Date   
Re: Steering hydraulic line

thomas.kleman <no_reply@...>
 

Just as you posted this i finished googling "rack and pinion steering" and realized the stupidity of my question. Obviously my double major in Poetry and Contemporary Pottery didn't prepare me well for boat ownership. :)

Re: Steering hydraulic line

Alan Leslie
 

Its not a hydraulic hose, it's a cable. they are supposedly lubricated for life.
Cheers
Alan
Elyse SM437

Steering hydraulic line

thomas.kleman <no_reply@...>
 

So, I noticed about a shot glass of water in the starboard lower compartment in the aft cabin (just forward of the linear drive). On SM2K #422, this is where sea water ends up when the rudder post stuffing box leaks a bit. As before, I turned the mylar nut one more facing (I guess 1/8 of a revolution) and it seems to have done the trick. Great.


However, in making this adjustment it was necessary to take off mattress, etc and completely open the storage area under the bed. I don't have that rudder nut tool I've seen on this site and my wrench only fits on the starboard side of the quadrant.  Not an area of the boat I visit regularly enough. No leaks, spots, anything......so far, so good. But I did notice that one of the hydraulic lines to the rudder quadrant has a small bulge/area of deformity about an inch from its termination and it's joint to the piston. Hmmm. This could have been there for 14 years, 14 months, or 14 minutes........I felt around and the hose seems OK; no blistering, tearing, etc. And it has not leaked to date as the area all around the hose seems to be completely dry.


If there were to be a leak from this spot, I suppose it's a pretty big problem.......I would then be dependent on the linear drive autopilot to work because the other autopilot uses the wheel (and thus the hydraulics). And I'm not anxious to ever use the emergency tiller.


Has anyone ever changed one of these hoses and what is the process ? It's not clear to me what size the hose/fitting is........nor is it clear how one bleeds it after a new hose is installed. Any ideas ?


Tom Kleman

SV L'ORIENT

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush***RESPONSE TO *** IMPORTAN

eric freedman
 

Bill,

I agree with you 100%.

That is why I do it the way it is done in the original installation.

Fair Winds

Eric

 

 

From: amelyachtowners@... [mailto:amelyachtowners@...]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:55 AM
To: amelyachtowners@...
Subject: Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush***RESPONSE TO *** IMPORTAN

 

 

Eric,

 

Since you gave me some hints on my first C-DRIVE service and Gary Silver provided me with written instructions, I would like to share this. In my personal experience with SM 387 and with over 40 SM & 54 clients, when water enters the C-DRIVE, it has nothing to do with seal orientation. It has always been something else that has been done wrong. 

 

That said, to RISK the double protection of the oil to try to overcome what, in my experience, is something else done wrong is a RISK that I wouldn't take.


Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Admiral, Texas Navy
Commander Emeritus
Amel School www.amelschool.com
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970

 

On Sat, May 12, 2018, 22:53 'sailormon' kimberlite@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:

 

[Attachment(s) from sailormon included below]

Hi Miles,

Here is the page from my Amel manual. Possibly yours is different. For the first 4 or 5 years I hauled Kimberlite every year and sanded the bottom and painted it. Now I do her every other year.

This summer I had the bottom paint removed to the Gel coat .

 

Every time she was out of the water, I also did the zincs, WOB with seals, line cutter,  and bowthruster.

As we both know these are inexpensive items and I don’t understand the hubbub about trying to make the WOB last longer. I have always installed the seals with the 2 closest to the oil ( as per the drawing) with the spring side facing the oil , and the outboard one with the spring side facing the prop. Just goes to show you that your method and mine both work.  If you look at the text in the drawing they use either 3 8 mm lip seals or 2 12 mm seals.

 

Looking forward to seeing you for the 4th.

 

Fair Winds

Eric

 

 

 

 

Jose, Craig,

 

I don’t understand why two years has any significance.  The original Amel instructions were to change the wearing out bearing every 650 hours.  How much the bearing wears is a function of engine hours not time.   Any valid comparison test would need to for the same number of hours at the same engine speed.

For over 5000 engine hours, I have changed the wearing out bearing using lots of silicone grease and following the Amel instructions of the first bearing facing in and the outer two bearings facing out.  I have done this (or Amel has done it) every 650 hours or so.  I have never had any problem of water in the oil or loss of oil.    I have had  my boat since it was new and I learned early on that everything that Amel does or recommends is for a reason.   

