January 1, 1999 Issue |
January 15, 1999 Issue |
January 1, 1999 Issue
Two Small Outboards
By Jon LundThis country is blessed with an endless variety of small lakes, ponds, and waterways that are accessible by hand-carry boat launch sites. Bass boats and other boats requiring a launching ramp just can't get in.
On these mini waters, where ease of putting in and taking out are important, canoes are an ideal way to go. But not everyone is comfortable in the cramped space and limited carrying capacity of a canoe, so for a variety of reasons, canoes are not for everyone. For these boaters, sport canoes, square stern canoes, or light aluminum skiffs are good choices.
It is important to select the right size outboard motor size for these light craft. Some years ago, I acquired a used 12' Sears alumi-num rowboat with a 7-1/2 hp outboard and asked the owner why he was selling. He said the rig scared him.
After the first on-the-water trial, I had to agree with him. The outfit scared me, too. The boat, which weighed less than 100 pounds skipped around like a water strider with a hot foot. It was overpowered. I sold the motor pronto. With a smaller kicker, the boat was well-behaved and it served me for many years.
Over the years, I've used a variety of small outboards. As a kid, I ran a venerable old Elto Ace, which was manufactured by Ole Evinrude after he sold the rights to the Evinrude trademark. Then came a Neptune, which was a crude little machine. Later, a Johnson 2 hp and, most recently, a Suzuki 2 hp, which is my favorite.
It has been reported that running a leaf-blower for an hour puts out as much air pollution as driving a modem auto 100 miles. That's because a gasoline-powered leaf-blower, like most outboard motors, uses a two-cycle engine, whereas autos use four-cycle technology, which today includes sophisticated catalytic converters and fuel supply systems that limit the amount of hydrocarbons emitted.
In a four-cycle engine, the spark plug fires every other time the piston reaches the top of the cylinder, and the piston pushes out the exhaust and then sucks in a fresh charge of fuel before the spark plug fires again so the exhaust is much cleaner.
In a two-cycle engine, the spark plug fires every time the piston reaches the top of the cylinder, and the exhaust is discharged and the
fresh fuel charge is taken in at practically the same time. This means that some of the in-coming fuel is mixed with the outgoing ex-haust and emitted without being burned up.
In a leaf-blower or chain saw, the un-burned fuel from the two-stroke engine goes into the atmosphere. In an outboard, it probably goes into the water.
In addition, with a two-stroke engine, lubrication oil is mixed with the fuel, and whatever oil is not burned up in the cylinder also goes into the water.
Since they don't need valves or a camshaft, and there is a power stroke every revo-lution, two-cycle engines are simpler, lighter and cheaper for a given power output. But the hydrocarbons in their exhaust have become a matter of concern for people interested in air and water quality.
Honda automobile engines have earned an enviable reputation for quality and dura-bility. Similarly, generators powered by Honda small engines using four-cycle technology are first choice with many building contractors. Therefore, I've been interested to note Honda's venture into the four-cycle outboard motor field.
Until recently, when other outboard mak-ers have come out with four-stroke models, the only other four-cycle many years ago was a Homelite of 50 hp or so, which never achieved wide acceptance.
I had the opportunity to try out a friend's late model Honda 2 hp and compare it with a Suzuki of the same output.
For openers, the Honda is bulkier and heavier, tipping my bathroom scales at 32 pounds versus 25 pounds for the Suzuki, or about 28% heavier. It is air-cooled, with a water-cooled exhaust.
With the Honda you don't add oil to the gas, but pour it in a little filler pipe like many lawnmowers. You can check the oil level through a little viewing window on the face of the motor. Like some older motors, the Honda features an integral gas tank with a fuel tank cap conveniently located on the front of the engine.
My first test was to mount and run first the Honda, then the Suzuki, on the transom of a 17' Grumman square-stem canoe with about 50 pounds of ballast in the bow. It was a calm day. After the tank was emptied, one cup (8 ounces) of gasoline was added to the tank The motor was run with the throttle adjusted to roughly half speed, so the craft was going 5-1/2 mph according to a water speedometer.
At this setting, the Suzuki ran about 1-3/4 miles over a measured course before cork-ing out. The Honda ran about 2-1/2 miles before it stopped, or about 43% farther on the same amount of fuel.
Then I hung both motors on the stem of a 14' Alumacraft open aluminum boat, and again added I cup of fuel to an empty tank. This time I ran each motor in turn at top speed over the same course. The Honda had an edge in speed, pushing the boat at 6.5 mph versus 5.4 mph for the Suzuki.
The Suzuki ran out of gas after about I mile of travel, while the Honda went about 1-1/2 miles, or 50% farther.
My assumption is that the reason for the slightly greater efficiency of the four-cycle at wide open throttle is that the efficiency of the two-cycle engine begins to slope off as the engine approaches top speed.
With the emphasis on quietness in the Honda outboard motor ads, I had expected the Honda to be the quieter of the two, but that didn't prove to be the case. While the Honda ran steadily without missing a beat at low speeds, and the Suzuki chuffed and chugged more at trolling speed, there was more me-chanical clatter with the Honda at higher speeds. Neither one was especially quiet as compared to a late model Mercury 8 hp.
