Since Prout Catamarans had no expertise whatsoever designing hydraulic propulsion
systems, my father turned to Diport AG, a.k.a. Swiss-Hydro, a specialized design bureau that he found on a boat show. The representatives of the company reassured my father that these sorts of propulsion systems were their bread-and-butter business and that we could have a standard woring system in no time. !mong other things, "iport !# chose our engine for us, since the $%& Perins model has bolt-on compatibility with a 'exroth line of hydraulic pumps. The "iport !# representatives also claimed that our boat would be able to travel at ( nots, and that lobster pots would merely bloc the affected hydraulic motor without stopping the rest of the system. This is the system that "iport !# had us install) *ydraulic +ayout) ,ngine -at left. drives two pumps in series. ,ach pump is attached to a separate motor. /urther on, we discovered that the claims by "iport !# to be dubious at best. Perhaps by now "iport !# has managed to gain enough experience at the expense of customers lie us to improve the 0uality of their designs. !fter all, the number of fundamental mistaes in their design made Prout Catamarans loo professional1 !fter "iport !# supplied all the parts, Prout Catamarans managed to install them properly for the most part. 2et, our system had some maddening flaws) ! fundamental transmission ratio error. 3nstead of copying readily available, existing designs "iport !#s 4solution4 over-tor0ued our engine. 5ur transmission ratio was 6.(7)6 instead of 8.9()6. 3t:s not surprising that with such a fundamental mismatch the maximum boat speed was ;ust about as fast on one prop < =&&& 'P$ as on two at >6&& 'P$ -the max. the engine could attain under dual propellers.... The fastest we ever went was %.7 nots, not (. The hoses in the system 4sang4 because all of them were too small, causing high flow rates and excessive pressure drop. !ll hydraulic hoses in our boat had to replaced with the next size up1 ,ven more damning was our discovery in the hydraulic oil tan where hoses two sizes too small were feeding the suction side of the system. The bypass valve settings were set too high - instead of stalling w?o illing the diesel, a lobster pot wrapped around a prop causes the pump control cables to ;ump from their mountings. The whole system comes to a catastrophic halt. +east annoying is the cacophony caused by the mounting method for the motors) $otors and sail-drives are bolted directly to the hull, enhancing noise transmission tremendously. The engine was oversized to %& *p so that we would derive about =& hp of prop power after hydraulic and sail-drive losses -(7@ and A7@ efficiency, respectively.. /orty horses at the propellers were supposed to accelerate our Prout ,scale to about ( nots of speed. The sail-drives are the 68&S model from Bolvo with an interface plate to accommodate 'exroth hydraulic motors instead of a Bolvo $S8 transmission. ! review of existing Bolvo sail-drive combos such as the $"8&8& -a three cylinder 8& *P motor paired with the 68&S sail-drive. shows a 8.7)6 transmission ratio. *owever, the name of the game is to ensure that propeller size, pitch, and rotational speeds are e0uivalent, not ;ust the overall transmission ratio. Thus, if a Bolvo $"8&8& engines have a max. 'P$ of >,%&& and a overall 8.7)6 transmission ratio, the fastest their props will turn in water is 6==& 'P$ -6%4 diameter >- blade folding prop, 66 degree pitch.. 5ur Perins runs up to =,&&& 'P$ and the conse0uent transmission ratio -assuming we want to achieve the same propeller speed. has to be around =&&&?>%&&C8.7D8.9(. Since the sail-drive has a transmission ratio of 8.8)6, we can now calculate the transmission ratio re0uired for the rest of the system. !s the variable displacement pumps put out 6Acc oil for every engine 'P$ and since we use fixed motors, the calculation becomes) 8.9( D -x?6A.C8.8 where x is the cc size of the motor. !ssuming we want to achieve exactly 6==& 'P$ at the propeller, we:d need a 8=cc motor. 'exroth still manufactures the !8/$ fixed motor line and the closest displacement is the 8>cc motor. !nother, cheaper option would be to reduce the size of the propellers yet again. !s designed, our boat carried 694 diameter, >-bladed $axProps. Eanni "iesel uses 8& hp engines and a 8.8)6 transmission ratio from >,%&& 'P$ on 6=4 8 bladed propellers. *owever, upwind performance of the system would have been compromised. !t the end of 8&&& we were looing at the following options) Measure Cost Pro Con Replace current drive system with twin engines F87,&&& Standard System ,nsures proper performance Saildrive taen care of Cost -ouch1 ouch1 ouch1. ,ngines in living 0uarters Cramped access Replace 2,600 RPM, 6 hp Per!ins "or current engine FA,&&& Slow 'P$s of engine would allow perfect propeller speed in the water *oses may be ade0uate Cost -ouch1 ouch1. Saildrive still a problem Golt pattern on engine is different and would re0uire a new plate Replace current #6cc hydraulic motors "or 2$cc models F=,7&& Getter tor0ue ,ngine?Prop match Could fix saildrive concurrently Could replace hydraulic hoses concurrently Cost 3nstallation -need to re machine mounting plate. Cut down propellers to #%& F=&& ,asy 6&@ loss of performance going upwind Saildrive still a problem Install '(drive, relocate engine "urther )ac! F%&&& Prout 4standard4 installation Potentially much simpler to maintain than hydraulic system - certainly easier to 4de-lobster pot4. Potentially less noise in hull due to relocation of hull penetration 2ou can lift H-drive out of water during sailing to reduce drag, chance of catching lobster pot $uch better transmission Cost -ouch1. 