Narrowboat engine size and noise question ?
Trevor George
which is a twin-cylinder air-cooled Lister does become a bit tiresome and
irritatingly intrusive at times.
I've been thinking of changing it to a quieter modern water-cooled lump and have been
looking on the 'net at the Beta Marine http://www.betamarine.co.uk engines.
I called the company and had a good chat and the rep recommended the BV1305 at 35 bhp
for my use. I quite fancy the fully enclosed, almost silent, engine, but that's a bit
out of budget.
Just wondering .... any other recommendations, advice ?
All will be gratefully considered.
--
Thanks ..... Trevor George, Bristol, UK.
NarrowBoat - http://www.OnMyBoat.co.uk
Home - http://www.PoolesWharf.com
Work - http://www.OnMyWindow.co.uk
Will Chapman
> I called the company and had a good chat and the rep recommended the
> BV1305 at 35 bhp for my use. I quite fancy the fully enclosed, almost
> silent, engine, but that's a bit out of budget.
>
> Just wondering .... any other recommendations, advice ?
>
coupled with a beta 1903 (Quidditch is 60ft). The silencer is
large but very effective.
Cheers.......
Will Chapman
nb Quidditch
Neil
> Hi all .... Although I dearly love my 38' narrowboat www.OnMyBoat.co.uk the engine
> which is a twin-cylinder air-cooled Lister does become a bit tiresome and
> irritatingly intrusive at times.
>
> I've been thinking of changing it to a quieter modern water-cooled lump and have been
> looking on the 'net at the Beta Marine http://www.betamarine.co.uk engines.
>
> I called the company and had a good chat and the rep recommended the BV1305 at 35 bhp
> for my use. I quite fancy the fully enclosed, almost silent, engine, but that's a bit
> out of budget.
>
> Just wondering .... any other recommendations, advice ?
>
Got a 2 pot Lister thunker, albeit watercooled, is still half deafening
and makes my ears ring with the lid up - I found a little bit of
soundproofing goes a long way - it seems like expensive stuff, but lots
cheaper than a new engine and good fun to fit. A flexible prop coupling
of some sort (even 2 UJ's back to back works wonders), and good engine
mounts. All cheaper still than an engine swap methinks.
But if the Lister wore out, which it won't in my lifetime, wouldn't mind
the comparitive quiteness of a 3 pot
Andy Champ
<snip>
>
> But if the Lister wore out, which it won't in my lifetime, wouldn't mind
> the comparitive quiteness of a 3 pot
>
Theory says go for a 4-pot, or a flat twin. You can't balance a triple
(except as a radial engine and I've never seen one of those!)
Of course you *really* want a straight six but...
Andy
Paul E. Bennett
> Neil wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> But if the Lister wore out, which it won't in my lifetime, wouldn't mind
>> the comparitive quiteness of a 3 pot
>>
>
> Theory says go for a 4-pot, or a flat twin. You can't balance a triple
> (except as a radial engine and I've never seen one of those!)
I think I have seen one in someones garden round here. Next time I pass
that way I'll sneak a photo.
--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://p...@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/
********************************************************************
Neil Arlidge
> Hi all .... Although I dearly love my 38' narrowboat
> www.OnMyBoat.co.uk the engine which is a twin-cylinder air-cooled
> Lister does become a bit tiresome and irritatingly intrusive at times.
>
> I've been thinking of changing it to a quieter modern water-cooled
> lump and have been looking on the 'net at the Beta Marine
> http://www.betamarine.co.uk engines.
>
> I called the company and had a good chat and the rep recommended the
> BV1305 at 35 bhp for my use. I quite fancy the fully enclosed, almost
> silent, engine, but that's a bit out of budget.
>
> Just wondering .... any other recommendations, advice ?
>
> All will be gratefully considered.
My Beta 1903 has just passed the 4000 hour mark...and is not noticeably
different from new.
My last boat had a rebuilt BMC 1.5 and with 4200 hours on it I thought it
cheaper to replace the boat!
--
Neil Arlidge - NB Earnest
Follow the travels of the TNC at : http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk
Phil Speight
the good `ole BMC
four cylinder jobby ? Not expensive , can be quiet , and spares are
plentiful and cheap . There are lots around in vaious guises both new and
secondhand .
