Wing v. Fin on the Ericson 28

[sailingdeacon]

Just to add to my frustration... in looking for a 32-3 there are two nice E32-3's on the market in the east, both wing keels. A photo shows a really large factory installed wing, unlike the brochure. (I can provide a photo) With the 32's phrf (as compared to my lost e34) I dont think I want to risk an unknown performance hit.

Also I should add this... I looked at a e35-3 that had the mars bulb. even with a 3gm30 it barely could attain 6.5 max speed (gps) and it definitely should have gone faster. It also took higher than expected rpms to get to 6. . The prop was fitted perfectly and max rpm attained. My opinion is that the bulb had that effect. Also that it can cause unpredictable results when motoring or sailing in light or heavy air, on or off the wind. The Ericson designer knew what he was doing

 

[sailingdeacon]

We have the wing-keel on our 32-200 and it performs just fine. It is a pain to get unstuck though.

Would like to privately discuss by phone asap your experience with the wing keel. I sent you a private email.

 

[Mort Fligelman]

Wing Keel

If you really want to get your brains twisted try this......

Czesław Marchaj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A dear, but now departed friend of mine following the information in this mans book put a wing on an old Columbia Contender back in the late 60's.

The boat was a real DOG getting to weather, and the wing did help......

Years later Ben Lexen did Australia, and beat the hell out of poor Dennis Connor........Was the reason the Wind Keel?

Can be debated and discussed forever.....no reasonable conclusion will be found.....

My .02 worth!

 

[Loren Beach]

Propping up my argument...

Just to add to my frustration... in looking for a 32-3 there are two nice E32-3's on the market in the east, both wing keels. A photo shows a really large factory installed wing, unlike the brochure. (I can provide a photo) With the 32's phrf (as compared to my lost e34) I dont think I want to risk an unknown performance hit.

Also I should add this... I looked at a e35-3 that had the mars bulb. even with a 3gm30 it barely could attain 6.5 max speed (gps) and it definitely should have gone faster. It also took higher than expected rpms to get to 6. . The prop was fitted perfectly and max rpm attained. My opinion is that the bulb had that effect. Also that it can cause unpredictable results when motoring or sailing in light or heavy air, on or off the wind. The Ericson designer knew what he was doing

Regarding the engine vs prop vs speed comment. I agree that it should have gone faster, and would not blame the keel shape at all. I would respectfully disagree that the prop was fitted "perfectly"... having been through four different prop changes and one final re-pitching (more like a re-machining) on our boat over the years.

Our "factory" fixed two blade would only push it about 6. kts, with mid sixes just out of the yard with a speedy-clean bottom. Same for the new two blade, and same (after three lifts to reset pitch) for the two blade feathering.
Now, with the 3-blade fixed AND a re-pitching and complete blade alignment (i.e. machining) , we routinely motor at 7.2 !
All this with a 28 foot static waterline and a 23 hp diesel.

That other E-35-3 needs some prop attention, IMHO. He should be motoring easily at 7.0 in smooth water, with a clean bottom.

And, if you have the 32-3 with and without wing PHRF numbers on hand, any change in relative performance would no longer be completely unknown...
:nerd:

My .02 worth,

Loren

 

[sailingdeacon]

Regarding the engine vs prop vs speed comment. I agree that it should have gone faster, and would not blame the keel shape at all. I would respectfully disagree that the prop was fitted "perfectly"... having been through four different prop changes and one final re-pitching (more like a re-machining) on our boat over the years.

Our "factory" fixed two blade would only push it about 6. kts, with mid sixes just out of the yard with a speedy-clean bottom. Same for the new two blade, and same (after three lifts to reset pitch) for the two blade feathering.
Now, with the 3-blade fixed AND a re-pitching and complete blade alignment (i.e. machining) , we routinely motor at 7.2 !
All this with a 28 foot static waterline and a 23 hp diesel.

That other E-35-3 needs some prop attention, IMHO. He should be motoring easily at 7.0 in smooth water, with a clean bottom.

