Waterjets have been tried with poor results. The efficiency has been really poor on slow displacement vessel. Most likely you will end up burning lot of fuel with dissappointing speed and horrible mpg.
Arto
Lähetetty Samsung-laitteesta
-------- Alkuperäinen viesti --------
Lähettäjä: "taladorwood@yahoo.com.au [harryproa]" <harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au>
Päivämäärä: 04.06.2015 14.30 (GMT+02:00)
Saaja: harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au
Aihe: Re:: Re: : Re: [harryproa] Re:: Cruiser 60 questions
The Sea Doo Spark costs $5K, The entire jet ski weighs 405 lbs / 184 kg, Rotax 60 hp engine, it reverses by reversing the engine I think (that is how it works in the snow machines). I am guessing the engine and jet weighs around 200 lbs / 90 kg.
The Rotax will burn about 2 gallons an hour and they are reliable proven engines. The intake and outlet would have to be molded into the bottom of the hull but It seems to be a dirt simple installation. Probably put in a NACA vent.
I know that a jet drive is not nearly as efficient as a prop drive (it has a very small 5" prop). The fuel consumption will probably be double a fuel sipping diesel and it won't produce as much power.
I would be willing to bet the output of the 60hp jetski is comparable to a 30 hp diesel.
Hmmm..... $5K, no prop creating drag or increasing the draft, can go up to 90 hp easily. I must be missing something very obvious......
__._,_.___
Posted by: ahakkara <ahakkara@yahoo.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a new topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.