I suspect that Honda has put more em-phasis on quietness in their bigger engines, and were pretty pleased to be able to put together a water-cooled 2 hp model at 32 pounds of weight without a lot of sound insulation.
The difference in fuel consumption wasn't a big deal in savings in these days of cheap gasoline in the U.S., but it might be significant in a remote location where fuel has to be flown in.
More disturbing is the answer to the question of what happens to that 4096 of the fuel and lubricating oil that the two-cycle wastes. The problem becomes more pressing when you look at the dozens of motors up to 75 times as big and 75 times as fuel thirsty churning up and down the lake. It is no wonder that the EPA is pushing outboard manufacturers to come up with more fuel-efficient designs.
The Honda started on the first or second pull every time and showed every sigh of being a well-engineered and reliable engine. There used to be an auto ad that read "There's a Ford in your future!" It is probably safe to say to outboard boaters today, "There's a four-cycle in your future!"
Top Of Page
January 15, 1999 Issue
Raising The Mast
By William MantisRick Lapp's letter requesting mast stepping advice stimulated me to think about how I might solve similar difficulties experienced with my Catalina 22. His mast might be a couple of feet longer and slightly heavier, but the self-doubt and the adrenaline secretion bred by the process seems to be identical. It was also a relief to know that someone else shares the problem. I had heretofore assumed that everyone knew how to raise a mast single-handedly, with safety and aplomb, and that admitting to such a gap in one's nautical edu-cation was about like admitting one never learned to read.
I have had mixed success in raising (and lowering) my mast with one other person helping. Usually the other person providing (very reluctant) assistance is my wife. Her help is invariably preambled with the speculation that the local marina might be able to provide such a service at very nominal cost and at greatly reduced risk to life and limb.
Would this be the marina, I am likely to respond, where they are not sure they can fit you in, because they are not sure what's on the schedule on any given day? Where they are not sure they can set up an appointment because they are not sure they have a policy on appointments? Would she be referring to the selfsame marina that for one entire season had to rely on a forklift with a flat tire, a tire that had to be re-filled with air before each use, that marina? The marina where, in order to fill the tire, an employee wired a 12 volt air pump directly into a 110 volt outlet and ex-pressed surprise when it burst into flames in front of his eyes?
Better, more reliable, and less nerve-racking, probably, to sink the sailboat in ten feet of water, attach flotation to the mast, step the mast while the hull is resting on the bottom, then inflate air mattresses in the cabin to raise her up. It might take a couple of days and it might wreck the wiring, but at least you'd know about how long it would take and the approximate extent of the damage. Em-ploy the marina, and you wouldn't know ei-ther.
Anyway, getting back to the question of stepping a mast with a minimum of aggravation, the whole trick, it seems to me, is making sure that the mast remains directly over the centerline of the boat as it is being raised. If it falls off to either side, control is lost and at the very minimum, the hinging mechanism at the base of the mast is likely to be ruined. On the other hand, if lateral movement can be prevented, the mast's behavior can be easily predicted and controlled. It can then be easily propped up part way from abaft and winched the rest of way up from forward.
Preventing lateral movement, however, is no small trick. Shrouds, which perform that function when the mast is erect, are of no help when the mast is being raised. They would work, or could work, in this regard if the base of the mast and the bases of two shrouds formed a straight line. The combination of mast and shrouds would then act like a large, but not very heavy, plane which is hinged at the bottom. Raising it would be a piece of cake.
Unfortunately, on the Catalina 22 (as with every other sailboat with which I am familiar) the three points are not in a line. The lower shrouds attach at points forward and aft of the mast so they cannot be used. The upper shrouds, although they form a plane with the mast running perfectly athwartship, attach to the rail perhaps 8" to 12" below the base of the mast, the latter being mounted on the coach roof. As a result, there is no tension on the upper shrouds until the mast is fully erect and, therefore, they will provide no lateral support during the mast-raising.
It would appear that the solution to the problem lies in providing temporary pivots or chain plates for the shrouds to bring the bases of mast and shrouds into alignment. A couple of triangular pieces of 3/4" ply should do the job. I will bolt the bases of the triangles to the lower shroud chain plates and drill holes in the apex of each triangle so that I can sight through one to the other with the mast hinge directly in line between the two.
With the backstay connected, and with the mast lying directly on the centerline, I will pass a starboard shroud through the starboard triangle, make a loop, and clamp the shroud securely back to itself using a cable clamp. Then repeat the procedure to port, making sure that both shrouds are taut and of equal length. Thereafter, there should be no side-to-side movement in the mast as it passes through its 90D arc.
Almost any kind of strut should then serve to prop up the mast temporarily (a whisker pole, a swim ladder, whatever). The jib halyard can be passed around a block at the forepeak then back to a winch in the cockpit. The winch is activated and the mast, with minimal (human) effort or tension, is lifted into position, the halyard cleated off, and the forestay made fast. To avoid excessive strain on the halyard and winch in the initial mast-raising process, the halyard must leave the mast at an angle of no less than 15 degrees. The temporary mast prop may have to be lengthened or moved forward to make sure the angle of attack is not less than 15 degrees (unless a gin pole is used in which case, the mast can be raised from fiat on its back).
