Click for Lurssen Click for Llebroc Click for Walker Click for Westport Click for Fendertex

Wing Engine Discussion

Discussion in 'Technical Discussion' started by Crglmb, Aug 15, 2009.

You need to be registered and signed in to view this content.
?

Which engine do you prefer for this application?

  1. Yanmar

    22.2%
  2. Lugger

    72.2%
  3. Phasor Marine-Kubota

    5.6%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Crglmb

    Crglmb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    San Diego
    Auxiliary Propulsion for 53' Trawler - 100k Displacement - main shaft 3" propeller ~35"
    Generator:12.5Kw

    Looking for pros and cons of makes - Ideas - Suggestions - Experiences
    I listed some profiles below but not limited to - open.

    Propulsion options:

    Yanmar 40HP V-Drive
    Lugger 40HP V-Drive
    Phasor Kubota 42HP V-Drive
    Phasor Kubota 49HP V-Drive

    Gears ZF

    Propeller 16" or ? Martec

    This should be fun - Well lets see where this takes us...;)
  2. Crglmb

    Crglmb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    San Diego
    Good point

    We considered using Wesmar's APU which is a very nice unit that can be engaged without leaving the pilot house. I have installed both the Key Power and Wesmar. The Key Power must be engaged manually with a lever. Either way it is a good concept as long as your gear box doesn't have a problem. I had noted the generator size for this reason and we would only realize about 15HP from the generators PTO and that would leave nothing left for power generation. We probably would have gone that direction if we had at least a 21Kw Gen-set. The cost of the APU is about 16K without PTO and it is best to use a gear pump for efficiency coupled through a clutch. Total cost for hydraulics's is 6-9k. So the wing engine - auxiliary engine is starting to look pretty good.
  3. K1W1

    K1W1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,390
    Location:
    My Office
    Hi,

    Please show me a 53' Trawler that fishes deep sea with a single donk and has an auxiliary drive.
  4. Crglmb

    Crglmb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    San Diego
    Exactley

    Exactley- I'm sorry, I should have specified Cruising Trawler rather than Fishing Trawler.

    By the way does anybody know who actually manufactures Lugger.
    Where does the engine come from, Japan?
  5. Fishtigua

    Fishtigua Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,672
    Location:
    Guernsey/Antigua
    Vetus does a hydraulic drive that can be piggy-backed from a genset.

    Most Trawlers I've seen have a small 2 bladed folded prop which has a low drag factor for an aux drive. Would not a 3 blade feathering prop be more efficient, with little more drag that a 2 blade?
  6. Castlerock

    Castlerock Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    216
    Location:
    New England

    I remember asking the same question some years ago when speaking to a rep and at that time he said the blocks were made by Kamatsu. I am not sure if that is still true today.
  7. K1W1

    K1W1 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    7,390
    Location:
    My Office
    Hi,

    I believe you are correct, I heard they were based on Komatsu a good few years ago too.

    Here is a link for one that is Komatsu based http://news.nauticexpo.com/press/northern-lights/lugger-by-northern-lights-l6125h-21501-8091.html

    Here is an interesting bit about them as well. http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/diesel-engines/lugger-diesels-outlawed-25583.html#post247444
  8. Seafarer

    Seafarer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    717
    Location:
    Hudson River
    From the website of the Lugger/Northern Lights UK representative:

    http://www.energy-solutions.co.uk/lugger-engines.html
  9. dan1000

    dan1000 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    58
    Location:
    Honolulu
    I'm a complete novice, but have thought about this quite a bit. Let me talk about the system I have, but then suggest an alternative for consideration.

    I have the Keypower system, which has a few advantages, and a few disadvantages, when compared with a wing engine.

    The greatest disadvantage is that it does not provide a completely independent driveline since it drives the main prop via the main shaft. Thus, if the main prop is fouled, the system is of no use. For an example of where the wing engine approach is better than the approach on my boat, see this excellent account of Phil Eslinger's Pacific crossing last year.

