Re: [AtkinBoats] Re: rescue minor prop shaft
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I'll continue on as the plans indicate.
I did have a prop supplier suggest a 12 inch prop, 13 pitch, based on the
size of the boat but that would mean creating a larger, taller, tunnel to
give the prop the clearance it needs.
My thought is that the wake may not fill the cavity if increased, causing
Atkins attention to detail again causes me reluctance to change that
----- Original Message -----
From: "druez.charlie" <druez.charlie@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 12:00 PM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: rescue minor prop shaft
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "cwbenshoof" <cbenshoof@...>
>> HI all.
>> I'm building a rescue minor and was wondering about the space
>> the stern bearing and the prop.
>> What I've read is that the distance shouldn't be over 2 times the
>> diameter of the propeller shaft without having a strut bearing.
>> However, on the drawings it appears to be about 6 inches with no
>> indicated and on the pictures of the rescue minors I've seen there
>> seems to be more than 4 inches without any strut.
>> An experienced opion would be appreciated. No guessing please.
> A few observations and opinions, no guessing.
> I was first turned on to William Atkin through a book I inherited
> from my father published in 1939. I've read it a million times and
> found that some of the knowledge my father passed to me came from
> this book.
> I believe that Atkins genius came from a superb ability to optimise
> his designs for maximum effiency in a fairly modest performance
> envelope. He was always very specific about not altering his
> plans. This was I believe in part because he didn't want someone to
> fool with the details and leave an impression with the public that
> Atkin's designs didn't live up to his claims. But this is just
> conjecture, guessing so to speak.
> So... a few things I noted time and time again in his discussions
> about his designs.
> He devoted a lot of effort to smoothing the water flow around his
> underbody to deliver the least disrupted water to the prop.
> He was very specific about what prop operating at what prop speed.
> He loved the flat shaft runs of the Seabright style boats and would
> speak of the effiency gained through thier level installation.
> He liked to splay his shaft a few degrees from centerline to offset
> propwalk. He liked it because it made the boat run truer and was
> more effiecient as the rudder was not having to be slightly cocked
> to make the boat run straight.
> And now for the possible answer to your actual question. On more
> than one occasion he commented on how HE would stick the prop much
> farther back than what was considered normal. He said this was to
> get the prop into smoother water. He also cautioned that it would
> offend the sensiblities of many who would argue to place it in the
> more conventional location to the detriment of the design.
> Again I believe the genius of his design work was in getting many
> small details right.
> No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be
> If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If
> you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will
> take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.
> The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- Don't change the tunnel!
On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:12:31 -0700, Clifford wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
> I'll continue on as the plans indicate.
> I did have a prop supplier suggest a 12 inch prop, 13 pitch, based on the
> size of the boat but that would mean creating a larger, taller, tunnel to
> give the prop the clearance it needs.
The way to fight a woman is with your hat. Grab it and run.