repowering a Cal-29

Greets: Lurking on this list for a long time. A quick question if I may. Finally found a nice Cal 29 that is a reasonable distance from home, at a reasonable price and rather good condition for the price. My only concern is the Westerbake 15 hp upgrade from the original Atomic 4. This puppy will not drive the boat at hull speed, and so confirmed by the owner who's a rather nice gent. So my question is this, what is the degree of difficulty of re-powering the vessel. Looking at the layout plans, it seems to me that access is limited, so the engine needs to come forward from out under the cockpit onto some form of jig or cradle and then hoisted up and out. There does not seem to be access from the cockpit and would preferr not to go that route. Again, I've only looked at drawings of the 29 and vessel was located by good seasoned friend who's in transit on the East coast down to the Caribbean...lucky guy. Most cal are way to far to inspect personally. If anyone has repowered a Cal 29 themselves I would love to pick your brains on list if appropriate or off list if you desire. The alternative would be to change out the prop but have not researched that enough and don't know how much of a performance improvement what would make. Basically I'm looking at the vessel as an inshore cruiser transiting the Eastern seaboard on an annual migration south, to warmer climates. So hull speed is a necessity given the various effects and conditions of currents along that route from the great white north. Best regards and thanks for any info you can send this way. -- /ch

Chris, I think the old rule of thumb was/is 2HP per foot of LOA. We put a BetaMarine BZ482 (13.5HP) in our Cal 2-27 with a 13" 2-blade MaxProp set to a 20 degree pitch, and we have no problem pushing it to hull speed. Before you lay out some big bucks on more HP, the propeller size/pitch/condition needs to be seriously considered. Others here on this list know a lot more about propellers than I do. Regards, Michael Duvall s/v Magic, Cal 2-27 Pompano Beach, FL

On Wednesday 22 October 2008 14:17:03 Michael D wrote: > Chris, > > I think the old rule of thumb was/is 2HP per foot of LOA. We put a > BetaMarine BZ482 (13.5HP) in our Cal 2-27 with a 13" 2-blade MaxProp set to > a 20 degree pitch, and we have no problem pushing it to hull speed. > > Before you lay out some big bucks on more HP, the propeller > size/pitch/condition needs to be seriously considered. Others here on this > list know a lot more about propellers than I do. Yes that was my second thought as I know a bit more about engines then props. However the point is well taken. Any online resources to get up to speed on needed equations and formulas? -- /ch

I would have to second this statement. I have a cal 2-29 with the BetaMarineBZ482 13.5HP engine in it and have no problem getting to Hull speed at all. I am afraid I don't recall prop size and pitch, however I am sure I can find out if you need it. Rick Lobb Cal 2-29 "Rebecca Shea" Bellingham, WA _____ From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael D Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:17 AM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com:" Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] repowering a Cal-29 (Chris) Chris, I think the old rule of thumb was/is 2HP per foot of LOA. We put a BetaMarine BZ482 (13.5HP) in our Cal 2-27 with a 13" 2-blade MaxProp set to a 20 degree pitch, and we have no problem pushing it to hull speed. Before you lay out some big bucks on more HP, the propeller size/pitch/condition needs to be seriously considered. Others here on this list know a lot more about propellers than I do. Regards, Michael Duvall s/v Magic, Cal 2-27 Pompano Beach, FL

On Wednesday 22 October 2008 14:41:28 rick wrote: > I am afraid I don't recall prop size and pitch, however I am > sure I can find out if you need it. I'm getting the engine, trani, shaft and prop data send to me by the owner in the next day or two. Once I get that I can discuss this issue with a bit more clarity. Thanks for the info... -- /ch

