| MudmotorTalk.com https://www.mudmotortalk.com/mmt_v2/ |
|
| Shaft Length Question https://www.mudmotortalk.com/mmt_v2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59449 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | JBSedon [ Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Shaft Length Question |
Hey guys! I'm getting ready to build a longtail. I picked up a Kohler Command Pro 25 motor yesterday. Doing the hone, rings and seals this week just for good measure. No mods planned since its a longtail, except for an exhaust. I'll build that later though. Doing a tubular frame design. No hull for it yet, I'll get to that later too, but I'm planning on something along the lines of 1442. This is strictly a small river duck rig. Couple quick questions. Is 15 degrees the max downward angle for the shaft due to the joint efficiency? What are the factors determining whether I should go with a 59" or 72" driveshaft? I was planning on a 72" until I saw the SWOMP with a 59", and it peaked my curiosity. I like the idea of the 59", but don't know what it affects. |
|
| Author: | Kcpanages [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
59", UR limited on transom height, 72" gives u a better range for transom height and a lil more reach Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | JBSedon [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
Is 15 degrees the max downward angle? Is there a performance difference between the 59 and 72? |
|
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
15 is max. 59" shaft creates less tiller torque. And as far as the 59" shaft being at a disadvantage because it's shorter, I personally have never thought, "Damn I wish I had the 72" driveshaft". |
|
| Author: | da go get'er [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
In the same height transome a 72 is faster |
|
| Author: | JBSedon [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
Faster you say? Is it a noticeable difference in speed? 72" just seems like so much tail out the rear of the boat. I'm located in Ohio, going to be running mostly rocky rivers and I do not want a jet. I will also be running muddy backwaters and lilly fields on some lakes and rivers. |
|
| Author: | Kcpanages [ Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
| Author: | 139sst [ Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
You will better served to get at least a 1542 with that 25. The 1442 runs better with a lighter load in the back. Slow turns could be a little sketchy. |
|
| Author: | da go get'er [ Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
| Author: | Glades Ranger [ Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
Not to hijack this, but Frank the Tau, if I upgrade from a 27 HP LT to the Swamp 35 SS, on my grizzly 1648, should I get the 59" or regular length 72" model? I like the idea of a shorter turning radius, but I am 25 years used to the 72" model. As I am hitting 61 this month, less tiller torque is welcome, but as da go get'er stated, how much of a speed loss with the 59" drive? Either way, I am almost sure I am going with BackH20's product! |
|
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
If you have a 16" transom, I would run the SS. Jake and Arlon have both told me that benefits of the easier driving of the SS model FAR outweigh any miniscule speed increases you may see from putting an LS on a 16" transom. And I'm running over 26 mph with my set up. That is plenty for me. |
|
| Author: | Glades Ranger [ Thu Jan 22, 2015 5:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shaft Length Question |
Loud and clear, Frank! Thanks! I will have to wait another season, but I look forward to the upgrade! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|