    The greatest advantage of the Keypower system (or the BAT drive) is that in the case of a failed main engine, you are still able to drive the main prop, putting more flow over the rudder, and so on. This gives you centerline thrust, over a good prop, right past the rudder. But none of that helps if the main prop is fouled.

    There is another option -- having a wing-engine setup, but instead of driving it with a diesel engine, drive it hydraulically from a PTO from the genset or main engine. That way, you have a completely independent driveline, but don't need to buy/maintain another space-consuming diesel engine.

    I'm happy with my system, but I do acknowledge that I do not have redundancy in the event of a fouled prop. I mitigate this in a number of ways, not the least of which is carrying a set of pneumatic tools (from Sears) that I can dive with, and quickly saw/grind through any ropes/cables that are fouling the boat. I don't pretend that this would be easy or safe, but I felt it prudent to be prepared. The tools are non-marine cheapies, but I consider them to be one-time-use disposable when used in seawater. I also carry a kayak helmet and Brownie Snuba system. With the exception of the cheapie tools, all these things serve other purposes on the boat.

    A sea anchor or drogue of some kind might also be prudent, since in rough weather, I believe maintaining steerage is the most important offshore task, and maintaining position gains in importance as the shore looms closer.

    Despite Phil Eslinger's report, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of losses of main propulsion have to do with fuel starvation (clogged filters) or blocked injectors. In these situations, the main engine will stop, but the prop is not fouled. In this case, having the ability to continue driving the main prop via the Keypower provides a very good backup. It relies on the assumption that the source of hydraulic power for the system (usually a generator) will keep running. However, to me, that seems quite likely, since filters/injectors will not clog all at the same rate.

    But there's no question -- fouled props do occur. But when they do, there's at least a reasonable chance that the other prop (the wing, for example) will foul too.

    No perfect solution. As usual :)

    Dan
  10. Marmot

    Marmot Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,320
    Location:
    9114 S. Central Ave
    ... then the generator or whatever you plan to use for a secondary source of power. Spare filters and injectors are cheaper than spare engines, hydraulic pumps, motors, props, shafts, and all the other hardware that will be just as useless as the main when it fails due to the fuel problem you recognize as the most likely reason for problems in the first place.

    This whole "wing engine" thing seems like a solution looking for a problem.
  11. dan1000

    dan1000 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    58
    Location:
    Honolulu

    One caveat here, at least the way I see it:

    It is possible to run the genset (or wing) from a separate day tank, significantly increasing the independence of the two in the event of a fuel problem with one of them. I have seen this in some expedition trawlers. My boat does not have this, drawing genset and main engine fuel from the same day tank. If true independence is not possible, I think it would still at least make sense to draw genset fuel from a somewhat higher point in the tank, or at least from a different part of the tank.

    Of course, having two day tanks also increases stale fuel possibilities due to inadequate procedures. There is definitely an argument for keeping things simple to protect the operator from himself (and to make boating more fun and less of a chore).

    Bottom line as I see it: To protect against engine and fuel failures, a Keypower/BAT type of clamp-around hydraulic drive is very good. To protect against fouled props, there are two ways to go: wing engine of some kind, versus spurs/line-cutters/scuba-gear to prevent or undo a foul. Of all of these methods, none is foolproof, all have as many costs as they have benefits. Since fuel issues are the greatest cause of loss of propulsion, the greatest benefit can be had by simply ensuring that the fuel is clean and doesn't have the wrong molecules in it (esp. H2O). Having done that and therefore solved 90% of the problem, the remainder becomes a matter of preference.

    Dan
  12. Marmot

    Marmot Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,320
    Location:
    9114 S. Central Ave
    A day tank is a small tank that is filled from the storage tanks via a centrifuge or filter and transfer pump. The source of fuel is the same no matter how many day tanks you have.

