|
Putting twins on 1990 Outrage 17
|
| MolokaiMike |
Posted on 02/14/16 - 7:16 PM
|
Member
Posts: 5
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/01/16
|
Aloha Gang!
I have recently acquired a 1990 Outrage that I've stripped and begun to refit. Everything came off and I ve been filling screw holes, grinding out delaminations on the deck, reglassing, filling and fairing etc. I'm just about ready to prime with polyester and then I'll have a final fairing session or two before I roll on some gelcoat.
My commitment is to put twin Honda 50s. I've hit a bit of a snag and I'm looking for some insight and advice. The 1990 Outrage has the back deck over the gunnels and transom concealing the batteries and fuel tank. Not anymore. Gone. I've done away with that so the aft deck is open. My issue is the transom notch on this boat is less than 36". Motors are 14" wide at the bracket which incidentally is the widest dimension of the motor. This leads me to my first question:
What is the minimum space between two Honda bf50s? Is it the common sense answer of "enough room to pivot port to starboard without interference"?
Second question:
The splashwell would be too small to allow access to outer engine bracket mounting bolts; the liner at this area obstructs access. I need to notch/widen the splashwell. What are the recommendations to complete this modification while not reducing structural integrity?
This modification will happen, so for those in disagreement with the plan, please reply with solutions if you feel you must reply at all.
10000 Mahalos to all readers and responders sympathetic to my modification challenge.
|
| |
|
|
| Whalerbob |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 7:11 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 311
Comments:
0
Joined: 12/07/06
|
Is an engine bracket an option?
|
| |
|
|
| JRP |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 8:22 AM
|
Member
Posts: 755
Comments:
2
Joined: 08/29/14
|
Whalerbob wrote:
Is an engine bracket an option?
Great suggestion! That way if he ever wants to sell the boat sometime down the road, and the prospective owner isn't as enthusiastic about twin 50s on a boat that is much better suited to a single 90-115, the transom will not be all permanently botched up. And if the bracket is a floatation-type, it would help to deal with all the extra weight of the twin engines on a boat that is known to be sensitive to stern weight. Per PhilT:
Phil T wrote:
I used my [Outrage 17 I] for getting to and from an offshore island as well as cruising the ME coast, Lake Winn, NYC and several rivers.
.....
Some important observations:
- Higher planing speed than Montauk/Nauset due to true V.
- Is sensitive to lateral tipping due to narrow beam.
- In snotty conditions, ride improves when you go faster whereas in Montauk/Nauset one naturally slows down.
- Is not truly self bailing like Montauk. Add bilge pump.
- Sensitive to stern weight. Move battery to console.
...
|
| |
|
|
| Perichbrothers |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 9:02 AM
|
Member
Posts: 141
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/10/15
|
I'd definitely consider a bracket.
Only worked on an 18 installing a big 200 Yamaha,
and the bolt access is very tight and limited with the well,
as well as the cutout being one engine.
Giving the cowls tilt room is gonna be fun!
What's the weight diff of two 50's vs one 1xx and a 15 kicker?
TP
|
| |
|
|
| Perichbrothers |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 9:02 AM
|
Member
Posts: 141
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/10/15
|
I always wondered is the performance of two 50's similar to one 90/100?
TP
Edited by Perichbrothers on 02/15/16 - 9:04 AM |
| |
|
|
| MolokaiMike |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 9:55 AM
|
Member
Posts: 5
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/01/16
|
Whalerbob wrote:
Is an engine bracket an option?
Good thought! It would be if I could access inside the transom for through-bolting it on. If I'm not mistaken I would still be limited to the height and width of the splashwell access. I've though of glassing an extension but that is a big job to do it right and I'm not knowledgeable about creating a structurally sound extension with thin skinned glass shell over foam core. Any thoughts or ideas?
|
| |
|
|
| MolokaiMike |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 10:05 AM
|
Member
Posts: 5
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/01/16
|
Perichbrothers wrote:
I'd definitely consider a bracket.
Only worked on an 18 installing a big 200 Yamaha,
and the bolt access is very tight and limited with the well,
as well as the cutout being one engine.
Giving the cowls tilt room is gonna be fun!
What's the weight diff of two 50's vs one 1xx and a 15 kicker?
TP
I would imagine a bracket which could accommodate twins would also need a wider bolt patter than I have access to through the splashwell, no?
As far as the cowls clearing; the transom has been raised to 25" so with that back deck/gunnels removed I will/should have adequate room. Good thought though as I also need to take into consideration tilt room for the hydraulic steering
Honda bf90 weighs 390lbs
Honda bf50 weighs 214lbs
|
| |
|
|
| MolokaiMike |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 10:27 AM
|
Member
Posts: 5
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/01/16
|
A little more background on my experience and plans with the boat:
>Had Honda bf135 when I got it (489lbs)
>Operate in our windy channels and even with the heavy bf135, the back
deck/gunnel cover, 2 batteries, and 30gallon steel fuel tank, balance or trim
never felt excessively vulnerable.