Wow. Shocking to hear. My 12 Horse BMW diesel pushes my boat to hull speed with no problem at all. Do you have a feeling that the diesel is running pretty high RPMs? Is the trannie slipping? It may be that I¹ll your prop is the original from the Atomic 4 and thus completely worthless for the diesel. Dive the boat and check it out. A 15 horse diesel shouldn¹t even work hard pushing your boat. Wilkie On 10/22/08 11:01 AM, "chris h" <ch… [at] magma.ca> wrote: > > > > Greets: > > Lurking on this list for a long time. A quick question if I may. Finally found > a nice Cal 29 that is a reasonable distance from home, at a reasonable price > and rather good condition for the price. My only concern is the Westerbake 15 > hp upgrade from the original Atomic 4. This puppy will not drive the boat at > hull speed, and so confirmed by the owner who's a rather nice gent. > > So my question is this, what is the degree of difficulty of re-powering the > vessel. Looking at the layout plans, it seems to me that access is limited, > so the engine needs to come forward from out under the cockpit onto some form > of jig or cradle and then hoisted up and out. There does not seem to be > access from the cockpit and would preferr not to go that route. Again, I've > only looked at drawings of the 29 and vessel was located by good seasoned > friend who's in transit on the East coast down to the Caribbean...lucky guy. > Most cal are way to far to inspect personally. > > If anyone has repowered a Cal 29 themselves I would love to pick your brains > on list if appropriate or off list if you desire. > > The alternative would be to change out the prop but have not researched that > enough and don't know how much of a performance improvement what would make. > Basically I'm looking at the vessel as an inshore cruiser transiting the > Eastern seaboard on an annual migration south, to warmer climates. So hull > speed is a necessity given the various effects and conditions of currents > along that route from the great white north. > > Best regards and thanks for any info you can send this way.

Mike is right. I can assist if you like. Just send me the hp@ what? rpm, [ send the exact engine model and I probably have that info here ] reduction gear ratio, and the waterline length, I will get you a prop recommendation. Joe DeMers Sound Marine Diesel LLC www.soundmarinediesel.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael D To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] repowering a Cal-29 (Chris) Chris, I think the old rule of thumb was/is 2HP per foot of LOA. We put a BetaMarine BZ482 (13.5HP) in our Cal 2-27 with a 13" 2-blade MaxProp set to a 20 degree pitch, and we have no problem pushing it to hull speed. Before you lay out some big bucks on more HP, the propeller size/pitch/condition needs to be seriously considered. Others here on this list know a lot more about propellers than I do. Regards, Michael Duvall s/v Magic, Cal 2-27 Pompano Beach, FL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1739 - Release Date: 10/22/2008 7:23 AM

On Thursday 23 October 2008 09:27:18 Joe DeMers wrote: > Mike is right. > > I can assist if you like. Just send me the hp@ what? rpm, [ send the exact > engine model and I probably have that info here ] reduction gear ratio, and > the waterline length, I will get you a prop recommendation. Thanks Joe. Its really appreciated. Once the data comes in will forward it to you. May I keep it on the list just for archival purposes so that others may benefit? Your call of course. Best regards -- /ch

That's fine Chris. Joe DeMers Sound Marine Diesel LLC www.soundmarinediesel.com From: "chris h" <ch… [at] magma.ca> To: <Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Prop recommendation [ was repowering a Cal-29 (Chris) > On Thursday 23 October 2008 09:27:18 Joe DeMers wrote: >> Mike is right. >> >> I can assist if you like. Just send me the hp@ what? rpm, [ send the >> exact >> engine model and I probably have that info here ] reduction gear ratio, >> and >> the waterline length, I will get you a prop recommendation. > > Thanks Joe. Its really appreciated. Once the data comes in will forward it > to > you. May I keep it on the list just for archival purposes so that others > may > benefit? Your call of course. > > Best regards > > -- > /ch > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1741 - Release Date: 10/23/2008 > 7:54 AM > >

Chris, I'd appreciate it if you could pass along any info you have on the workboat prop. I'm also running a Merc 8HP on my boat and would persue any performance improvement I could gain. Thanks ! Steve - For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and http://www.ulc.ca or contact your local sales representative. -- ********* Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ********** This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. UL and its affiliates do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments. *****************************************************************