Phil
"Trevor George" <tre...@REMOVE-THISpooleswharf.com> wrote in message
news:h6nne.43526$G8.2...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Trevor George
general "Thank-you" to all sort of response. Anyway thanks for the replies.
I've chewed over the replies and from a reference to "Hospital Silencer" and
good_'ol_Google have arrived at T.W.Marine's website at
http://twmarine.co.uk/exhaust.htm
I've had a natter with a representative there and he recommends the most
cost-effective way is their smallest 'Hospital Silencer' plus some newer insulation
under the deck plates above the engine.
At least following that path will reduce the 'bark' from the current silencer waking
up my neighbours when I go for an early morning start-up, even though I knock it back
to idle-speed as soon as it bursts into life :~)
Hopefully some newer "improved" insulation material may also reduce the noise around
the steerer position as well.
At least I'll be saving lots of pennies over buy a new engine set-up. And less hassle
to boot.
--
Cheers ..... Trevor George, Bristol, UK.
bro...@reading-college.ac.uk
You can not balance any straight configuration because of the
non-harmonic motion of the pistons - hence the need for harmonic
balancers. You can balance horizontally opposed engines so a
horizontally opposed four would be best - the twin would try to "screw"
on its mounts. Just making the engine flat does nothing for balance.
My 3 pot, inline Bukh is smoother than a friends BMC 1.8, but the Bukh
does have internal balance shafts.
However its all too theoretical to worry much, a lot more is to do with
mounts, shaft alignment &flexible couplings.
Tony Brooks
Neil
> Sorry, I think not.
>
> You can not balance any straight configuration because of the
> non-harmonic motion of the pistons - hence the need for harmonic
> balancers. You can balance horizontally opposed engines so a
> horizontally opposed four would be best - the twin would try to "screw"
> on its mounts. Just making the engine flat does nothing for balance.
>
That's intresting, and judging bythe lovely racket a VW beetle makes, I
wouldn't disagree! but what's true difference between horizontally
opposed and flat? Am guessing for true horisontal opposing, pistons are
travelling in opposite directions at the same time?
> My 3 pot, inline Bukh is smoother than a friends BMC 1.8, but the Bukh
> does have internal balance shafts.
>
Extremely reliable engines too
> However its all too theoretical to worry much, a lot more is to do with
> mounts, shaft alignment &flexible couplings.
>
In addition ISTR on sea boats having a water cooled exhaust made a big
difference as well - we had one on a Bukh DV10 back in the day - Vetus
had quite a complicated muffler system which really kept exhaust noise
down - we couldn't afford it after getting the bukh :)
AP BROOKS
"Neil" <m...@home.net> wrote in message
news:d7nf79$g3h$1...@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> bro...@reading-college.ac.uk wrote:
>> Sorry, I think not.
>>
>> You can not balance any straight configuration because of the
>> non-harmonic motion of the pistons - hence the need for harmonic
>> balancers. You can balance horizontally opposed engines so a
>> horizontally opposed four would be best - the twin would try to "screw"
>> on its mounts. Just making the engine flat does nothing for balance.
>>
>
> That's intresting, and judging bythe lovely racket a VW beetle makes, I
> wouldn't disagree! but what's true difference between horizontally
> opposed and flat? Am guessing for true horisontal opposing, pistons are
> travelling in opposite directions at the same time?
Yes - centre crankshaft with pistons on either side - not all stuck out on
opne side.
>
>
>> My 3 pot, inline Bukh is smoother than a friends BMC 1.8, but the Bukh
>> does have internal balance shafts.
>>
>
> Extremely reliable engines too
>
>> However its all too theoretical to worry much, a lot more is to do with
>> mounts, shaft alignment &flexible couplings.
>>
>
> In addition ISTR on sea boats having a water cooled exhaust made a big
> difference as well - we had one on a Bukh DV10 back in the day - Vetus had
> quite a complicated muffler system which really kept exhaust noise down -
> we couldn't afford it after getting the bukh :)
The hospital silencer I have just fitted is better than the wet jobs we had
on the hire fleet - and you will not be able to burn holes in it and sink
the boat once a raw water failure has been fixed.
Andy Champ
I assume that was aimed at me?
If you define the engine as if it was in a boat with the crankshaft
fore-and-aft:
180 degree crank three cylinder engines have vertical, lateral and roll
oscillation movements. Balancer shafts can cancel some of this out.