 

Regards,

 

Miles

s/y Ladybug, sm 216, Le Marin Martinique

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 

Bill,

Excellent analysis! Clear, concise, accurate and very logical. Thanks, this is a gentle of a posting!

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Admiral, Texas Navy
Commander Emeritus
Amel School www.amelschool.com
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970


On Sun, May 13, 2018, 09:12 greatketch@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:
 

Pat,


It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lowe r RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 4500RPM continuously wasn&# 39;t a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now just read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.

Thanks,

Pat

SM #123

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

karkauai
 

I’m very happy with my MaxProp. It’s not as persnickety as the AutoProp about growth.  I service it at every bottom paint job when I change the shaft seals and WOB.

They make a model that can be repitched in the water.  It’s a lot more expensive than the standard model that you have to haul out to repitch.  I had to do one quick haul to repitch when I reported with the Yanmar.



Kent Robertson
S/V Kristy
SM243

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

Jose Venegas
 

I did some studying when I was buying a prop for my previous Beneteau 361.  I found that selecting the type of folding prop depended on the objective.  If it is to reduce drag while sailing the Flexofold or Max prop are pretty good doing that, and better than the Auto-prop which, at low wind conditions tends to take strange configurations causing extra drag. In the category the Max prop because its blades are flat has the lowest drag.
If the objective is to minimize fuel consumption during motoring, the blade of the Flexofold and the Autoprop are better shaped with an angle of attack that is reduced from the center outwards (twist).  This is important because the speed of the blade relative to the water increases with the radius of a rotating object.  The Autoprop blades have a constant angle of attack (flat blades) which is less efficient and can cause flow separation, turbulence, and possibly cavitation reducing their efficiency. 

Finally, if optimizing fuel consumption while motor-sailing is the objective, the  Autoprop is best as it adjusts its angle of attack as the wind increases and keeps the prop working efficiently.  Fix pitched props like the Flex or Max as the wind increases they end up spinning adding little power.   

In summary,  If cost is not the issue, I find that the Autoprop is Ideal for those of us that tend to motor-sail when the wind is low or comes from the nose.

My 5 cents.

Jose Venegas
Ipanema SM2K 278
Boston

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

greatketch@...
 



Yes, Amel overpitched the prop on the Volvo on purpose. Volvo suggested that one of several reasons that you might want to restrict the top speed of the engine was "reduced noise."  

 I don't know what Amel did on the Yanmars.  I am sure somebody here can answer that...

I wouldn't tell them "under 3000" but rather give them 3000 as the target.  Lower speeds will result in lower net power output from the engine, so you don't want to drop much.

I have owned two boats with a "Classic" 3 blade MaxProp (including Harmonie) and have been very happy with them.  They work, they are easy to care for, no bearings, seals, or other parts that wear out.  Every haulout I take mine apart and clean and grease it.  I keep a zinc on the end, and all has been good.

I have no experience with Flexofold specifically.  My fleet experience with folding props is limited to Martec brand props on racing sailboats.  Not applicable to a SM installation, but I didn't particularly like them, both from a maintenance and a performance under power standpoint. The maintenance issue was wear of the pivot pins. They needed regular replacement.

In the real world, I very much doubt there is anything other than a theoretical performance difference between any of the major brands of folding or feathering props.  Certainly in sailing performance, and even in motoring the differences aren't really going to be significant. Many folding props struggle a bit with reverse, but I suspect that is more a case of the helmsman needing to rev the engine more than he was used to.

One nice thing about a Maxprop: Based the experiences of other SM owners who have them installed by Amel in the early production run, you know exactly which one to get and where to set the adjustable pitch without trial and error. No need to pay the premium for the model with in-water pitch adjustment.

And as a total aside.... Speaking of "premium," the new 5 blade Maxprop is a beautiful piece of machinework!  Priced like fine jewelry, but I imagine it is runs really, really smoothly.  Certainly not worth it for the two or three hundred hours a year I have the engine running, but it would certainly make me the star of the boatyard at haulout!

