"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
HEY I am merely the messenger. That's what the leading prop rebuilder in
the US told me 15 years ago. I have no reason to doubt him.

--
Steve Barker

for the spam bots:






"trainfan1" wrote in message
et...
Steve Barker wrote:
The reason for the step-down recommendation is because the aluminum
flexes

Prove it.

Rob

and looses some pitch. Stainless does not.




I doubt everything anybody tells me until I prove it to myself. I can't
believe you just believe what people tell you!

ps: Based on that, cavitation and boiling won't happen as much if you use a
stainless steel prop either..... well, that's a bad example cause its partly
true since those issues are caused by bent props, nicks etc.

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 07:31:36 -0500, "Steve Barker"
wrote:

The reason for the step-down recommendation is because the aluminum flexes
and looses some pitch. Stainless does not.


flexes - I think that's generally accepted; but flexes to the point of loosing
2" of pitch? I find that hard to believe.

On this theory; I'm giong to be way under propped as I had a SS 19 and I went to
an aluminum 17; so on your theory; this will be like a 15 pitch SS....

It's not MY theory, and it's not theory. thanks for the input. I remember
now why I left this group 3 years ago.

--
Steve Barker

for the spam bots:






"Josh Assing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 07:31:36 -0500, "Steve Barker"

wrote:

The reason for the step-down recommendation is because the aluminum flexes
and looses some pitch. Stainless does not.


flexes - I think that's generally accepted; but flexes to the point of
loosing
2" of pitch? I find that hard to believe.

On this theory; I'm giong to be way under propped as I had a SS 19 and I
went to
an aluminum 17; so on your theory; this will be like a 15 pitch SS....

Steve Barker wrote:
It's not MY theory, and it's not theory. thanks for the input. I remember
now why I left this group 3 years ago.


Steve, it's not even not theory.

You're disseminating false information, that's all.

Rob

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 20:25:03 -0500, "Steve Barker"
wrote:

It's not MY theory, and it's not theory. thanks for the input. I remember
now why I left this group 3 years ago.

Dang you take things way too personally -- you're the one that brought up that
if flexes that much.

sorry to have gotten your panties in a bunch

Why? Because you get your panties in a bunch when dissagreed with? It's
theory, and I have enough practical pratice (in the real water, not fixing
propellers) to dissagree.

All things being equel, you can drop a pitch when going from aluminum to SS,
because the SS blades are thinner and cut water better.

Perhaps aluminum flex works against fact that in some theoretical
high-horsepower environment - but not in day to day operation with normal
horsepower ranges.
-W

--
CC Marine

Lake Hartwell SC
"Where the fish are always biting, and the swimmers are always nervous!"


"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
It's not MY theory, and it's not theory. thanks for the input. I
remember
now why I left this group 3 years ago.

--
Steve Barker

for the spam bots:






"Josh Assing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 07:31:36 -0500, "Steve Barker"

wrote:

The reason for the step-down recommendation is because the aluminum
flexes
and looses some pitch. Stainless does not.


flexes - I think that's generally accepted; but flexes to the point of
loosing
2" of pitch? I find that hard to believe.

On this theory; I'm giong to be way under propped as I had a SS 19 and I
went to
an aluminum 17; so on your theory; this will be like a 15 pitch SS....

The pressure created by the prop pushing the boat is orders of magnitude
greater than anything you could attribute to spinning the weight of the
prop. The different between aluminum and ss would not be noticable.

"Josh Assing" wrote in message
...
I purchased 2 props (both alumininum) to reprop with.
The guy agreed with me that if I hit stuff; it's better to destroy the
prop than
the outsdrive -- but for performance, a ss is the way to go.

he said the weight issue is silly because it's underwater and doesn't
weigh as
much and that no one would use ss if it wore out the outdrive faster.

So -- Here I am; for curiosity sake; asking you if the weight of a ss prop
really does wear out the drive faster than an aluminum one.

-j

Semi-interesting discussion. But, essentially meaningless because propeller
selection is impossible to pinpoint except through trial and error. Any
number of computer programs can select the "perfect" prop for your boat
engine combination except they won't except by luck. They'll get you close
but perfection is only acheived by trial and error. Furthermore, the
perfect prop for one set of conditions will not be the perfect prop for all.

Do you want perfect hole shot performance? One prop. Do you want maximum
speed? A different prop. Do you want optimum economy at lowest RPM? Yet
another prop. Whatever prop you choose will be a compromise and provide
perfect performance for only one, if any, operating condition. All we can
do is strive for a prop that provides good all around performance and
economy.

As to the original question from the OP.... as Clams pointed out, it's about
enertia.

Butch
"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
nk.net...
The pressure created by the prop pushing the boat is orders of magnitude
greater than anything you could attribute to spinning the weight of the
prop. The different between aluminum and ss would not be noticable.

"Josh Assing" wrote in message
...
I purchased 2 props (both alumininum) to reprop with.
The guy agreed with me that if I hit stuff; it's better to destroy the
prop than
the outsdrive -- but for performance, a ss is the way to go.

he said the weight issue is silly because it's underwater and doesn't
weigh as
much and that no one would use ss if it wore out the outdrive faster.

So -- Here I am; for curiosity sake; asking you if the weight of a ss
prop
really does wear out the drive faster than an aluminum one.

-j