There's one in my wife's car, and it does vibrate a lot.
120 degree crank threes pitch and roll all over the place, but don't
move in any of the axes. I guess bolted hard enough to a large hull
that'd be OK, but they're not much use in a car. Which sort are the
boat engines?
Four cylinder inlines have limited vertical oscillation and substantial
roll.
Six cylinder in-line engines with the crank positions at
0-120-240-240-120-0 degrees have quite remarkably low oscillations in
any direction. This is why BMW make so much of them in their cars.
However, they tend to be a bit big for a narrow boat.
Flat "boxer" twins would be really good except that to get the pistons
to move in and out simultaneously they have to be mounted one slightly
behind the other,otherwise the con rods would collide. This results in
yaw movements. They've also got roll. Not to mention the valve gear
problems!
Flat fours could cancel out the yaw, but if you did that all the pistons
would be at TDC at the same time, so in practice the two pairs are at 90
degrees. This spreads out the firing impulses, and damps out the roll.
V6 engines need balancer shafts. It's not just "nice to have", it's
"must". Then you've got complicated valve gear, duplicated manifolds...
I don't know why you'd want one, except may be space.
I haven't done the numbers for anything else. I imagine, however, that
a V12 must be *really* smooth...
HTH
Andy
Jonathan Hodgson
> V6 engines need balancer shafts. It's not just "nice to have", it's
> "must". Then you've got complicated valve gear, duplicated manifolds...
> I don't know why you'd want one, except may be space.
>
> I haven't done the numbers for anything else. I imagine, however, that
> a V12 must be *really* smooth...
Sorry, can't resist:
What's the balance like on a Deltic, then? :-) In both 9- and
18-cylinder versions...
And I hadn't realised that 180° triples existed - doesn't sound nice!
Jonny
Ron Jones
Reminds me of the old V4 that Ford used to have - enormous balancer weights
on a separte shaft! Compact engine though.
I wouldn't mind a V8 in a boat, not that smooth (uneven firing), but oh, the
noise when you open the throttle... :-)
--
--
Ron Jones
Don't repeat history, see unreported near misses in chemical lab/plant
at http://www.crhf.org.uk
Tim Leech
wrote:
>
>Four cylinder inlines have limited vertical oscillation and substantial
>roll.
>
>Six cylinder in-line engines with the crank positions at
>0-120-240-240-120-0 degrees have quite remarkably low oscillations in
>any direction. This is why BMW make so much of them in their cars.
>However, they tend to be a bit big for a narrow boat.
>
>Flat "boxer" twins would be really good except that to get the pistons
>to move in and out simultaneously they have to be mounted one slightly
>behind the other,otherwise the con rods would collide. This results in
>yaw movements. They've also got roll. Not to mention the valve gear
>problems!
>
>Flat fours could cancel out the yaw, but if you did that all the pistons
>would be at TDC at the same time, so in practice the two pairs are at 90
>degrees. This spreads out the firing impulses, and damps out the roll.
>
>V6 engines need balancer shafts. It's not just "nice to have", it's
>"must". Then you've got complicated valve gear, duplicated manifolds...
>I don't know why you'd want one, except may be space.
>
>I haven't done the numbers for anything else. I imagine, however, that
>a V12 must be *really* smooth...
>
>
Nobody's mentioned a 5-cylinder, which seems to have a lot going for
it.
Gardners built lots of them, mainly for buses, and used to extol their
virtues, and of course Audi do them today.
Cheers
Tim
Dutton Dry-Dock
Traditional & Modern canal craft repairs
Vintage diesel engine service
David Long
<dutto...@onetel.com> writes
>>
>
>Nobody's mentioned a 5-cylinder, which seems to have a lot going for
>it.
>Gardners built lots of them, mainly for buses, and used to extol their
>virtues, and of course Audi do them today.
>
30 years ago (I scrapped a survivor myself in the 1980s), the 1930s
engine having been replaced with the 6-cyl engine in the mid-50s. You'd
have a job finding a 5-cyl engine even in Hong Kong (where most were
said to have gone to power junks.
