Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mark,
Replacing the wheel Autohelm with a 6000+ below decks autopilot was probably
the first major upgrade I did to Sarah in 2000. It’s still going strong,
but I did replace the course computer in 2006. I believe the original
computer failed due to my SSB installation. Wiring for the SSB ran too
close to the old computer. No problems with this setup since 2006.
I let the boatyard munchins do the installation of the drive unit in the
starboard locker. I can get into that locker, but then I can’t move.
Beware of DIY recommendations from some of the munchin owners on this email
list if you are over 6′ .Here is a link to some pics of the installation on Sarah.
http://www.svsarah.com/Sarah/ewUpgradeDeckRig.htm#Autopilot
The pictures are of the drive unit are not very good as they were shot blind
for the reason stated above.On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:49 PM, quent wrote:
Here’s how one owner did it on a P-424:
http://www.oceannavigator.com/content/installing-powerful-belowdecks-autopilot
Quent
Clairebuoyant, #132_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Or just read his article (if you haven’t already):
http://www.svsarah.com/Whoosh/WhooshPacificPrepWaterMaker.htmlOn Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:29 PM, John Stevenson
<>wrote:Patrick,
You might drop an email to Jack Tyler. He put a Spectra 12v water-maker on
Whoosh before they departed for Oz. I think he was very satisfied with his
choice. He did not use solar panels to provide the power. He does have a
wind generator and a tow generator. He also looked hard at the AC-DC
choice. I believe he does carry a Honda generator, so the AC choice was
viable.On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Patrick “Peaboy” Walters <
> wrote:I’m re-distributing this blog post to a couple of lists in the hopes the
broader community has some additional insight.Watermakers–Ya gotta have
Faith…<
http://www.deepplaya.com/post/Watermakerse28093Ya-gotta-have-Faithe280a6.aspxI’m deep into my research about water makers, having met with
Spectra<http://www.spectrawatermakers.com/ventura/200.html>,
Hydrovane <http://www.hydrovane-watermakers.com/yacht_series.html>, and
Village
Marine <http://www.villagemarine.com/lw.ph.html> yesterday at the Seattle
Boat Show <http://www.seattleboatshow.com/>. I’ve also had extensive
conversations with
CruiseRO<http://www.cruiserowaterandpower.com/WaterMakers.html>.
You can see all the makesmodels and specifications of the units I’ve been
looking at in my Watermaker Comparison
spreadsheet<
http://cid-221c83e75e672a96.office.live.com/view.aspx/.Public/WatermakerComparison.xlsx
.The main debate I’m having with myself is DC or AC based systems. A DC
based
system has to run much longer to make an equivalent amount of water to an
AC
based system, but you can run it any time without starting a genset. An AC
based system would mean running the Honda EU2000 generator anytime we want
to make water including on longer passages.This is feeling more and more like one of those faith or belief based
decisions, as opposed to one that’s entirely gallonamp-hour based. One
the
one hand with a DC based system we have the opportunity to leverage
alternative fuels (sun, wind, etc). With the Generator we’re always
committed to burning gas, LPG or Natural gas. We also would be committed
to
managing the generator and running it on long passages (> 1week).I’m really torn on this one… I’m hoping there’s something I’m not seeing
and
that you all might have some additional insight to help me make my
decision.Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts…
-p—
s/v Deep Playa | Pearson 424 Hull #152 | http://www.DeepPlaya.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Patrick,
You might drop an email to Jack Tyler. He put a Spectra 12v water-maker on
Whoosh before they departed for Oz. I think he was very satisfied with his
choice. He did not use solar panels to provide the power. He does have a
wind generator and a tow generator. He also looked hard at the AC-DC
choice. I believe he does carry a Honda generator, so the AC choice was
viable.On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Patrick “Peaboy” Walters <
> wrote:I’m re-distributing this blog post to a couple of lists in the hopes the
broader community has some additional insight.Watermakers–Ya gotta have
Faith…<
http://www.deepplaya.com/post/Watermakerse28093Ya-gotta-have-Faithe280a6.aspxI’m deep into my research about water makers, having met with
Spectra<http://www.spectrawatermakers.com/ventura/200.html>,
Hydrovane <http://www.hydrovane-watermakers.com/yacht_series.html>, and
Village
Marine <http://www.villagemarine.com/lw.ph.html> yesterday at the Seattle
Boat Show <http://www.seattleboatshow.com/>. I’ve also had extensive
conversations with
CruiseRO<http://www.cruiserowaterandpower.com/WaterMakers.html>.
