I have a 22' tin boat. Just had the big old Chrysler V-8 225 yanked out.
Planning to go modern by having a pod put on. There seems to be two schools of thought on pod theory: the pod must be an extension of the hull's v-bottom, duplicating the v and carrying it through the length of the 2' extension,effectively "adding 2' to the boat's length & bouyancy".
The countervailing theory goes something like this: The pod should rise up at an angle to the boat's bottom, effectively lifting the pod up several inches (both theories call for the mounting plate height on the pod to be correct both for the shaft length & manufacturer spec's (thus my Yamaha 250 DI Long Shaft = 28"). This theory is based on the assertion that the hull's creating of it's own trough as it moves forward is critical both to how the boat will handle in swells (allowing the water to fill in behind the boat and around the prop & anti-cavitation plate vs. the pod-hull extension's creating lift behind the stern thus forcing the bow down (particularly bad in steep following seas); and, in a flat sea, where the boat will also not be able to "squat in the stern", so will be bow down.
Can anyone help me understand what I have just tried to explain? Both camps are virulent; both have well-respected designers, builders, fabricators & mechanics on their side.
I do not want to flip a coin on this one. Thanks
Planning to go modern by having a pod put on. There seems to be two schools of thought on pod theory: the pod must be an extension of the hull's v-bottom, duplicating the v and carrying it through the length of the 2' extension,effectively "adding 2' to the boat's length & bouyancy".
The countervailing theory goes something like this: The pod should rise up at an angle to the boat's bottom, effectively lifting the pod up several inches (both theories call for the mounting plate height on the pod to be correct both for the shaft length & manufacturer spec's (thus my Yamaha 250 DI Long Shaft = 28"). This theory is based on the assertion that the hull's creating of it's own trough as it moves forward is critical both to how the boat will handle in swells (allowing the water to fill in behind the boat and around the prop & anti-cavitation plate vs. the pod-hull extension's creating lift behind the stern thus forcing the bow down (particularly bad in steep following seas); and, in a flat sea, where the boat will also not be able to "squat in the stern", so will be bow down.
Can anyone help me understand what I have just tried to explain? Both camps are virulent; both have well-respected designers, builders, fabricators & mechanics on their side.
I do not want to flip a coin on this one. Thanks