--
David Long
Sankey Canal Restoration Society http://www.scars.org.uk/
St. Mary's http://www.geocities.com/andrew_fishburn/stmary1.html
http://www.scars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/webcam/
Tim Leech
>In message <1t3da11kotcd9ej7q...@4ax.com>, Tim Leech
><dutto...@onetel.com> writes
>>>
>>
>>Nobody's mentioned a 5-cylinder, which seems to have a lot going for
>>it.
>>Gardners built lots of them, mainly for buses, and used to extol their
>>virtues, and of course Audi do them today.
>>
>The Bristol FLFs which used the 5-cyl Gardners were being scrapped over
>30 years ago (I scrapped a survivor myself in the 1980s), the 1930s
>engine having been replaced with the 6-cyl engine in the mid-50s. You'd
>have a job finding a 5-cyl engine even in Hong Kong (where most were
>said to have gone to power junks.
I wasn't suggesting using one <G>, just adding to the speculation
about relative smoothness etc for different cylinder combinations.
Mind you, I have seen one narrowboat with a 5LW, and the narrow tug
Enterprise has a 5L2 IIRC. Serious overkill for normal pleasure
boating, though!
Tim Leech
<tre...@REMOVE-THISpooleswharf.com> wrote:
>Hi all .... Although I dearly love my 38' narrowboat www.OnMyBoat.co.uk the engine
>which is a twin-cylinder air-cooled Lister does become a bit tiresome and
>irritatingly intrusive at times.
>
>I've been thinking of changing it to a quieter modern water-cooled lump and have been
>looking on the 'net at the Beta Marine http://www.betamarine.co.uk engines.
>
>I called the company and had a good chat and the rep recommended the BV1305 at 35 bhp
>for my use. I quite fancy the fully enclosed, almost silent, engine, but that's a bit
>out of budget.
>
>Just wondering .... any other recommendations, advice ?
>
My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38' narrow
boat! Look for something a bit smaller unless you're planning
waterskiing trips.
tom ireland
<dutto...@onetel.com> writes
>On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:27:25 GMT, "Trevor George"
><tre...@REMOVE-THISpooleswharf.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi all .... Although I dearly love my 38' narrowboat
>>www.OnMyBoat.co.uk the engine
>>which is a twin-cylinder air-cooled Lister does become a bit tiresome and
>>irritatingly intrusive at times.
>>
>>I've been thinking of changing it to a quieter modern water-cooled
>>lump and have been
>>looking on the 'net at the Beta Marine http://www.betamarine.co.uk engines.
>>
>>I called the company and had a good chat and the rep recommended the
>>BV1305 at 35 bhp
>>for my use. I quite fancy the fully enclosed, almost silent, engine,
>>but that's a bit
>>out of budget.
>>
>>Just wondering .... any other recommendations, advice ?
>
>Dutton Dry-Dock
>Traditional & Modern canal craft repairs
>Vintage diesel engine service
opposed system, linked by means of four universal joints to an unsecured
power source. Apart from low grunting and panting sounds at heavily
stressed output levels the system is almost silent and totally
eco-friendly.
--
tom ireland
David Long
><tre...@REMOVE-THISpooleswharf.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi all .... Although I dearly love my 38' narrowboat
>>www.OnMyBoat.co.uk the engine
>>which is a twin-cylinder air-cooled Lister does become a bit tiresome and
>>irritatingly intrusive at times.
>>
>>I've been thinking of changing it to a quieter modern water-cooled
>>lump and have been
>>looking on the 'net at the Beta Marine http://www.betamarine.co.uk engines.
>>
>>I called the company and had a good chat and the rep recommended the
>>BV1305 at 35 bhp
>>for my use. I quite fancy the fully enclosed, almost silent, engine,
>>but that's a bit
>>out of budget.
>>
>>Just wondering .... any other recommendations, advice ?
>>
>
>My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38' narrow
>boat! Look for something a bit smaller unless you're planning
>waterskiing trips.
>
fleet of nbs in France.
Trevor George
> My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38'
> water-skiing trips.
The Lister SR2 develops 20bhp, put in in 1978, so I wouldn't have thought that a
35bhp (max power) engine would be that big a jump in bhp for a modern-day 38 footer.
It would enable you to cruise at a much lesser stressed lower-revved engine-speed,
(gearbox ratios permitting).
Even rowing boats and canoes overtake me there days, unless I really cane the Lister,
which just then makes a racket, which is what I was trying to avoid.