3 have yet to find a H drive long, strong enough for a %& hp engine $aneuverability isn:t as good with H-drive as with twin propellers H-drive can come out of water during storms and is thus much less desirable than propellers that are deeper in the water.. The long bending moment maes this 0uite a fragile rig. efficiency, lower fuel consumption for given boat speed Goat would have better front-to-bac trim due to engine being further bac *essons learned along the way "or our propulsion system+ Ise a competent, local hydraulic design firm. $ost IS firms 3 have dealt with are more forthcoming about fixing their mistaes... The current head of "iport !#, $r. Gechler, was nice enough to review the system his company had designed, came to the same conclusion regarding the inade0uacy of the design, yet did not offer to fix it. Je had to buy the replacement motors, hoses, machine the necessary parts, etc. ourselves. *e did provide a nice diagram though of a installation cross section showing ;ust how different the next motor up would be. "isallow the "iport !# mounting method. Jhile Bolvo installation re0uirements call for the isolation of the sail-drive from the hull -using a rubber diaphragm and mounting it to a suspended engine via the transmission., our sail-drive was attached directly to a ring glassed into the hull. The effect) a lot of noise transmission from the drives and motors to the hull, which are louder than the engine -111.. ,ven if the saildrive was tghe only option, "iport !# should have reviewed existing installations and chosen 8>cc motors instead. !s shown above, "iport !# chose not to mimic an existing product. /urthermore, the saildrive should have been installed such that it would not touch the ground before the rest of the hull did. This is an oversight on the part of Prout Catamarans... 3nstead of using a saildrive, we could have installed a simple stern tube and a 7=cc hydraulic motor into the rearmost bilges. The benefits would have included a more robust design -higher tor0ue no gearing., fewer transmission losses -no fragile saildrive., better protected propellers -not hanging lower than the eel., a standard interface for the Spurrs cutters -i.e. actually cut lines, not ;ust spin ineffectively., etc. /urthermore, the slower turning motor would have produced less noise and virtually no vibration since a stern tube setup produces much less drag than a saildrive. 3nstall ade0uate hydraulic hoses. #iven the flow re0uirements, even a cursory loo at the #ates or other hydraulic hose catalogs indicates that our !KG lines should be L4 3", the S-lines 643". This was another fundamental, basic error on the part of "iport !#. Gy one estimate, we are losing % psi of pressure for every foot of undersized !KG hose M 68& psi per side. The suction lines are even more sensitive. 3nstall a proper *ydraulic 5il 'eservoir, not one where L4 suction lines are interfaced with N4 hose inside the reservoir while O4 return lines are hooed up to L4 hoses. This was perhaps a installation error. Suction lines cannot tolerate such pressure drop anywhere along the way to the pumps. !ctually, the best option would have been to stay away from hydraulic drives and go with dual 87hp engines and a huge diesel tan in the center nacelle. Gesides greater redundancy, a dual engine set-up is standard across the world and would have made servicing the system far simpler. The larger fuel tan would have given us better range. *owever, installing engines into living spaces would have also re0uired some careful venting -consider that proper venting is not a Prout Catamarans specialty. to prevent smells and carbon monoxide from entering the cabin. 3n the end, we decided to repair the hydraulic system rather than replace it because it seemed lie the less expensive option. ! more critical review of our propulsion system after the flooding should have prodded us to bite the bullet and install twin drives instead. To Prout Catamarans credit, they tried in vain to dissuade us from the hydraulic system and use one of their proven set-ups instead... Gest ,stimate for Time 'e0uired) ,iagnose over tor-ued engine 8 hours Con"er with ,iport ./ re+ lac! o" per"ormance 6& hours Review e0isting literature, search internet, consult colleagues, arrive at solution >& hours 1otal =8 hours +atest Ipdate on Jednesday, $arch 6%, 8&&7 PuestionsQ Contact me here. Site content R 6AA9-8&&7 and is *T$+ =.&6, and CSS compliant. Please support J>C standards1 Terms of Ise
Fundamentals of Tractor Engine Design Author(s) : H C Buffington Source: SAE Transactions, Vol. 13, PART I (1918), Pp. 208-219 Published By: SAE International Accessed: 18-01-2022 07:03 UTC
Gas-Engines and Producer-Gas Plants
A Practice Treatise Setting Forth the Principles of Gas-Engines and Producer Design, the Selection and Installation of an Engine, Conditions of Perfect Operation, Producer-Gas Engines and Their Possibilities, the Care of Gas-Engines and Producer-Gas Plants, with a Chapter on Volatile Hydrocarbon and Oil Engines