Bill Kinney
Sm#160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., <sailw32@...> wrote :

Bill, Thank you for your detailed reply. If I understand you correctly and correct me if I am wrong, Amel purposely over pitched my fixed prop to restrain it from attaining higher rpms and Volvo is fine with that. So, can owners with Yanmars obtain max rpms? I can't imagine I would want to hear my engine running higher than 3000 rpm , I feel as though I am over stressing it at that , I know it stresses me . So whatever prop I should buy , I should have them sell me a prop size and pitch that keeps my TMD22a under 3000 rpm. I know you were involved in the charter business , do you have any experience with Flexofold or Max Prop ?
Thanks Again,
Pat
SM #123

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

Patrick McAneny
 

Craig, I will check it out, they all sound good according to their propaganda . But which is the best,how do you know. Yachting Monthly did a prop test, but then that was brought into question. 
Thanks,
Pat SM#123


-----Original Message-----
From: sangaris@... [amelyachtowners]
To: amelyachtowners
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2018 11:11 am
Subject: Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 
Hi Pat,
Just to add a couple of points to your cogimatations, you can adjust the Max Prop pitch to what you prefer, fine tuning as necessary as you go. You may also want to check out the AutoStream by Australian company Seahawk, distributed in the US by Martec.  It's a beautiful stainless steel feathering prop similar to the MaxProp and the pitch can be adjusted without removing the prop, as I believe the MaxProp requires (perhaps just some models). Much less expensive than the MaxProp, too.
Cheers,
Craig SN68 Sangaris


---In amelyachtowners@..., wrote :

Bill, Thank you for your detailed reply. If I understand you correctly and correct me if I am wrong, Amel purposely over pitched my fixed prop to restrain it from attaining higher rpms and Volvo is fine with that. So, c an owners with Yanmars obtain max rpms? I can't imagine I would want to hear my engine running higher than 3000 rpm , I feel as though I am over stressing it at that , I know it stresses me . So whatever prop I should buy , I should have them sell me a prop size and pitch that keeps my TMD22a under 3000 rpm. I know you were involved in the charter business , do you have any experience with Flexofold or Max Prop ?
Thanks Again,
Pat
SM #123


-----Original Message-----
From: greatketch@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...>
To: amelyachtowners <amelyachtowners@...>
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2018 10:12 am
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 
Pat,

It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lower RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 450 0RPM continuously wasn't a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now ju st read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.
Thanks,
Pat
SM #123

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

Craig & Katherine Briggs SN 68 Sangaris Tropic Isle Harbor, FL
 

Hi Pat,
Just to add a couple of points to your cogimatations, you can adjust the Max Prop pitch to what you prefer, fine tuning as necessary as you go. You may also want to check out the AutoStream by Australian company Seahawk, distributed in the US by Martec.  It's a beautiful stainless steel feathering prop similar to the MaxProp and the pitch can be adjusted without removing the prop, as I believe the MaxProp requires (perhaps just some models). Much less expensive than the MaxProp, too.
Cheers,
Craig SN68 Sangaris


---In amelyachtowners@..., <sailw32@...> wrote :

Bill, Thank you for your detailed reply. If I understand you correctly and correct me if I am wrong, Amel purposely over pitched my fixed prop to restrain it from attaining higher rpms and Volvo is fine with that. So, can owners with Yanmars obtain max rpms? I can't imagine I would want to hear my engine running higher than 3000 rpm , I feel as though I am over stressing it at that , I know it stresses me . So whatever prop I should buy , I should have them sell me a prop size and pitch that keeps my TMD22a under 3000 rpm. I know you were involved in the charter business , do you have any experience with Flexofold or Max Prop ?
Thanks Again,
Pat
SM #123


-----Original Message-----
From: greatketch@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...>
To: amelyachtowners <amelyachtowners@...>
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2018 10:12 am
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 
Pat,

It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lower RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 450 0RPM continuously wasn't a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., <sailw32@...> wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now ju st read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.
Thanks,
Pat
SM #123

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Jose Venegas
 

Craig, 
You interpreted my point as intended.  I did not read your last post before I answered it with a long explanation, but hopefully, it helps in the discussion.  Particularly in reducing the fears of oil loss and C-Drive damage due to it.
I fear more the long-term damage of potential corrosion caused by salt water or premature gear wear caused by silt in river of stuaries water.  

Jose Venegas

Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Miles
 

WOB problems,

 

I am wondering what grease is being used by those who are having problems with leaking WOBs.    I have never had a problem.  For 7 years the Amel people in Hyeres took care of my boat and changed the WOB several times at about 650 hours.  They had buckets of silicone grease, used lots of it, and said to use nothing else.   Not only did I not have any problems, but neither did any of the other Amel owners that I knew.   