st… [at] us.ul.com wrote: > > Chris, > > I'd appreciate it if you could pass along any info you have on the > workboat prop. I'm also running a Merc 8HP on my boat and would persue > any performance improvement I could gain. > Thanks ! > The boat this motor pushes is a 26' Seafarer, keel/centerboard, 4,750 lbs. displacement (nominal). My performance problems were plug fouling and a tendency to lose RPMs and power when I hit big powerboats wakes. I dealt with: Mark Elliott The "Prop Doc" www.PropMD.com Minnesota Propeller 5480 292nd Ct E Cannon Falls, MN 55009 Direct 507-263-0890 Cell 651-398-8637 Toll Free 877-376-4244 I got a post card a couple weeks back telling me he had moved the business to a new address; you could do a web search. These are the Merc part nos. from the Merc manual for the outboard: --48-828150A12, 9-3/4" x 6-1/2" or 48828148A12, 9-3/4" x 5-1/2"? Or even 48-828152A12, 9-1/4" x 7" Here's what he recommended: Go with the lower pitch....it will give you better reverse thrust and all around performance. The fuel difference will be nominal. Small diameter differences have little affect on performance...pitch is the greatest difference. Usually I sell the 6-1/2 for sail applications. Here's what I bought, from the invoice he e-mailed: Black Diamond 9 3/4R 6.5 SS<QA2122T That would identify it as the 6-1/2" pitch model. The Merc manual, which is at home, described the applications for the various options. The 5-1/2" model would be even more thrust (lower pitch) but also lower speed/reduced gas mileage. The motor is happier with the new prop. Last summer it was fouling plugs; this summer it did not. It would lose power when I hit big wakes; not now. I assume it's because the new prop allows it to run at a higher actual RPM for a given throttle opening, giving better air/fuel velocity. That's what somebody on the list had suggested. Since I don't use it for anything but getting up or down the river, there's been no real chance to measure fuel economy changes. I usually run at less than full throttle. Don't know how well it would push the boat in big seas because I haven't tried. Before I got the new prop, I tried raising the motor a bit so it was immersed less. My brother had suggested that being too low in the water might increase the exhaust backpressure too much. The motor is in a well on its own little fixed "transom". It's 1-1/2" higher now than if it were down all the way, thanks to a wood block under it (any higher and the clamps wouldn't be on the transom). When I bought the motor, it was about 10 years old but had seen almost no use (not a single paint chip on the lower unit). The carb was somewhat gummed up so I had to disassemble and clean it. Now it starts regularly and runs smoothly. Does that help? Chris Campbell > > Steve > > - For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for > EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global > markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and > http://www.ulc.ca or contact your local sales representative. -- > > ********* Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ********** > This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential > information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not > disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this > message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail > message in error, please return by forwarding the message and > its attachments to the sender. > > UL and its affiliates do not accept liability for any errors, > omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message > or any attachments. > ***************************************************************** > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1739 - Release Date: 10/22/2008 7:23 AM >

On Thursday 23 October 2008 09:48:38 Joe DeMers wrote: > That's fine Chris. Ok here's what I got so far: The boat was bought by the current owner with a 12 hp Westerbake installed by the PO. At 2500 rpm she drives the boat at 5 knots. The original engine was probably an Atomic four given that a large 30/20 gallon gas tank was install which was replaced by the current owner with a 12 gallon plastic tank due to fuel contamination issues. Current owner never used a tank a year so down sized it. Hence we're both pretty sure the original was an Atomic 4 given the original tankage. He has no info on the prop, so its safe to assume that the prop was probably not changed out. Shaft dia is not known at this time and and neither is trani model. However he will check the trani model for me today and get back to me as soon as he's available. He's a nice elderly man so I was greatfull to get the trani info request in and left it at that. I think its safe to assume the following scenario probably happened. PO two back did not want to repair the A4 and swapped it out for the diesel. Trani is probably the original, same for prop shaft and my guess is the same applied to the prop given the stated rpms and speed. The westerbake was install in 1999 and then purchased by the current owner. Engine is used to get on an off the mooring in harbor and the vessel is mostly day sailed so the engine has low hrs and has probably not been stressed too much pending on how it was maintained. He mentioned the model is a 2b2 but googling this I think its wrong. The only 12 Hp Westi that I can find is the 12c model which is a 2 cylinder 4 stroke 12hp marine grade diesel. Once I get the trani data will forward that to the list so that the basic data set is complete. Shaft dia is not that critical at this point I would assume. All for now and thanks for all your help. Its greatly appreciated. -- /ch