    How do you figure pumping the same fuel into two day tanks "significantly increases the independence" of anything?
  13. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,575
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    I'm sure he's thinking that, if you had multiple tanks that are filled seperately (I ran one boat with 4 seperate tanks), you could, in theory, have fuel from a different source in each. That however would fix the bad fuel problem for all motors and gens.
  14. Marmot

    Marmot Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,320
    Location:
    9114 S. Central Ave
    I have to really struggle not to write a humorous but very cynical description of that process and how it would work on a cruising yacht ... or even one that only runs around the local area.

    Like I said earlier, it's a solution looking for a problem. It is beginning to sound like a solution that has found a whole new universe of other problems to cause.
  15. NYCAP123

    NYCAP123 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    9,575
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    agree.
  16. jhall767

    jhall767 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Middle River MD
    Has anybody run into fuel that truly could not be polished by an adequate on-board system? So bad that even after it was cleaned the engines wouldn't run? It seems to me that on a long range yacht you must solve the fuel problem so that it is not an issue. Multiple tanks are nice but you're either carrying more fuel than you need or you will eventually have to use the other fuel anyway.
  17. Marmot

    Marmot Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,320
    Location:
    9114 S. Central Ave
    The nature of bad fuel is you probably don't know you have it until it has done its dirty work.
  18. dan1000

    dan1000 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    58
    Location:
    Honolulu
    It seems to me that the tank feeding the main engine(s) could easily have bad fuel in it for a variety of reasons, while the backup engine's tanks might have good fuel in -- even if all fuel was loaded on the boat at the same time.

    For example, the main engine's tank has a vent which could allow water to enter due to a leak or problem, while the backup engine's tank's vent isn't allowing moisture in.

    Alternatively, the main engine's tank could be half-empty, allowing condensation to occur, while the backup engine's tank is full, disallowing condensation.

    Another example: some tanks might have sludge in them, and in a rough seaway, that sludge could get mixed in with the fuel, clogging the filters. But the backup engine's tank might not have sludge in it, or might have its pickup in a different point.

    It seems to me that in any of these situations, having an independent day tank could give vital time to change filters on the main, without losing steerage or headway.

    Indeed, it seems to me that there are only a couple of situations where the backup engine's day tank (and its filters) would prove useless.

    One is where bad fuel was taken onboard and was then pumped into both the main engine's and the backup engine's day tanks at the same time.

    Another is where good fuel was taken on, but through neglect, was left to go stale.

    None of these things have ever happened to me - most of my opinions on this subject come from reading about people's experiences in forums such as this one. So I may very well be missing something fundamental. But I would summarize the entire issue as follows: When the main engine stops, is there a backup engine source of propulsion at all, and will it still run? While having a backup source of propulsion is common, a backup source of fuel is uncommon. Since issues such as water/sludge in fuel need not apply equally across all tanks, it seems that having an independent day tank has at least some merit. The biggest downside is that it adds complexity to the fuel system.

    Dan
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2010
  19. dan1000

    dan1000 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    58
    Location:
    Honolulu
    Having a separate day tank ensures that "made on the boat" fuel problems that stop the main engine won't stop the backup engine. Still, it would be much better to never make fuel go bad aboard. This means avoiding or removing sludge buildup, and keeping water out of the fuel tanks.

    If I were specing a boat with my current level of knowledge, I'd ask for this: take the backup engine's fuel feed from a couple inches higher up in the tank than the main engine's fuel feed. That means the main can stop due to water/sludge being kicked up, but the backup will likely run. Even then, my goal would be to keep the darned tanks clean and water-free! But the approach I've mentioned avoids the complexity of a second day tank, yet maintains the benefits of a slightly "independent" source of fuel.

    Dan
  20. jhall767

    jhall767 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Middle River MD
    That is true. Unless one has proper fuel treatment prior to the engines. Proper fuel treatment would include a water in fuel sensor to warn you before fuel got past your separators. Also a fuel line restriction (vacuum) alarm for when your filters are getting clogged. It seems to me that money would be better spent on a centrifuge system then on multiple day and main tanks and filter setups. Keep all the fuel clean and then you won't have the problems.