 

Miles

s/y Ladybug, sm 216. Le Marin Martinique

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

Patrick McAneny
 

Bill, Thank you for your detailed reply. If I understand you correctly and correct me if I am wrong, Amel purposely over pitched my fixed prop to restrain it from attaining higher rpms and Volvo is fine with that. So, can owners with Yanmars obtain max rpms? I can't imagine I would want to hear my engine running higher than 3000 rpm , I feel as though I am over stressing it at that , I know it stresses me . So whatever prop I should buy , I should have them sell me a prop size and pitch that keeps my TMD22a under 3000 rpm. I know you were involved in the charter business , do you have any experience with Flexofold or Max Prop ?
Thanks Again,
Pat
SM #123


-----Original Message-----
From: greatketch@... [amelyachtowners]
To: amelyachtowners
Sent: Sun, May 13, 2018 10:12 am
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Props and rpm

 
Pat,

It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lower RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 450 0RPM continuously wasn't a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now ju st read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.
Thanks,
Pat
SM #123

Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Jose Venegas
 

Craig and Eric,

What  I call the lip is spring side of the seal. In other words, in my experimental configuration, the orientation of inner (next to the C-Drive) and middle seals was with the spring facing the propeller side (preventing water in) and the outer seal facing the C-Drive (preventing the oil from leaving).  

I think I can clarify a little more my rationale in the sentences below

Before proceeding it is important to note that standard seals work to prevent motion of oil from the spring side, lip side, but not from the opposite side.  As pressure builds on the spring side it creates a force that tends to close the gap between seal and shaft.  In contrast, when the pressure builds on the opposite side of the seal, it tends to expand the lip outwards opening a gap and allowing motion across the seal.   In standard applications, the seal lip faces the high-pressure oil side. 

As Danny pointed out, the density of oil is only 90-93 %  that of water oil would tend to move up relative to water if both liquids present in the same container.  However,  what drives the direction of motion of fluid across the seals is the net pressure difference across them.  That difference is proportional to the difference of the products of the height of the column times the density of the fluid.  So, because the oil reservoir is above the water level by more than 10% of the distance between the water level and oil level in the tank, under normal conditions the net pressure across the seals would tend to move oil out of the C-Drive in the absence of any seals.  Note, however, that if there were no seals preventing such motion, oil would flow out until its height is just about 10% higher than that of the water and, at that point, the flow would stop (pressure difference becomes zero!.  So even if the seal (or seals) preventing the oil from leaving were to fail catastrophically, the oil in the C-Drive would not empty completely.

So why do we get water into the C-Drive when using the "Amel way" of orienting the seals?  Well, the above calculation is valid only on static conditions. During dynamic conditions, when the outer seal fails, the interface between oil and water is put in motion driven by the shaft, which tends to mix the two fluids forming the cream chocolate color emulsion.  If the central and inner seals (spring side) are facing the C-Drive as recommended by AMEL,  this emulsion can move easily across them into the C-Drive and is mixed with the rest of the oil by the recirculation action of the C-Drive inner pump.  Over time the water entering the C-Drive makes the oil level on the reservoir increase. 

Then, why did the seals and bushing lasted longer and water did not get into the C-Drive in my experimental configuration?  First, the friction between the bushing and the seal surface, over time tends to wear both surfaces. When newly installed proper greasing mitigates this friction and reduces wear but as the grease deteriorates over time, friction increases and the seal wears out. A harder bushing would last longer but the seal wear is the same.  In either case, the presence of a thin layer of fluid (oil or water) between seal and bushing acts to lubricate the surface and reduce friction.  In my experimental configuration, the  seals next to the C-Drive Oil allow oil motion towards the outer seal when the latter begin to lose sealing.  This makes them lubricated by the oil moving out, thus prolonging their life.  If at this point, the C-Drive oil is made more viscous, the additional viscosity of the oil elevates the inner pressure which tends to close the outer seal  reducing its flow but still able to lubricate it.  In the "Amel way" the two inner seals lips are facing the oil side and, the outer seal facing the propeller thus none of the seals tend to be lubricated once the grease ceases to work.  

A long explanation for a simple question but I hope worth to understand why in this case the "AMEL way" is not the ideal one.

Jose Venegas (Not Jose Luis)
Ipanema SM2k 278
Boston

 

Re: Props and rpm

greatketch@...
 