Chris, Thanks for the information. Just put my boat away on Saturday. My Merc ran nicely for the entire 2-1/2 hour trip down the river. Winds were gusting to 25kts on the nose for a big part of the trip and I do not think I saw the knotmeter over 4 at any point. My 27' pop-top is roughly 4500lbs and even is calm water, my Merc barely moves the boat at 5kts when wide open. Based on several posts the last few weeks, I'm thinking I should be seeing a bit more. How fast can you move that Seafarer under power ? Thanks ! Steve Chris Campbell <clcampbell@chart erinternet.com> To Sent by: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Cal_Boats@yahoogr cc oups.com Subject Re: [Cal_Boats] High-thrust 10/23/2008 10:38 workboat prop (Chris Campbell) AM Please respond to Cal_Boats@yahoogr oups.com st… [at] us.ul.com wrote: Chris, I'd appreciate it if you could pass along any info you have on the workboat prop. I'm also running a Merc 8HP on my boat and would persue any performance improvement I could gain. Thanks ! The boat this motor pushes is a 26' Seafarer, keel/centerboard, 4,750 lbs. displacement (nominal). My performance problems were plug fouling and a tendency to lose RPMs and power when I hit big powerboats wakes. I dealt with: Mark Elliott The "Prop Doc" www.PropMD.com Minnesota Propeller 5480 292nd Ct E Cannon Falls, MN 55009 Direct 507-263-0890 Cell 651-398-8637 Toll Free 877-376-4244 I got a post card a couple weeks back telling me he had moved the business to a new address; you could do a web search. These are the Merc part nos. from the Merc manual for the outboard: --48-828150A12, 9-3/4" x 6-1/2" or 48828148A12, 9-3/4" x 5-1/2"? Or even 48-828152A12, 9-1/4" x 7" Here's what he recommended: Go with the lower pitch....it will give you better reverse thrust and all around performance. The fuel difference will be nominal. Small diameter differences have little affect on performance...pitch is the greatest difference. Usually I sell the 6-1/2 for sail applications. Here's what I bought, from the invoice he e-mailed: Black Diamond 9 3/4R 6.5 SS<QA2122T That would identify it as the 6-1/2" pitch model. The Merc manual, which is at home, described the applications for the various options. The 5-1/2" model would be even more thrust (lower pitch) but also lower speed/reduced gas mileage. The motor is happier with the new prop. Last summer it was fouling plugs; this summer it did not. It would lose power when I hit big wakes; not now. I assume it's because the new prop allows it to run at a higher actual RPM for a given throttle opening, giving better air/fuel velocity. That's what somebody on the list had suggested. Since I don't use it for anything but getting up or down the river, there's been no real chance to measure fuel economy changes. I usually run at less than full throttle. Don't know how well it would push the boat in big seas because I haven't tried. Before I got the new prop, I tried raising the motor a bit so it was immersed less. My brother had suggested that being too low in the water might increase the exhaust backpressure too much. The motor is in a well on its own little fixed "transom". It's 1-1/2" higher now than if it were down all the way, thanks to a wood block under it (any higher and the clamps wouldn't be on the transom). When I bought the motor, it was about 10 years old but had seen almost no use (not a single paint chip on the lower unit). The carb was somewhat gummed up so I had to disassemble and clean it. Now it starts regularly and runs smoothly. Does that help? Chris Campbell Steve - For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and http://www.ulc.ca or contact your local sales representative. -- ********* Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ********** This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. UL and its affiliates do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments. ***************************************************************** No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1739 - Release Date: 10/22/2008 7:23 AM - For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and http://www.ulc.ca or contact your local sales representative. -- ********* Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ********** This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender. UL and its affiliates do not accept liability for any errors, omissions, corruption or virus in the contents of this message or any attachments. *****************************************************************

st… [at] us.ul.com wrote: > > Chris, > Thanks for the information. > > Just put my boat away on Saturday. My Merc ran nicely for the entire > 2-1/2 hour trip down the river. Winds were gusting to 25kts on the > nose for a big part of the trip and I do not think I saw the knotmeter > over 4 at any point. > > My 27' pop-top is roughly 4500lbs and even is calm water, my Merc > barely moves the boat at 5kts when wide open. Based on several posts > the last few weeks, I'm thinking I should be seeing a bit more. > > How fast can you move that Seafarer under power ? > Now that's a good question. The boat has an "antique" (I installed it years ago) mechanical VDO Sumlog mounted on one side of the keel, where it gives an approximate speed. (Very approximate). I've never thought to measure the speed via GPS while powering. It reads about 4-1/2 knots under power, part throttle, no seas. It does better under full throttle, although I don't run it at full because I'm cheap. The boat has a 19' LWL. Since buying this motor, I've never had to power into seas. With high wind and big seas, it could be underpowered, I suppose, and it might be interesting to try it some day with the new prop to see what happens. When I have been single-handing and have to go forward under power, I have had the propeller aspirate (?? spin out of the water) when I've hit boat wakes. It would have a lesser tendency with a crew member aft. A long-shaft would solve that problem. Chris Campbell > >