You can see all the makesmodels and specifications of the units I’ve been
looking at in my Watermaker Comparison
spreadsheet<
http://cid-221c83e75e672a96.office.live.com/view.aspx/.Public/WatermakerComparison.xlsx
.The main debate I’m having with myself is DC or AC based systems. A DC
based
system has to run much longer to make an equivalent amount of water to an
AC
based system, but you can run it any time without starting a genset. An AC
based system would mean running the Honda EU2000 generator anytime we want
to make water including on longer passages.This is feeling more and more like one of those faith or belief based
decisions, as opposed to one that’s entirely gallonamp-hour based. One the
one hand with a DC based system we have the opportunity to leverage
alternative fuels (sun, wind, etc). With the Generator we’re always
committed to burning gas, LPG or Natural gas. We also would be committed to
managing the generator and running it on long passages (> 1week).I’m really torn on this one… I’m hoping there’s something I’m not seeing
and
that you all might have some additional insight to help me make my
decision.Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts…
-p—
s/v Deep Playa | Pearson 424 Hull #152 | http://www.DeepPlaya.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Eric,
I have no experience with the Dutchman system, but I suspect your sailmaker
doesn’t want to implement on a new sail because it is a patented system and
he would have to get a license to include it in a sail. I’ve heard that
there is some chafe between the sail and the Dutchman lines, but again I’ve
no personal experience.There may be other uses for the rigid vang than supporting the boom during
reefing and dropping, but I’m not aware of them.On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:06 PM, S V Navasana <> wrote:
Topping lift is not an issue po had installed Dutchman so the lift line is
integral to that.
However – when I replace my mainsail my sailmaker is advising against the
Dutchman system. But it sure is handy.
Aside from supporting the boom are there other advantages to rigid for the
cruising sailor?Eric Lorentzon
EFI Sales Development Manager
412.352.1941
Sent from my iPhoneOn Jan 16, 2011, at 10:04 AM, John Stevenson <>
wrote:Bob wrote, “No matter what, though, rotate the hatch underneath 180
degrees
so you can
open it.”Bob, I thought this hatch was originally installed with the opening aft.
I
think that is what your are recommending. Possibly your PO turned it
around
to get more air below when at anchor. I have a friend who has reversed
this
hatch on all boats he has owned (none Pearson). I think he took the vang
off his current boat.Of course it might have been my PO who turned the hatch around.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Robert Fine <> wrote:
I would really like a rigid bang so there’s less crap at the top of the
mast. I almost never use the boom hitch because it means the boom shades
the
solar panel. So the rigid bang would be a help.No matter what, though, rotate the hatch underneath 180 degrees so you
can
open it.
Bob
I’m not being terse. This is from my mobile.
On Jan 16, 2011 12:19 PM, “John Stevenson” <>
wrote:“On the other hand if my goal was to be able to raise and reef and drop
the
main sail from the cockpit, I would definitely go with the rigid boom
vang
(no need run a topping lift line to the cockpit).”
End of this sentence somehow got chopped.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, John Stevenson
<>wrote:Eric,
I inherited a rigid boom vang from the PO. It was a good thing whenthe
only other support for the boom was the harbor lift (short wire from
the
mizzen mast with a snap shackle to clip into the main boom end plate).
There have been many times when I couldn’t or forgot to attach theharbor
lift before putting in a reef or dropping the main sail. Without the
rigid
boom vang the boom would have dropped onto the Dodger as soon as I
released
the halyard.
I subsequently added an adjustable topping lift (also backup main
halyard)
and the rigid boom vang has become less useful. I will keep the rigid
vang
as a backup to the topping lift for as long as it is operational, then
I
will likely replaced it with a standard rope vang.
If I were starting out without both a topping lift and a rigid vang,
my
priority would be the topping lift. However, I went to internal
halyards
to
get my topping lift. A rigid vang is a lot easier to implement.
On the other hand if my goal was to be able to raise and reef and drop
the
main sail from the cockpit, I would definitely go with the rigid boom
vang
(no need run a topping lift line to the
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:22 AM, S V Navasana <>
wrote:
I am mulling over adding a rigid vang to Navasana. Currently she has
a
line vang.
Just wounding if this is a worthwhile upgrade. Am sure there is atleast
an opinion or two out there.
Eric Lorentzon
S V Navasana.
