I agree, Honky Kong! I've always considered Louisiana as the "promised land" as far a duck hunting, that paradise might be tainted with a few "devils".
| MudmotorTalk.com https://www.mudmotortalk.com/mmt_v2/ |
|
| 71 or 59 https://www.mudmotortalk.com/mmt_v2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=61156 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | leonides [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 71 or 59 |
I saw that the Backwater Co. offers a 71" long tail and a 59".If used with a 25 HP on a 16'x48', what will be the performance from one to the other ? P.B. |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
I prefer the 71 due to being able to dig down further, less degree of angle, and u can reach out further/more radius to dig around to get a bite Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | leonides [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Ninja: Do you think it will be any difference in speed ? P.B. |
|
| Author: | MDMarsh [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
No difference in speed between the two but chances are you have a short transom on the boat. The 59 is made for short transoms (16ish) while the 71 is made for tall transoms (20-21). The shorter one will have less torque and because of that will be easier to drive. It will also turn quicker. |
|
| Author: | leonides [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 7:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Yes, the transom is 17". |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 8:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | Honky Kong [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
There is truth to the longer shaft on the taller transom and the shorter shaft on the shorter transom. The short shaft will in fact turn tighter too. My Backwater Swomp 23 handles great and turns pretty dang tight. Its on a 16 inch transom. As a side note, never trust advise from someone who willingly picked the handle "ninjabuttpirate". |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 71 or 59 |
| Author: | Honky Kong [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
^^ troll. I said nothing about engine mounts, as it doesn't pertain to the question the OP had, and no, I don't know everything about longtails, I haven't claimed that either. I do however keep in regular communication with Jake at Backwater and I can promise you that my previous post is accurate as far as the intended purpose of the two shaft lengths offered. Since that was the original inquiry, I shared what I know. I didn't throw in any misguided or untrue opinions. Just an honest answer for a guy with an honest question. I'm sorry that you are so upset about why they offer these options on their motors. Your greatest gift to this or any other post would be to stop polluting the thread with your trolling comments. |
|
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
The 71" version is designed to work on most tall transoms with no adjusting of the Surface Tracer cavitation plate. The 59" version is designed to work on most short transoms with no adjusting off the cavitation plate. The 59" has less tiller torque because of the shorter shaft. Some people will say that the 71" version on a short transom boat is a better combination due to there being less of an angle. That's not necessarily the case. Now, if anyone would like to dispute any of the information above, please call the fine folks at Backwater and tell them that they are wrong and they know nothing about building longtails. As far as personal opinion goes, I have a short transom boat and I run the 59" version and I love it. I have owned other longtail in the past that had the 6' shaft. I don't miss those motors at all. I have yet to wish I had the 71" instead of the 59". |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Thank god the kool-aid drinkers of longtails showed up Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 5:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | MDMarsh [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | Trousertrout [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Those of us who own a backh20 motor do in fact know the most about longtails. That is how we got to own a backh20 . There is no need to get into an argument about it. |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
You are a waste of good oxygen. You love to argue for no good reason. I'm well aware that the Go-Devil has a 6' shaft and is designed to run on a short transom. Did you ever stop to think that the driveshaft and cavitation angles on a GD are different than they are on a BW? Warren Coco wanted a 6' shaft to work on a short transom boat so he built it that way. Arlon and Larry wanted a 71" shaft to work on a tall transom boat so they built it that way. Simple as that. Now stop trying to bitch and argue. You're unable to prove any kind of point and your ignorance is shining through. |
|
| Author: | HOTSAUCE170 [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Give him this frank he may need it now Sent from denda this |
|
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Also, let me be clear. You most definitely CAN run the 71" Backwater motor on a short transom boat. You'll more than likely have to do some shimming of the cavitation plate, but that's not a big deal. Most people I've spoken with prefer the ease of handling that is offered by opting for the 59" model. The issue is when you try to run the 59" on a tall transom boat. |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
I never once said that the 71" was just for tall transom. And I drove a rental car to Baton Rouge. And I promise you, you or your boat ain't bad enough to "shut me up". So piss off. |
|
| Author: | cb5331 [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Anyone remember that guy assault that got banned? Man, that guy was a real fucking idiot, wasn't he? |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
No, you simple minded fool. I plainly said the 71" version was designed to work on most tall transoms with no adjusting necessary. I have NEVER said you couldn't run the LS model on a short transom boat. Stop lying to everyone. We know you didn't pass English. |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Once again, I've never said you could not put a LS on a 16" transom. You're not making a valid point. |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
I've also said with some adjustments to the cavitation plate and/or the transom mount, you could run it on a short transom. |
|
| Author: | FRANKtheTAU [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
I'd like to apologize to the OP for his thread getting all out of whack. NinjaButtpirate is known for this kind of thing. |
|
| Author: | Honky Kong [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
With Frank on the apology to the OP. Not here for even a month yet and ninjabuttpirate knows it all and is making friends. Another keyboard tough guy picking fights and mucking up someones thread. Great. |
|
| Author: | Glades Ranger [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
I agree, Honky Kong! I've always considered Louisiana as the "promised land" as far a duck hunting, that paradise might be tainted with a few "devils".
|
|
| Author: | cb5331 [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | Honky Kong [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 4:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Author: | gator22 [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 6:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Is the butt pirate also "AKA" sounds a lot like him. |
|
| Author: | cb5331 [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Nope, wouldn't be surprised if they were a part of the same family flagpole though. |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
Who is kcpanages? Assault? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | cb5331 [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 8:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
you |
|
| Author: | NinjaButtpirate [ Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 71 or 59 |
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|