What could go wrong? Well, a cheap, corroded block at the forepeak could give way and the mast could come crashing down, tearing the metal mast-step plate out by the roots. I've done that. Or, your backstay could get caught on a cleat or any number of other obstructions as you are raising the mast, and you'll be forced to lower the mast again and remove the snarl. I've done that, too.
Meanwhile, if your temporary mast sup-port has fallen away, you will have lost the mechanical advantage conferred by that magical 15 degrees, and you'll pretty much have to drop your mast on your companionway cover. Ditto, done that also. Or, in the course of lowering your mast, the halyard could pop off the top of the winch, and your mast, again of its own accord, could come crashing down on your companionway cover. I can recall that occurring, too. So it always helps to have a second pair of hands around. Success in con-trolling lateral movement does not guarantee the success of the overall process. It just makes it easier.
Easy enough so that it could, perhaps, be accomplished single-handedly with the aid of those two plywood triangles, at least in theory and on paper. I'll try it next winter and let you know, unless someone else tries it and reports on it first, or comes up with a better alternative altogether.
A relevant postscript: After writing this, my copy of Hiscock, Cruising Under Sail, original copyright 1949, was resumed to me. In two sentences, with the assistance of a diagram, he describes the right way to raise a mast. Instead of a single gin pole, he recommends a pair of sheerlegs, the "feet" of which are planted directly abreast either side of the mast base. The feet will need to be able to pivot. Stable and reliable as it may be, he still advises calm water and minimal wind. He suggests this is the only method of stepping a jury mast at sea. I may try his way first, unless I conclude there is insufficient adventure in my life.
William Mantis, 306 Irvine Ave., St. Paul, MN 55102, (651) 290-9988, medav@pioneerplanet.infi.net.
The Box Keel is Back
By Berkeley A. EastmanI read with great interest Phil Bolger's article about his Yawl Boat design #651 in the September 1,1998 issue of MAIB. It reminded me of a similar boat I built about 60 years ago. My father was a career USCG officer and a naval architect. He would design a small boat while he was on weather/ice patrol in the North Atlantic for three to four months at a time. When he would return from sea, we would gather the materials and build the newly-designed craft. The boat would be taken to our summer home in South Wellfleet, Cape Cod, about the first of July each year when we opened our home for the summer months.
I spent many happy hours sailing around Blackfish Creek in various boats. When I was about 10 years old, l started building boat and airplane models. My dad always encouraged me to design models of my own. Two years later, I built a 12' plywood kayak of my own design. It was 18" wide and extremely tippy. The next summer I decided to build a wider boat. I didn't have enough materials on hand to build a complete boat, so I decided to use my 12' tippy kayak as the keel for my new boat design. Basically what I built was a john boat with the kayak as the box keel.
The new boat ended up 8' long be-cause of the 8' sheet of plywood for the bot-tom and sides, so I had to cut the last 4 feet off my kayak stern. I borrowed a friend's outboard motor and we had lots of fun speeding around Blackfish Creek that summer. My younger brothers and I used that boat until 1943, when I enlisted in the United States Coast Guard for the duration of World War II. When I came home after the war in 1946, my boat was "one. None of my three younger brothers seemed to know what happened to it.
In 1952, after graduating from college, I started a boat building shop in Azusa, California. One of my first boats was an advanced replica of my old kayak keel boat. The big craze at that time in plywood boats was V-bottom runabouts and sailboats. Needless to say, my box keel flat-bottomed boat had no sales appeal. I built several hundred V-bottom plywood runabouts and small cabin cruisers. I sold my boat building business in 1958 and became a general building contractor and real estate broker. I retired from that in 1975.
My hobby, after retiring, was designing and building experimental aircraft. I designed and built and restored 14 different airplanes. In 1986, I underwent two triple bypass heart operations. I could not renew my pilot's medical license to continue to fly, so I went back to my favorite hobby, boat design and building.
In 1987 I designed several miniature ply-wood tug boats with flat bottoms and plumb stems and sides, either electric or outboard powered. They all were displacement hulls. The building plans were designed for the first- time boat builder using the tack and tape method. The plans are sold by mail order. These boats were intended to use 4-8 hp out-boards and cruise at about 5 or 6 knots. After several of the boat builders started to install bigger motors than recommended, such as 15 hp to 35 hp outboards, higher speeds made the boats extremely dangerous.
When the hull would hit a wake from another boat, it would plunge into it and come to a complete stop, which could severely injure the occupants. After learning of this, I needed to design a safe hull for those speed demons but easy to build. I remembered my box keel boat from when I was a kid, so I de-signed my 10' and 11' tugs using a modified box keel bottom with additional aft planing surface. Both of these boats have ride and handling characteristics that are superb, even at speeds of 25 mph.
What goes around comes around. The box keel is back.
Berkeley A. Eastman 1640 Reche Road Fallbrook, CA 92028.
Return To Messing About In Boats' First Page Top Of Page