In the event I am currently replacing all the old thin foam soundproofing around the
engine-bay and beneath the deck-boards with modern acoustic damping material and a
"Hospital Generator Exhaust" all from T.W.Marine at http://twmarine.co.uk/index.htm
It's far cheaper than a new engine, plus fitting costs.
I will let all interested know what effect each change makes, as and when they are
completed.
--
Cheers ..... Trevor George, Bristol, UK.
Phil R
"Trevor George" <tre...@REMOVE-THISpooleswharf.com> wrote in message
> Tim Leech wrote in message ...
> > My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38'
> > narrowboat! Look for something a bit smaller unless you're
planning
> > water-skiing trips.
>
> The Lister SR2 develops 20bhp, put in in 1978, so I wouldn't have
thought that a
> 35bhp (max power) engine would be that big a jump in bhp for a
modern-day 38 footer.
The SR2 is rated at 13 BHP at 2000 RPM
Phil
Tim Leech
<tre...@REMOVE-THISpooleswharf.com> wrote:
>Tim Leech wrote in message ...
>> My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38'
>> narrowboat! Look for something a bit smaller unless you're planning
>> water-skiing trips.
>
>The Lister SR2 develops 20bhp, put in in 1978, so I wouldn't have thought that a
>35bhp (max power) engine would be that big a jump in bhp for a modern-day 38 footer.
>
If it's really an SR2, it won't be 20bhp. Sounds more like an ST2,
they are much noisier at full power than is the SR (which will be more
like 13 to 15bhp). Understandably so, as they were squeezing up to 40%
more power out of a similar package. Also one reason why the original
CanalStar was introduced, basically an SR under another name, because
the ST2 rapidly became unpopular because of noise & vibration levels.
>It would enable you to cruise at a much lesser stressed lower-revved engine-speed,
>(gearbox ratios permitting).
>
>Even rowing boats and canoes overtake me there days, unless I really cane the Lister,
>which just then makes a racket, which is what I was trying to avoid.
>
The noise bit I can fully understand.
Canoes will always be able to overtake you <G>
I really don't understand why people want to fit such large engines
these days, unless for a specific need (as David suggested, though we
managed fine for several years in France, Belgium & Holland with 33
bhp in a Humber Keel, 18.5m x 5m x 1.4m, 50+ tonnes displacement. We
eventually changed it for a bigger engine because a) the gearbox was
tired, b) an aircooled engine wasn't the most user-friendly item in
France in hiugh summer, c) we weren't confident of it's ability to
bring us back up the Rhone).
There now seems to be almost an assumption, especially among sales
reps (I wonder why <G>?) that narrow boats need bigger engines than
they really do.
You won't usually be using more than a couple of hp when cruising
along the canal.
Dave Larrington
> Nobody's mentioned a 5-cylinder, which seems to have a lot going for
> it.
> Gardners built lots of them, mainly for buses, and used to extol their
> virtues, and of course Audi do them today.
I shudder to think how VW manage with their narrow-angle V5, which IIRC is
the VR6 with one pot sawn off.
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
The sixth student said, "I ride my bicycle because I want people to
look up to me and say 'Wow! He looks really good up there!' The
teacher replied: 'Go away, Fabrizio!'"
Brian
"Tim Leech" <dutto...@onetel.com> wrote in message
news:2ggda1pblqpsbgdoj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:29:24 GMT, "Trevor George"
> <tre...@REMOVE-THISpooleswharf.com> wrote:
>
>>Tim Leech wrote in message ...
>>> My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38'
>>> narrowboat! Look for something a bit smaller unless you're planning
>>> water-skiing trips.
snip
> You won't usually be using more than a couple of hp when cruising
> along the canal.
That goes back to the point I made earlier, how much of the 35 or 45 Hp
available do boats actually use regardless of what they are doing
--
Brian Ancient Order of Sewer Ants
Steve Atty
>
snip
>
> That goes back to the point I made earlier, how much of the 35 or 45 Hp
> available do boats actually use regardless of what they are doing
They have little fiberglass bathtubs for sale at Upton Marina with 90bhp
engines in them !!
Surely what is most important is having the right amount of torque at
the right revs - no point in having tons of power on a canal boat if it
only kicks in at 4000+rpm.