Pat,

It is totally "normal" when picking a prop for a diesel engine to do exactly as Felxofold suggests.  You pick a propeller that allows the engine to turn its full rated RPM at full throttle. (which is where the engine power rating is specified). The way a propeller power curve is shaped, there is no advantage to operating the engine at its "maxiumum torque."

Most engine makers will insist on speed matching as part of the proper installation.  In fact, Volvo does on their other engines.  If you installed most marine diesel engines propped to run at 1500RPM below rating at full throttle, they would struggle, have significant maintenance issues, and have a shorter than expected lifespan.

With THIS engine in particular, Volvo did not insist. They even suggested in the engine manual that there are advantages to "over-propping" the engine and having it peak at lower RPM than its full rating. In fact you have to look really hard to even find Volvo mentioning the 4500 RPM number! I am not completely sure WHY Volvo felt this appropriate for this engine, but Amel took advantage of this flexibility in full throttle RPM, and propped it to full-throttle at about 3000RPM.  

I think the history of this engine in Amels supports that decision.  We do suffer from some issues (minor carbon build up in the turbo, and constant black soot on the hull) that come from it, but but they seem to have a long and relatively trouble free service life, as a rule.  Mine just turned 8000 hours.  If I figure 12,000 hours as a reasonable lifespan, that gives me another... 15 years :)

This is one of those places where someone coming from a long history with other boats looks at the Volvo installation in an Amel and decides right away that it is wrong...  but it works exactly like it is supposed to.

My wild speculation with what happened on this engine, is that that Perkins specified the max RPM with an eye to the Automotive market.  It was a popular engine in Land Rovers, among others. A redline RPM means something very different in an automobile, where running at maximum rated RPM is an unusual and short term event.  (At least the way I drive.) In addition, automobile engines that last 5000 hours are the exception, not the rule.

In a marine installation, an engine operates very high up on its power curve--all the time.  Volvo probably felt that operating the engine at 4500RPM continuously wasn't a good idea for service and longevity, but for some reason didn't want to change the injection pump to lower the peak RPM and HP rating of the engine.  I suspect because they wanted to keep the 74HP rating as a sales tool--even if it was unrealistic for a typical marine installation.

Long and short of this is: Have flexofold specify a prop that will load your engine enough that it tops out at something between 2900 and 3300RPM.  You'll motor at 8 knots (full throttle), and be happy.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Rock Sound Harbour, Eleuthera, Bahamas

---In amelyachtowners@..., <sailw32@...> wrote :

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now just read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.

Thanks,

Pat

SM #123

New injectors for Perkins 4-154

James Alton
 

Hello fellow Amel owners,   I purchased a complete set of injectors that were supposed to fit my Perkins 4.154 based on my engine serial number which is GA 10002 J 00298 N.  The injectors are new units still in the box and due to the vintage I had them pop tested which they passed.  They came with a complete set of sealing washers for installation. 

    Further investigation revealed that my engine (notice the "J" in the middle of the serial number?) is a Japanese built Mazada block engine that uses the Kiki injection pump.  The new injectors I bought are meant to be used with  the more common CAV injection pump so I cannot use these injectors according to Trans Atlantic Diesel.  I have ordered a rebuilt set of injectors to work with my Kiki pump and wanted to offer the new injectors that I have to any Amel owner that could use them.  I would only need cores sent back to Trans Atlantic Diesel at some point in the future (no rush) so that I could recover the substantial core charge I paid on the rebuilt injectors that I ordered.  The new injectors I am offering are supposed to work with any Perkins 4-154 with the CAV injection pump based on my research but it is best to verify where possible which has proven difficult on this vintage engine.  Here are the details of the new injectors:  Part # on Perkins box:  2645699.  Stamped on the injector:  GZ  CAV England Perkins,  BKB35 SD5247 EH, DES N 5344604.  If anyone would like these injectors for their Amel, let me know along with an address to ship them.  


Best,

James Alton

SV Sueño

Maramu #220

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

Craig & Katherine Briggs SN 68 Sangaris Tropic Isle Harbor, FL
 

Wow, all this "facing in and out" is confusing, and I may have misread your post, if, perhaps, you were trying to see if Jose's nomenclature actually matched the Amel way. 