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Bob wrote, “No matter what, though, rotate the hatch underneath 180 degrees
so you can
open it.”Bob, I thought this hatch was originally installed with the opening aft. I
think that is what your are recommending. Possibly your PO turned it around
to get more air below when at anchor. I have a friend who has reversed this
hatch on all boats he has owned (none Pearson). I think he took the vang
off his current boat.Of course it might have been my PO who turned the hatch around.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Robert Fine <> wrote:
I would really like a rigid bang so there’s less crap at the top of the
mast. I almost never use the boom hitch because it means the boom shades
the
solar panel. So the rigid bang would be a help.No matter what, though, rotate the hatch underneath 180 degrees so you can
open it.Bob
I’m not being terse. This is from my mobile.
On Jan 16, 2011 12:19 PM, “John Stevenson” <>
wrote:“On the other hand if my goal was to be able to raise and reef and drop
the
main sail from the cockpit, I would definitely go with the rigid boom
vang
(no need run a topping lift line to the cockpit).”
End of this sentence somehow got chopped.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, John Stevenson
<>wrote:Eric,
I inherited a rigid boom vang from the PO. It was a good thing when the
only other support for the boom was the harbor lift (short wire from the
mizzen mast with a snap shackle to clip into the main boom end plate).
There have been many times when I couldn’t or forgot to attach theharbor
lift before putting in a reef or dropping the main sail. Without the
rigid
boom vang the boom would have dropped onto the Dodger as soon as I
released
the halyard.
I subsequently added an adjustable topping lift (also backup main
halyard)
and the rigid boom vang has become less useful. I will keep the rigid
vang
as a backup to the topping lift for as long as it is operational, then I
will likely replaced it with a standard rope vang.If I were starting out without both a topping lift and a rigid vang, my
priority would be the topping lift. However, I went to internal halyardsto
get my topping lift. A rigid vang is a lot easier to implement.
On the other hand if my goal was to be able to raise and reef and drop
the
main sail from the cockpit, I would definitely go with the rigid boom
vang
(no need run a topping lift line to the
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:22 AM, S V Navasana <>
wrote:
I am mulling over adding a rigid vang to Navasana. Currently she has a
line vang.
Just wounding if this is a worthwhile upgrade. Am sure there is atleast
an opinion or two out there.
Eric Lorentzon
S V Navasana.
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
“On the other hand if my goal was to be able to raise and reef and drop the
main sail from the cockpit, I would definitely go with the rigid boom vang
(no need run a topping lift line to the cockpit).”End of this sentence somehow got chopped.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:16 PM, John Stevenson
<>wrote:Eric,
I inherited a rigid boom vang from the PO. It was a good thing when the
only other support for the boom was the harbor lift (short wire from the
mizzen mast with a snap shackle to clip into the main boom end plate).
There have been many times when I couldn’t or forgot to attach the harbor
lift before putting in a reef or dropping the main sail. Without the rigid
boom vang the boom would have dropped onto the Dodger as soon as I released
the halyard.I subsequently added an adjustable topping lift (also backup main halyard)
and the rigid boom vang has become less useful. I will keep the rigid vang
as a backup to the topping lift for as long as it is operational, then I
will likely replaced it with a standard rope vang.If I were starting out without both a topping lift and a rigid vang, my
priority would be the topping lift. However, I went to internal halyards to
get my topping lift. A rigid vang is a lot easier to implement.On the other hand if my goal was to be able to raise and reef and drop the
main sail from the cockpit, I would definitely go with the rigid boom vang
(no need run a topping lift line to theOn Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:22 AM, S V Navasana <> wrote:
I am mulling over adding a rigid vang to Navasana. Currently she has a
line vang.
Just wounding if this is a worthwhile upgrade. Am sure there is at least
an opinion or two out there.Eric Lorentzon
S V Navasana.
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Eric,
I inherited a rigid boom vang from the PO. It was a good thing when the
only other support for the boom was the harbor lift (short wire from the
mizzen mast with a snap shackle to clip into the main boom end plate).
There have been many times when I couldn’t or forgot to attach the harbor
lift before putting in a reef or dropping the main sail. Without the rigid
boom vang the boom would have dropped onto the Dodger as soon as I released
the halyard.I subsequently added an adjustable topping lift (also backup main halyard)
and the rigid boom vang has become less useful. I will keep the rigid vang
as a backup to the topping lift for as long as it is operational, then I
will likely replaced it with a standard rope vang.If I were starting out without both a topping lift and a rigid vang, my
priority would be the topping lift. However, I went to internal halyards to
get my topping lift. A rigid vang is a lot easier to implement.On the other hand if my goal was to be able to raise and reef and drop the
main sail from the cockpit, I would definitely go with the rigid boom vang
(no need run a topping lift line to theOn Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:22 AM, S V Navasana <> wrote:
I am mulling over adding a rigid vang to Navasana. Currently she has a line
vang.