Mintball (52 foot) has a BMC 1.5 (rated at max 32bhp??) and I think
there have only been a couple of occasions since its launch in 1986 that
I've wanted a bit more spare power - like when I was trying turn into
Limehouse Lock after coming down from Kingston on the falling tide.
Steve
David Long
<dutto...@onetel.com> writes
>
>I really don't understand why people want to fit such large engines
>these days, unless for a specific need (as David suggested, though we
>managed fine for several years in France, Belgium & Holland with 33
>bhp in a Humber Keel, 18.5m x 5m x 1.4m, 50+ tonnes displacement. We
>eventually changed it for a bigger engine because a) the gearbox was
>tired, b) an aircooled engine wasn't the most user-friendly item in
>France in hiugh summer, c) we weren't confident of it's ability to
>bring us back up the Rhone).
>There now seems to be almost an assumption, especially among sales
>reps (I wonder why <G>?) that narrow boats need bigger engines than
>they really do.
>
>You won't usually be using more than a couple of hp when cruising
>along the canal.
>
French canals at half revs. Because you can nearly always maintain that
speed all day, that makes for relaxed cruising in our 46', 14t, narrow
boat. The extra revs are very useful for taking advantage of the 12kph
limit on the rivers, when going downstream... and enable us to do well
enough against the stream, too. They are also vital when you need to
stop quickly - as we had to do last week when a laden sand barge failed
to see me approaching through a bridge as he swung across the river to
turn. I think Beecliffe would have hit it!
Tim Leech
wrote:
>
>Surely what is most important is having the right amount of torque at
>the right revs - no point in having tons of power on a canal boat if it
>only kicks in at 4000+rpm.
<Groan> Oh no, not the Torque question again !!<BG>
Tim Leech
She had pretty good brakes actually, even with the HA3. A lot to do
with having a properly matched, decent sized propellor.
I have no problem with your setup for what you do, David. I would
probably look for something similar if I were doing the same thing.
Tim Leech
wrote:
>>>
>>My Perkins P3 (c.38hp) easily maintains the legal 6kph limit on the
>>French canals at half revs.
So if it's really developing that 38bhp at full revs (exactly correct
prop, etc) it's developing less than 3.5 bhp at half speed (cube root
of 38 bhp), which supports my point about 'a couple of hp' at
(English) canal cruising speeds.
Chris
as engine suppliers we would recommend the Lister Petter LPWS3 for this
application. This will develop 30HP at 3000rpm and will have a useable 12Hp
at around 1200rpm, ideal for canal cruising. Where does the cube rote come
into engine power?
Assuming a heavy flywheel and reasonable torque HP is related to engine
speed, when we rerate engines for fishing regulations it is a simple
deduction in revs.
Chrisnews:8m0ea19ugkjatc048...@4ax.com...
Brian
news:d871op$ma5$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> hi all,
> as engine suppliers we would recommend the Lister Petter LPWS3 for this
> application. This will develop 30HP at 3000rpm and will have a useable
> 12Hp
> at around 1200rpm, ideal for canal cruising. Where does the cube rote come
> into engine power?
> Assuming a heavy flywheel and reasonable torque HP is related to engine
> speed, when we rerate engines for fishing regulations it is a simple
> deduction in revs.
power absorbed by the prop maybe. you can only produce as much "power" as
you are using
Tim Leech
<babel_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>hi all,
>as engine suppliers we would recommend the Lister Petter LPWS3 for this
>application. This will develop 30HP at 3000rpm and will have a useable 12Hp
>at around 1200rpm, ideal for canal cruising. Where does the cube rote come
>into engine power?
Power absorbed by a prop is proportional to the cube of the rpm
(approximately). Oh dear, my brain is hurting now, not sure if I did
the right sum for David's engine, but you should get the general idea
;-)
Your LPWS3 may develop 12bhp @ 1200rpm, but only if it's matched with
the right prop for that power & speed. If it has the right prop for
30hp @ 3000, it won't be putting out anything like 12hp at 1200rpm.
Conversely if it has the right prop for 12 bhp @ 1200, you'll never
get it up to anwhere near 3000 rpm on load.
>Assuming a heavy flywheel and reasonable torque HP is related to engine
>speed, when we rerate engines for fishing regulations it is a simple
>deduction in revs.
