with Noris in Isleworth who did the work. I also used a couple of online prop calculators but I wouldn't rely on them. But before you do anything it sounds like you need to find out why your engine will only rev to 2200 out of gear (the Isuzu 70 should rev to a maximum of 2,700rpm).

Edited by blackrose
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The downside of reducing the pitch and diameter to allow the engine to rev higher rarely gets a mention. The engine will also need to run at  higher revs to achieve any given cruising speed. = more noise. 

And as Crowther pointed out, less effective braking. Stopping another situation when peak engine power might be needed, and a blade optimised for forward power will by definition not be capable of extracting peak power from the engine in reverse, as blades are designed asymmetrically. I.e. to be more efficient in forward than astern.

There is an argument that the blade is best sized to get full engine power in astern not ahead. This will result in the boat being rather over-propped in ahead.

 

 

I think that any downside has to be set against the benefits and with a boat as over-propped as mine undoubtedly was there was no real downside. I haven't really noticed any more noise because it's a fairly quiet engine, although as you say, there must be more revs at any given speed. I have noticed that I have to rev a bit harder to get the boat to stop, and in forward my idling speed is slightly slower, but that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

The analogy that I was once given by Crowthers is that if the boat is over-propped it's like driving a car up a steep hill in 5th gear causing the engine to labour under an unnecessarily heavy load. Doesn't that situation also cause excess noise, black smoke, engine wear, etc? Re-pitching the prop (reducing the pitch) in that situation will just allow the engine to run more freely.   

Edited by blackrose
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The downside of reducing the pitch and diameter to allow the engine to rev higher rarely gets a mention. The engine will also need to run at  higher revs to achieve any given cruising speed. = more noise. 

And as Crowther pointed out, less effective braking. Stopping another situation when peak engine power might be needed, and a blade optimised for forward power will by definition not be capable of extracting peak power from the engine in reverse, as blades are designed asymmetrically. I.e. to be more efficient in forward than astern.

There is an argument that the blade is best sized to get full engine power in astern not ahead. This will result in the boat being rather over-propped in ahead.

 

 

Mike the downside of having a prop to large is that on rivers you cant turn back into the lock mouth you get washed down stream!!! Now whilst on canals you get quieter cruising with an over sized prop and better fuel consumption low speed maneuvering can be difficult to say the least. My boat has been transformed since the prop was repitched and is a much safer  boat on the Trent and that is what matters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, peterboat said:

Mike the downside of having a prop to large is that on rivers you cant turn back into the lock mouth you get washed down stream!!! Now whilst on canals you get quieter cruising with an over sized prop and better fuel consumption low speed maneuvering can be difficult to say the least. My boat has been transformed since the prop was repitched and is a much safer  boat on the Trent and that is what matters

Yes, I completely agree. I can't edit my previous post as the first sentence sounds a bit ambiguous, but what I meant is that there was no downside to re-pitching my prop - none at all. If I want to stop quickly I just use a few more revs, but the engine & prop still stop the boat perfectly.

We're talking about some pretty big boats on this thread so as you say Peter, having adequate engine power and also getting it delivered is what matters.

Edited by blackrose
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackrose said:

If I want to stop quickly I just use a few more revs, but the engine & prop still stop the boat perfectly.

In fact thinking about it, with more hp available, one could argue that I now have have more stopping power than I had before!

Edited by blackrose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, blackrose said:

In fact thinking about it, with more hp available, one could argue that I now have have more stopping power than I had before!

That is a sure thing Mike, as with the 44Hp's you've available now (since the prop adaptations) you can do more than with the max power you had before.

 

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, blackrose said:

In fact thinking about it, with more hp available, one could argue that I now have have more stopping power than I had before!

 

Not necessarily! You old blade *might* have been optimised for maximum stopping performance in astern, which *could* have explained why it was over-propped in forward gear.

 If it was (and it may well not have been), shortening the pitch for better power matching in ahead will have slightly reduced stopping performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Not necessarily! You old blade *might* have been optimised for maximum stopping performance in astern, which *could* have explained why it was over-propped in forward gear.

 If it was (and it may well not have been), shortening the pitch for better power matching in ahead will have slightly reduced stopping performance.

Nah, there was no such "optimisation" Mike. 

Liverpool Boats just bunged on a prop that they thought was ok. If they'd bothered to use any basic prop calculator they'd have soon realised it was wrong. As Peter has said too, re-pitching the prop has transformed my boat for the better - and there are no downsides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 22:35, F DRAYKE said:

 

On ‎01‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 10:52, blackrose said:

The hp it produces may be limited by other factors. I have a Isuzu 55 on my 57 x 12 widebeam. The engine should rev to 3,000rpm, however it was over-propped (19" dia x 13" pitch prop) so it would never rev more than 1,950rpm in gear on open water. I had the prop re-pitched down to 11.5" and they took half an inch off the diameter. It still only revs to 2,250rpm but it produces a lot more power. If I look on the Isuzu power curves for my engine I can see that at 2,250rpm the engine produces about 44hp, so basically that's all I'm getting. But there is plenty of power - the pilot said the same thing when we crossed from Portishead to Sharpness.

Perhaps I could have reduced the pitch further to get more revs from the engine, but Noris' said you don't want a prop that's too flat or it will have no "bite" (that's a technical term apparently). I never really got to the bottom of why my engine can't get close to maximum revs.

The other thing to bear in mind is cooling. Having all those horses is good but they will need to be cooled, so make sure that your builder is planning on installing two skin tanks in your engine hole - one along each swim. The basic rule of thumb is 1ftsq of skin tank area per 4hp, so for your 52hp engine you'll want a minimum 13ftsq properly baffled skin tank area in total. Ask me how I know about this...-_-   

Isuzu Engine BHP.pdf

Off topic.

I have the same trouble with my Isuzu 70 only revving to 1900, it will rev to about 2200 out of gear, so maybe the throttle stop is set incorrectly. My prop is 19” dia x 15” pitch, the boat is 60 x 11.

 

My engine is a Canaline 70, same Isuzu as yours I think, real HP around 65.

My engine revs through to 2300 without a problem, boat is 57 x 12 prop is 19" x 13" 

 

Bazza

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spoken to Canaline and they have a few of the Isuzu engines left before they move onto the turbo charged Kioti.  My feeling is to try to get one of the simpler non turbo Isuzu engines. What do you think?  That will also give me 65 to 70 hp which should be plenty.

phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.