Just wounding if this is a worthwhile upgrade. Am sure there is at least an
opinion or two out there.Eric Lorentzon
S V Navasana.
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Alan,
Do you still have the old damper plate? According to the people I’ve been
talking to, all of the springs should be under tension. If you can move
them with your fingers then the damper plate is defective. It appears the
noise coming from the V-Drive is the symptom of the problem not the source.
I agree getting at the plate is difficult, generally a two-person job. I
think Chuck’s advice to change the damper plate any time you remove the
transmission is valid. If the transmission is out, replacing the plate is
pretty straight forward. Compared to other engine parts, the cost of the
plate is minimal.On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Alan wrote:
Quote:John,
I wish I knew whether the damper plate I replaced is faulty or the
V-Drive is at fault and whether it really IS OK as Walter’s says…..
Changing out that damper plate is not that easy……
Alan— On Wed, 1/5/11, Chuck Ruble wrote:
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Latest on my transmission problems:
http://www.svsarah.com/Sarah/ewVelvetDriveFailure.htmlThe re-built transmission was re-installed today and the gear backlash noise
is virtually gone in forward gear at idle. There still is some noise in
reverse at idle, but nothing like the noise before. Since the noise was
there from day one of the re-power and replacing the defective damper plate
eliminated the noise, I can only assume the original damper plate was DOA
from Mack Boring. Whether that caused the transmission failure is
conjecture, but it would appear the likely culprit.Waiting to hear what Mack Boring has to say. Of course they have been
deafening in their silence up until now, so I’m not holding my breath.I’ll do more investigation on the noise in reverse before I start on
another cruise, but I feel comfortable enough to head back to the Chesapeake
Bay in the spring.On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Chuck Ruble wrote:
John, backlash is a measurement between gear teeth. If the backlash is
excessive it means the gears are not mating each other at the proper area on
the tooth face. This normally does not result in more noise in one
direction or other but may when changing direction as there’s more play in
the gears before they engage.This is a good reference for how it is measured.
http://www.clevelandgear.com/hg/backlash.htmThe Velvet Drive is a hydraulically operated gear, hydraulic pressure moves
the clutch plates to engage the drive gear. Once the gear is engaged it is
a solid coupling. Worn clutch plates, clogged pump passages among other
things will result along with a myriad of other issues can prevent the gear
from going into reverse.The V-Drive is a noisy component and has nothing to do with
forward/reverse. It transfers power output from the gear to the prop,
regardless of direction.
The RV-26 is not a bolt in replacement for an RV-20. It has a different
mounting profile that requires appropriate spacing.If you lost reverse it was a failure of the transmission, not the V-Drive.
Consider this, the entire forward thrust of the boat is being created by
the spinning prop. This is transferred forward up the shaft, through the
gearing into the bearings in the V-drive and into the mounts that hold the
V-Drive in place, this is where the entire load moving the boat is finds its
way to the fiberglass. As thrust loads increase it forces the gears closer
together, compresses and twists the shaft, stresses the V-drive mounts.
The mounts are rigid, so any deformity of the shaft, unbalanced or bent
prop will be transmitted to the hull. The V-drive essentially becomes a
thrust bearing. A true thrust bearing has flexible mounts.You can search for the reason of failure but your funds would be better
spent on insuring all engine and drive train components are properly
installed, aligned, lubricated and cooled.
Damper plates should be replaced anytime the gear is off, and Yanmar does
update and improve parts continuously.I watch owners (myself included) sometimes try to diagnose and correct
issues, thinking there’s going to be a ‘single issue’. Often it is a
combination of things that occurred that made us aware there is a problem.
Methodical, effective troubleshooting is often seen as expensive but more
often than not fixes the problem.I wish you the best in isolating this issue on your own. Working in a yard
and being a boat owner I see both sides. I know mechanics are expensive but
getting it all right can be worth it. Even better, getting a yard that says
if it isn’t, bring it back and we’ll make it right is even better. Where I
work that is our policy.Chuck
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Thanks for the input Rich.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Rich Carter wrote:
Quote:John,
Interesting read. I don’t remember hearing any backlash with my old w60
installation. I operated it for over 20 years, but the engine was so noisy
that I may not have noticed. I repowerd about 4 years ago with a 75hp
yanmar (4jh3te), an engine similar to yours. I’m pretty sure I had the
same
damper plate as your origninal. At that time I rebuilt the velvet-drive and
replace the v-drive. Both the old RV-20 and the new RV-26 make a racket
when in gear. With the cabin sole hatches in place its not that bad, but
the V-drive makes more noise than the engine until I get it up to speed.