>Chris
Flywheel weight has nothing to do with it. hp is exactly related as
torque x rpm, reasonable or not.
Andy Champ
>
> Sorry, can't resist:
>
> What's the balance like on a Deltic, then? :-) In both 9- and
> 18-cylinder versions...
>
> And I hadn't realised that 180° triples existed - doesn't sound nice!
>
> Jonny
I have no idea how a Deltic balances. The arithmetic was hard enough
for conventional engines! Found a nice page though:
http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/delticengine.htm
My wife's car is a Suzuki Swift 1.0 (the 1.3 is a four) and ISTR the
Corsa had one too.
Actually, the sound is quite nice. A sort of deep roar totally out of
place against the performance generated (:
Andy
Bob Adams
<dutto...@onetel.com> writes
>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:20:25 +0100, Steve Atty <nos...@tty.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Surely what is most important is having the right amount of torque at
>>the right revs - no point in having tons of power on a canal boat if it
>>only kicks in at 4000+rpm.
>
><Groan> Oh no, not the Torque question again !!<BG>
>
Bob.
--
If this line appears in your reply - your news reader is screwed!
Bob Adams - nb Rivendell - 4 days and counting...
email address: bo...@ntlworld.com
Neil Arlidge
> In message <pd8da156o1sdpod04...@4ax.com>, Tim Leech
> <dutto...@onetel.com> writes
>> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:27:25 GMT, "Trevor George"
>> <tre...@REMOVE-THISpooleswharf.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all .... Although I dearly love my 38' narrowboat
>>> www.OnMyBoat.co.uk the engine
>>> which is a twin-cylinder air-cooled Lister does become a bit
>>> tiresome and irritatingly intrusive at times.
>>>
>>> I've been thinking of changing it to a quieter modern water-cooled
>>> lump and have been
>>> looking on the 'net at the Beta Marine http://www.betamarine.co.uk
>>> engines. I called the company and had a good chat and the rep
>>> recommended the
>>> BV1305 at 35 bhp
>>> for my use. I quite fancy the fully enclosed, almost silent, engine,
>>> but that's a bit
>>> out of budget.
>>>
>>> Just wondering .... any other recommendations, advice ?
>>>
>>
>> My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38' narrow
>> boat! Look for something a bit smaller unless you're planning
>> waterskiing trips.
>>
> ... or need a little bit more power if you're going to join the
> growing fleet of nbs in France.
...and rather essential to to Ardnacrusha and the Limerick Navigation...
--
Neil Arlidge - NB Earnest
Follow the travels of the TNC at : http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk
David Long
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>
>Has anybody been down the Rhone in a narrow boat to the S. of France
>and managed to get the boat back up again afterwards?
I've heard it's been done - but I've yet to meet anyone myself over
there who has done it.
Dave Larrington
> I have no idea how a Deltic balances. The arithmetic was hard enough
> for conventional engines! Found a nice page though:
>
> http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/delticengine.htm
(Follows link)
That's mad, Ted!
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
This Unit is a productive Unit.
Tim Leech
>Has anybody been down the Rhone in a narrow boat to the S. of France
>and managed to get the boat back up again afterwards?
I don't see why they shouldn't if the boat has a decent underwater
shape and an adequate engine/propulsion system - and of course is safe
in other respects for use in that sort of big river/commercial
waterway environment. Quite a few of the nb's I see here on the dry
dock I wouldn't want to try it with, as their underwater shape is so
awful.
We got the Beecliffe up without trouble (Humber barge, 5m beam), her
practical top speed is limited by the bluff bow in the way that a
decent shaped narrow boat wouldn't be. Engine at that time was a 60bhp
Gardner 4LW.
Admittedly we did remove most of the ballast in Sete, so that the bow
was fairly high in the water to reduce this effect.
Incidentally the ballast was 20 tonnes of Trent sand, loaded at
Girton, which we managed to sell to a sand merchant in Sete <BG>
We replaced this with 12 tonnes of concrete building blocks at St Jean
de Losne.
Richard
>>
> I'm going boating for two weeks
>
Enjoy!
--
Richard Nosek
David Long
<dutto...@onetel.com> writes
>>
>>Has anybody been down the Rhone in a narrow boat to the S. of France
>>and managed to get the boat back up again afterwards?