However,  "Facing in" in Jose's method is the same as Amel's, that is, with the spring (or lip) side facing the "C" drive and preventing oil from escaping. "Facing out" is with what you call the "rubber side" being toward the "C" drive, and the lip or spring side facing the sea, thus preventing water from entering from the sea. Your post assumed that Jose meant just the opposite - he didn't (unless I'm reading everything wrong :-).

Now, as you note, Amel says (or used to say) the first two should be facing in, meaning spring side toward "C" drive oil. The last, or outer one, they say, should be facing out (spring side to the sea).  They seem to have changed that in their Caribbean installations with the first one facing in, ie., spring side toward the oil, and the outer two facing out, spring sides facing the sea, supposedly trying to solve the water-in-oil problem.

Jose suggests the first two should actually face out, ie., spring sides facing the sea, and the outer one should face in, ie., lip side facing the oil of the "C" drive. He posits that will keep all lips lubricated and lessen wear on the bearing. The inner lips, by facing out will let oil seep out of the "C" drive to lubricate the lips and the outer lip will let water come in, also to lubricate the seals, while the inner two keep that water from making its way to the oil in the gear case.  Thus all seals will get lubricated by oil and/or a water and oil slurry.  Doesn't sound unreasonable.

Super that you're one of the few who never has water in their oil. More power to you, and this discussion must seem trivial, but I'd assert most of us do get water in the oil and it's not from a lack of attention to detail, nor failure to follow the Amel way.

Cheers, Craig 


---In amelyachtowners@..., <kimberlite@...> wrote :

Craig,

Please reread what I wrote, I believe you misread what I wrote.

What you wrote is what I said . I call one side the rubber side and the other the spring side.

I was not questioning how many seals went which way.

I have changed my WOB and lip seals about 10 times over the last 16 years and with attention to detail and a lot of silicone grease there will not be a leak. I install them the way Amel originally installed them with the 2 seals nearest the C drive having the spring side facing the oil  and the last seal with the spring side facing the prop. Look at drawing 13 of the appendix in the owner’s manual.

The first time I changed the seals I used the prop grease and it leaked.

Fair Winds

Eric

Kimberlite Amel Super Maramu #376

 

 

 

From: amelyachtowners@... [mailto:amelyachtowners@...]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 5:46 PM
To: amelyachtowners@...
Subject: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: Facing in or out--- SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush

 

 

Hi Eric,

Just the opposite, I think, but I'm sure Jose will clarify.  He's got the first two seals with the lip (or spring) side facing aft, or "out" and the last (outer) seal facing "in", that is, with its lip side facing forward toward the oil. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Cheers, Craig



---In amelyachtowners@..., <kimberlite@...> wrote :

Jose,

Just to clarify things about this discussion.

I assume that when you say the lip seal is facing in you mean that the rubber side is facing towards the C drive  and when you say out you mean the spring side is facing the C drive.

Fair Winds

Eric

Kimberlite Amel Super Maramu #376

.

 

From: amelyachtowners@... [mailto:amelyachtowners@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:36 PM
To: amelyachtowners@...
Subject: Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush*** IMPORTANT RESPONSE***

 

 

Danny and Bill,

 

First, I don't take it personally.... (text clipped)



 In my experiment I had both the inner and central seals with the lips facing the propeller (preventing water from coming in but allowing oil to move out)  The outer seal was facing the C-drive, thus acting to prevent the oil from leaking out but allowing some lubrication by the water.  

.....(text clipped)

Fair winds

 

Jose

Ipanema SM2K 278

 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Re: SM Prop Shaft Seal direction and Bush***RESPONSE TO *** IMPORTAN [1 Attachment]

 

Eric,

Since you gave me some hints on my first C-DRIVE service and Gary Silver provided me with written instructions, I would like to share this. In my personal experience with SM 387 and with over 40 SM & 54 clients, when water enters the C-DRIVE, it has nothing to do with seal orientation. It has always been something else that has been done wrong. 

That said, to RISK the double protection of the oil to try to overcome what, in my experience, is something else done wrong is a RISK that I wouldn't take.

Best,

CW Bill Rouse
Admiral, Texas Navy
Commander Emeritus
Amel School www.amelschool.com
720 Winnie St
Galveston Island, TX 77550
+1(832) 380-4970


On Sat, May 12, 2018, 22:53 'sailormon' kimberlite@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:
 
[Attachment(s) from sailormon included below]

Hi Miles,

Here is the page from my Amel manual. Possibly yours is different. For the first 4 or 5 years I hauled Kimberlite every year and sanded the bottom and painted it. Now I do her every other year.

