wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:56:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 4:47 pm, Tim wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...D9ETMVA02.html

So now what, will this become a safety standard of the industry that
props should have guards?

A guy jumped in the water behind a boat with a running motor. The
driver of the boat puts the boat in reverse, and hits the guy with the
prop.

The boat manufacturer has to pay.

That's so screwed up it's almost unbelievable. Almost.


Hmm... so a simple device, known to prevent such accidents is
intentionally
not used, someone is maimed, but the boat manufacturer has no liability? I
guess a jury disagreed. I guess that's communism run amok.

The problem is there is no "simple device" that does this. Boat
manufacturers spend millions of dollars designing boats to reduce drag
and you want a parachute attached around the prop?
(that would be the effect of any prop guard)
We have had this out a lot here in reference to manatees getting prop
scars. Nobody has had a reasonable answer.

BTW I love the quote
"Brunswick officials said in a statement that they are sympathetic to
Brochtrup but "stand behind our products," they should have added "...
but don't swim behind them when they are backing up."

This is just lawyers running amok and adding to the price of every
boat made in the future.


You're telling me that a small diff in drag is going to be noticed?? So, now
the boat can go 52.3 mph instead of 55. I think most people wouldn't notice.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:27:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You're telling me that a small diff in drag is going to be noticed?? So,
now
the boat can go 52.3 mph instead of 55. I think most people wouldn't
notice.

--
Nom=de=Plume

No I am saying that is a big drag and it will be more than noticed. It
will seriously affect fuel mileage and performance. There is a very
good reason why props are the way they are, particularly the trailing
edge of the blade, where this swimmer hit. Even a very blunt work boat
prop has a sharp trailing edge. Otherwise it cavitates. This guy is
bragging about holes in the prop that make it cavitate more. This
isn't a prop, it is a bubble machine.


See thunder's post.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 12:01:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No I am saying that is a big drag and it will be more than noticed. It
will seriously affect fuel mileage and performance. There is a very
good reason why props are the way they are, particularly the trailing
edge of the blade, where this swimmer hit. Even a very blunt work boat
prop has a sharp trailing edge. Otherwise it cavitates. This guy is
bragging about holes in the prop that make it cavitate more. This
isn't a prop, it is a bubble machine.


See thunder's post.

I saw Thunder's post and he is guessing too.
Somebody show me a side by side test with a regular cheap aluminum
prop (not even some special high performance SS) and I will be
convinced.
My bet, at least a 10% decrease in performance on a barge like mine
and probably more like 25% a performance boat. There is no accident
props are made like they are. This is a century old technology and
they improve them every year, basically by doing the opposite of what
this guy is doing. (thinner blades, sharper edges) That is why people
spend the money for stainless steel. It is hard enough to hold that
edge. Guys spend $50-100 bucks to get them cleaned up when they get
tiny dings in them.

I am not even convinced that if you actually hit someone in the water
it would make that much difference. It is a lot easier to knock the
arm out of the way, from the side, in free air. Would you try it? None
of this would affect going straight into the prop.


But, you're not guessing... no way. You have the FACTS. Sure.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:49:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I saw Thunder's post and he is guessing too.
Somebody show me a side by side test with a regular cheap aluminum
prop (not even some special high performance SS) and I will be
convinced.
My bet, at least a 10% decrease in performance on a barge like mine
and probably more like 25% a performance boat. There is no accident
props are made like they are. This is a century old technology and
they improve them every year, basically by doing the opposite of what
this guy is doing. (thinner blades, sharper edges) That is why people
spend the money for stainless steel. It is hard enough to hold that
edge. Guys spend $50-100 bucks to get them cleaned up when they get
tiny dings in them.

I am not even convinced that if you actually hit someone in the water
it would make that much difference. It is a lot easier to knock the
arm out of the way, from the side, in free air. Would you try it? None
of this would affect going straight into the prop.


But, you're not guessing... no way. You have the FACTS. Sure.

I am not guessing about why props are made the way they are or the
fact that things don't move out of the way as easy in water as they do
in air. We are really only guessing about how well you would survive a
real world strike from this prop in the water.
The inventor sure isn't demonstrating that or even presenting some
kind of anecdotal evidence.


I was discussing the difference in performance. I don't think anyone would
do well getting hit by a propeller.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 22:54:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:49:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I saw Thunder's post and he is guessing too.
Somebody show me a side by side test with a regular cheap aluminum
prop (not even some special high performance SS) and I will be
convinced.
My bet, at least a 10% decrease in performance on a barge like mine
and probably more like 25% a performance boat. There is no accident
props are made like they are. This is a century old technology and
they improve them every year, basically by doing the opposite of what
this guy is doing. (thinner blades, sharper edges) That is why people
spend the money for stainless steel. It is hard enough to hold that
edge. Guys spend $50-100 bucks to get them cleaned up when they get
tiny dings in them.

I am not even convinced that if you actually hit someone in the water
it would make that much difference. It is a lot easier to knock the
arm out of the way, from the side, in free air. Would you try it? None
of this would affect going straight into the prop.


But, you're not guessing... no way. You have the FACTS. Sure.

I am not guessing about why props are made the way they are or the
fact that things don't move out of the way as easy in water as they do
in air. We are really only guessing about how well you would survive a
real world strike from this prop in the water.
The inventor sure isn't demonstrating that or even presenting some
kind of anecdotal evidence.


I was discussing the difference in performance. I don't think anyone would
do well getting hit by a propeller.

Then what is the point?


That a propeller guard doesn't significantly impact performance.


--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:21:19 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I was discussing the difference in performance. I don't think anyone
would
do well getting hit by a propeller.

Then what is the point?


That a propeller guard doesn't significantly impact performance.

How do you know that? Just curious.
It is clear you have never shopped for propellers


I'm willing to take thunder's word for it. He seems pretty credible to me.
From the limited amount I've read on the subject in the last few days, it
seems about right.

--
Nom=de=Plume