>
>
>I don't see why they shouldn't if the boat has a decent underwater
>shape and an adequate engine/propulsion system - and of course is safe
>in other respects for use in that sort of big river/commercial
>waterway environment.
Was there much commercial traffic? I was relating our experiences on the
Rhine last year to the family besides whose boats I moored for April/
May, and said that it put me off the idea of doing the Rhone. They said
I shouldn't have the same trouble - there wasn't that much traffic on
the Rhone. Actually, it's not the traffic that's the problem, it's the
speed they go, and the profile of the channel that makes the difference
between a comfortable and a terrifying experience!
Tim Leech
>In message <bttga190kikjql1g0...@4ax.com>, Tim Leech
><dutto...@onetel.com> writes
>>>
>>>Has anybody been down the Rhone in a narrow boat to the S. of France
>>>and managed to get the boat back up again afterwards?
>>
>>
>>I don't see why they shouldn't if the boat has a decent underwater
>>shape and an adequate engine/propulsion system - and of course is safe
>>in other respects for use in that sort of big river/commercial
>>waterway environment.
>
>Was there much commercial traffic?
Much, much less than on the GCA or the Rhine delta. Can't comment on
the German Rhine, never felt brave enough or desperate enough to get
the paperwork sorted out.
This was 20+ years ago, when the 'tamed' Rhone was fairly new, but I
can't see that it would ever be anywhere near as busy as the Rhine.
It might only take one large high speed push tow to spoil your day
though!
> I was relating our experiences on the
>Rhine last year to the family besides whose boats I moored for April/
>May, and said that it put me off the idea of doing the Rhone. They said
>I shouldn't have the same trouble - there wasn't that much traffic on
>the Rhone. Actually, it's not the traffic that's the problem, it's the
>speed they go, and the profile of the channel that makes the difference
>between a comfortable and a terrifying experience!
Exactly. We had some fairly uncomfortable moments at odd times, mainly
in Holland, even in a 130 ton capacity barge, from the wash of
commercial traffic. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be in any
ordinary narrow boat in those situations <g>
Bob Adams
Richard <m...@privacy.net> writes
>Bob Adams wrote:
>
>>>
>> I'm going boating for two weeks
>
>Enjoy!
>
--
If these lines appear in your reply - your news reader is screwed!
Bob Adams - nb Rivendell - 3 days and counting...
email address: bo...@ntlworld.com
Pete C
wrote:
.>
>My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38' narrow
>boat! Look for something a bit smaller unless you're planning
>waterskiing trips.
A /bigger/ engine with the right size prop would allow cruising in a
lower rev range than a smaller one, though the boats speed at engine
idle could become a bit high for slow cruising and manoeuvering.
Anyone know what hp the BMC Commander 2.5 is supposed to be?
cheers,
Pete.
Tim Leech
wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:45:55 +0100, Tim Leech <dutto...@onetel.com>
>wrote:
>
>.>
>>My recommendation - please don't put a 35 hp engine into a 38' narrow
>>boat! Look for something a bit smaller unless you're planning
>>waterskiing trips.
>
>A /bigger/ engine with the right size prop would allow cruising in a
>lower rev range than a smaller one, though the boats speed at engine
>idle could become a bit high for slow cruising and manoeuvering.
>
And for passing moored boats in restricted channels <BG>
AP BROOKS
"Pete C" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rtnvc1d5i1jj0oe87...@4ax.com...snip
> Anyone know what hp the BMC Commander 2.5 is supposed to be?
>
> cheers,
I think the 2.2 was about 52 bhp, so say 55 bhp
FWIW, I am more than happy with 32 bhp in 54 feet, on river and tideway. I
clocked it a over 6mph on the Trent.
Tony Brooks
Steve Atty
>
> And for passing moored boats in restricted channels <BG>
Not that that seems to be much of a consideration now. I noticed a
distinct lack of slowing down on my recent holiday and it wasn't just
"ignorant" hireboaters - there were a lot of the new shiny private
narrowboats doing it too.
Steve
Drifter
33-37hp at low rpm?
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga-dops_fishing_engine-details?model_id=92&make=BMC
Tony H
Tim Leech
wrote:
>Tim Leech wrote:
Maybe because they've all been sold engines which are unneccessarily
powerful? <BG>
Cheers
Tim