At
about 6kts, the engine is very quiet and smooth. At idle in gear, there
may
be some noise from the v-drive. I think the gears rattle around in the
V-drive, but its not that bad. I almost never run the engine that slow in
gear. I don’t see the point unless I’m waiting for a bridge and need to
compensate for a light wind or current. This is pretty rare for me. I
never shift gears without pausing in neutral and letting the engine idle.About once every couple of weeks I run my boat hard, full throttle for
about
20 minutes. This is SOP for this engine. This kicks up quite a stern wave
Tand makes the boat squat. It will run almost halfway up the transom.
Even
with this kind of abuse, I’ve had no issues with the v-drive, transmission,
or damper plate in spite of this abuse. I don’t motor all that much
however, maybe 150 hrs each year.Rich
Quote:
Original Message
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
That is what I hope.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Joseph Steiner wrote:
Quote:John,
If I were a betting man ( and I’m not ), I would bet the loose springs on
your
damper plate is found guilty.Joe,
________________________________
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Here’s a summary from those reporting. I think I captured everyone
correctly.Based on this data it looks like Alan and I have a problem no one else is
experiencing. While there might be perception differences between a slight
or moderate noise, I am sure anyone having similar backlash volume as Alan
(based on his recording) and I would definitely call it loud if not very
loud. I included the metrics on Sarah before and after the repower to
Yanmar. It appears I had the only Westebecke/Paragon configuration that
idled around 1,000 RPM. That’s the way the engine was set up when I bought
the boat. So I can’t determine if my previous configuration would have
produced loud backlash if the idle had been reduced to around 800 RPM, which
is where the other engines in the survey are set. Maybe it was there and
the PO had the idle raised to reduce the noise. I think everyone who has a
perceptible backlash noise say it goes away around 1,000 RPM.So the next bit of information will come after my transmission has been
re-installed (still trying get that scheduled, likely not till after the
holidays now) and after Alan has his RV20 checked out by Walter.BTW, it does appear I had a defective damper plate. The springs are only
slightly loose, but the local technician told me they should be under
tension I should not be able to move them at all. So maybe I’ll see a
change with the new plate.Latest info at: http://www.svsarah.com/Sarah/ewVelvetDriveFailure.html
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM, SilverHeels wrote:
Quote:John (or anyone else),Let us know if you derive any useful “gear backlash” conclusions from our
responses to your engine / drive train info request.Thanks,
Tor
SilverHeels, P-424 #17
http://www.silverheels.us
Original Message
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Gear Backlash = loud grinding and popping noise coming from the V-Drive.
In my case audible from 50′ off the boat.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:19 PM, SilverHeels wrote:Quote:John,Please define “gear backlash.”
Tor
SilverHeels, P-424 #17
http://www.silverheels.us
Original Messa Ige
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Thanks, Walt.
That is what I experienced with the same engine and trans. However, my idle
RPMs were around 1,000. Boat would do around 3 kts in gear at idle.On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Seawater wrote:
Engine: Westerbeke W60
Transmission: Paragon
V-Drive: RV-20
Idle RPMS: 800
Gear Backlash: ImperceptableProp: Max Prop feathering
Walter
SV Madness
P424 Hull #1_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
—
Regards,
John Stevenson
http://www.svsarah.com
_______________________________________________
maillist mailing listhttps://pearson424.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_pearson424.org
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum
Quent,
The VD shop told me no loose stuff, just chewed up gears.On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 PM, John Stevenson wrote:
Quote:“I wonder if the noise will go away or lessen after the damper plate has a
few miles on it?”
That is certainly my hopeOn Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Alan wrote:
Quote:I hear ya…. after spending last winter in the Carib…… I am back in
Rochester where we’ve gotten over 44 inches of snow so far in just
December…..
Don Walter is pretty sure the VDrive OK also but is willing to put it on
the test bench just to make sure…. and to please me……
I wonder if the noise will go away or lessen after the damper plate has a
few miles on it?
Alan— On Wed, 12/15/10, John Stevenson wrote:
Post generated from Pearson424 Forum using Mail2Forum