This summer I had the bottom paint removed to the Gel coat .

 

Every time she was out of the water, I also did the zincs, WOB with seals, line cutter,  and bowthruster.

As we both know these are inexpensive items and I don’t understand the hubbub about trying to make the WOB last longer. I have always installed the seals with the 2 closest to the oil ( as per the drawing) with the spring side facing the oil , and the outboard one with the spring side facing the prop. Just goes to show you that your method and mine both work.  If you look at the text in the drawing they use either 3 8 mm lip seals or 2 12 mm seals.

 

Looking forward to seeing you for the 4th.

 

Fair Winds

Eric

 

 

 

 

Jose, Craig,

 

I don’t understand why two years has any significance.  The original Amel instructions were to change the wearing out bearing every 650 hours.  How much the bearing wears is a function of engine hours not time.   Any valid comparison test would need to for the same number of hours at the same engine speed.

For over 5000 engine hours, I have changed the wearing out bearing using lots of silicone grease and following the Amel instructions of the first bearing facing in and the outer two bearings facing out.  I have done this (or Amel has done it) every 650 hours or so.  I have never had any problem of water in the oil or loss of oil.    I have had  my boat since it was new and I learned early on that everything that Amel does or recommends is for a reason.   

 

Regards,

 

Miles

s/y Ladybug, sm 216, Le Marin Martinique

Props and rpm

Patrick McAneny
 

I had flexofold suggest a prop and pitch that would allow the engine reach its max rpm , in my case 4500 . I now just read on the Max prop website , that their prop would also allow the engine to reach full rpm ,"in flat water." I wrote back to Flexofold that this did not sound correct , as my fixed prop does not allow me to get beyond 3000, and I have not read about anyone else able to reach rpms that high. I would think  reaching max torque would be the goal . Should a prop/ pitch allow an engine to obtain max rpms ? I don't know what to think or what is correct on this subject, and I may owe Flexofold a retraction.

Thanks,

Pat

SM #123

Re: [Amel Yacht Owners] Strange 24DC leakage

Barry Connor
 

Hi Ruedi,
Do you have the Bose entertainment? I had a leak and disconnected things one by one. I found the leak was the salon TV. Disconnected the TV from the system and have not had any current leaks since.

Best Regards
Barry

Barry and Penny Connor
“Lady Penelope II”
Amel 54. #17
Sailing in the Adriatic 


On May 13, 2018, at 10:30, Rudolf Waldispuehl Rudolf@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:

 

Hi everyone 

I do have the same strange behaviour with the 24V negative leak. Sorry, I’m late with my response because I was not on WASABI and tried to trace down last few days.

I found a leak at the Furuno heading sensor box. But from time to time (comes and goes daily) I have a strong Neg. leak. Which I found initially on the forward toilette pump and was happy I could reproduce the leak. Problem solved! 

Few days later I got the same pattern back with the strong Negative leak again. At this time it in not the Furuno sensor, nor the toilet pump. 
I have to disconnect all potential sources one by one again, which I have no time right now. Will do it later and report back.  

Fair winds
Ruedi 
"SY WASABI"
Amel 54. #55

Von: <amelyachtowners@...> on behalf of "'S/V Garulfo' svgarulfo@... [amelyachtowners]" <amelyachtowners@...>
Antworten an: <amelyachtowners@...>
Datum: Mittwoch, 25. April 2018 um 16:06
An: Yahoo Group Amel <amelyachtowners@...>
Betreff: [Amel Yacht Owners] Strange 24DC leakage

 

Hi everyone, 

Our DC leakage detector is showing a leak on the negative. I investigated any AC charger + DC USB potential issue as mentioned previously on the group and didn't find any culprit. 

However, it highlighted this strange fact: when I push the switch up to test for bad connection between negative and grounding, the light comes on and slowly goes off in about 3 seconds. If I test again, it doesn't come on. I need to wait for 10 , 15 minutes for it to 'recharge'. It looks like a capacitor discharging. 

Has anybody experienced this before? Does it give a clue to what could be the source of the leak?

Otherwise I'll start the usual investigation disconnecting everything from the batteries end.

Thanks in advance,

Fair winds 

Thomas

S\V GARULFO
Amel 54 #122
Saint Martin, FWI