And, if you have the 32-3 with and without wing PHRF numbers on hand, any change in relative performance would no longer be completely unknown...
:nerd:

My .02 worth,

Loren

Loren, I too have your prop experience. Started with a max prop 3 blade feathering,changing the pitch; then a 2 blade folding Slipstream stainless prop ; then a fixed 3 blade campbell prop, then a replacemenet campbell prop (diameter and pitch change). In the first two cases it was "perfected" by first making sure the actual rpms were legit (light tackl meter), then reving the engine in no load, then reving it under load under way. In the first 2 cases the rpms were within 200 of the rated engine max. no smoke, run for 3-5 minutes and max speed of around 7 or bit more. Clean bottom, smooth water, no tide, using gps for speed. The last experiment was a 3 blade campbell, which proved to be over pitched and over diameter using that same test. A replacement campbell then achieved the "perfection" I described. I really dont know how more perfect it can be. Loren, you are not the only one to dabble in ridiculous hobby of prop "perfection".

So I really do think I have something to contribute to the issue of the specific bulb situation on that particular boat. The prop manufacturer was consulted,agreed that the prop was the right one, and also was puzzled with the lack of max speed. The only thing they did not know was the boat had a bulb keel. IMO if the bulb were in the slightest way causing the bow to dig it would slow the boat under power.

If someone can step forward with a bulb or wing keel and do the same experiment, I would appreciate seeing the results Problem is that most folks believe their tacs and their knotmeters reporting 6.5 to 7+ knots with a 32 which is probably not realistic - imho.

IMO, adding a bulb is an adventure with no really good way to compare-test it in all conditions.

 

[Rick R.]

Loren, I too have your prop experience. Started with a max prop 3 blade feathering,changing the pitch; then a 2 blade folding Slipstream stainless prop ; then a fixed 3 blade campbell prop, then a replacemenet campbell prop (diameter and pitch change). In the first two cases it was "perfected" by first making sure the actual rpms were legit (light tackl meter), then reving the engine in no load, then reving it under load under way. In the first 2 cases the rpms were within 200 of the rated engine max. no smoke, run for 3-5 minutes and max speed of around 7 or bit more. Clean bottom, smooth water, no tide, using gps for speed. The last experiment was a 3 blade campbell, which proved to be over pitched and over diameter using that same test. A replacement campbell then achieved the "perfection" I described. I really dont know how more perfect it can be. Loren, you are not the only one to dabble in ridiculous hobby of prop "perfection".

So I really do think I have something to contribute to the issue of the specific bulb situation on that particular boat. The prop manufacturer was consulted,agreed that the prop was the right one, and also was puzzled with the lack of max speed. The only thing they did not know was the boat had a bulb keel. IMO if the bulb were in the slightest way causing the bow to dig it would slow the boat under power.

If someone can step forward with a bulb or wing keel and do the same experiment, I would appreciate seeing the results Problem is that most folks believe their tacs and their knotmeters reporting 6.5 to 7+ knots with a 32 which is probably not realistic - imho.

IMO, adding a bulb is an adventure with no really good way to compare-test it in all conditions.

Not sure if you are referring to motoring or sailing but as I shared in our conversation, we had our 32-200 at 6.5 kts in a 12 kt breeze.

 

[Loren Beach]

Not sure if you are referring to motoring or sailing but as I shared in our conversation, we had our 32-200 at 6.5 kts in a 12 kt breeze.

All of the motoring info exchange here has been about powering, with no sails augmenting, AFAIK, That's what I was referencing, anyhow.

LB

 

[Seth]

Wings & Things

I agree with Loren that the example given about poor motoring performance should not be attibuted to the keel shape, but imagine if it did hurt the boat under power what it would do under sail!

Let's close by saying wing keels are an option for some applications, and are not inherently "bad". But nothing is free, and if you are comparing to a straight fin, or a fin with a bulb, they are slower all around. Period. That does not mean don't consider a boat with a wing, just have the appropriate expectations...

Cheers