>Currently, with the deck, batteries and fuel tank removed approximately 350lbs
lighter on the aft deck (assuming full fuel tank)
>Batteries and 20gal fuel tank will be mounted forward in helm seat box
>Adding composite cab forward
I still may leave batts aft. Once the motors are mounted and the cab in place, I'll float the boat and check the trim. I'll move tank, batts and fish box around accordingly. Twin outboards give a "peaceful easy feeling" when operating offshore. I know everyone has their opinions about boat size and offshore, but be rest assured it is not an untried or unproven topic here.
Thanks again for all the replies!
Edited by MolokaiMike on 02/15/16 - 10:31 AM |
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 12:23 PM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6985
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
No, No, No, NO!!!!!!!
Everybody STOP and take a breath................
I owned this model for 7 years.
The 1990-1995 Outrage 17 is very sensitive to stern weight and will NOT tolerate a bracket or twins.
Max engine hp is 120hp.
Lowest weight available is the ETEC 115.
|
| |
|
|
| MolokaiMike |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 1:03 PM
|
Member
Posts: 5
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/01/16
|
Phil T wrote:
No, No, No, NO!!!!!!!
Everybody STOP and take a breath................
I owned this model for 7 years.
The 1990-1995 Outrage 17 is very sensitive to stern weight and will NOT tolerate a bracket or twins.
Max engine hp is 120hp.
Lowest weight available is the ETEC 115.
I have removed 350lbs from the aft deck & I am building a composite cab. There is no substitute for accounting. Minus here, add there and still remain within safe operable limits.
For example:
1) Honda BF90= 380lbs and is a common motor on this boat well within design specs.
2) 350lbs have been removed from the aft deck (stern deck and gunnel cover, batts and fuel tank) will be relocated to maintain proper trim
3) 2 x Honda bf50= 450 lbs
Therefore 350lb+380lb= 730lb on aft deck as designed to operate with full tank of fuel.
I have removed 350lbs and adding only a net 70lbs in motors for a net weight difference of -280 approx.
There is a leverage movement to consider, however I am only adding 70lbs AT the transom. Removing the additional 350lbs from the aft deck area should more than compensate for this. Facts? Figures? Direct experiences?
Mahalo,
Mike
Edited by MolokaiMike on 02/15/16 - 1:06 PM |
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 2:54 PM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6985
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
Mike =
I wish you posted this prior to modifying the boat.
I used my boat 8 months of the year off the Maine coast carrying passengers, freight and supplies to an island in all kinds of weather and sea conditions.
This model has a low beam to LOA ratio and is more sensitive port/starboard (tippy) compared to the Montauk 17 and Outrage 18. I am a bit concerned how a cab is going to affect its stability under sidewinds.
I am trying to identify the 350 lbs. The rear cap (stern quarter seats and bait well) is probably <100. Are you getting the rest from the fuel tank? Where is the relocated tank going to be located?
This hull does not carry a heavy load well. In my experience it has less buoyancy that similar models. I would be careful on exceeding the original hull weight of 1020 lbs.
Facts? Figures? Direct experiences?
No one has done such extensive modifications to an Outrage 17 so there are no direct experiences.
While you are free to do whatever modifications you choose, this would not be my choice of hulls.
|
| |
|
|
| wjd |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 3:15 PM
|
Member
Posts: 37
Comments:
0
Joined: 02/06/14
|
Hi, Mike
I can understand and relate to your desire to put twin 4 strokes on your boat. I changed the size and position of the fuel tank and moved batteries forward in order to allow twins on my 1989 22 Outrage WD.
However, I want to pass along my experiences.
I owned a 1990 17' Outrage for 6 years and a 1992 17' Outrage for 8 years and counting.
My 1990 was powered with a Mercury 115hp 2 stroke and had the same fuel tank you describe above the floor and across the rear of the boat under a deck. The twin batteries were located in the console. I found that boat to be very stern heavy and often ran it with the motor trimmed all the way in to make the boat perform acceptably.
My 1992 is powered with a Mercury 115hp 4 stroke, has an in floor fuel tank and twin batteries in the console. To me this is the perfect balance of weight.
As I said, I understand the need for twins and I agree that you are removing weight from the stern which will undoubtably help, but in my opinion, you are starting with a boat which was stern heavy to begin with. The in floor tank of the post 1991 Outrage goes forward under the console. I think you should consider getting the fuel tank as far forward as possible - not just under the seat.
Good luck with your project.
|
| |
|
|
| Whalerbob |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 5:33 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 311
Comments:
0
Joined: 12/07/06
|
When I fished out of Kona we set trolling lines within a mile of the harbor so if you don't need to run far and the bracket isn't an option why not just put a couple 20 HP motors on it?
I understand your mind is made up on twins but consider this: If you have twins and lose one, the other engine won't be enough HP to get up on plane. In that situation running the one motor at full throttle you'll be burning a lot of fuel and not running much faster than what could be achieved with much smaller trolling motor equipped with the right prop. The other advantage of that setup is you'd be more efficient at trolling speed.
Edited by Whalerbob on 02/15/16 - 6:38 PM |
| |
|
|
| Perichbrothers |
Posted on 02/15/16 - 8:50 PM
|
Member
Posts: 141
Comments:
0
Joined: 09/10/15
|
Phil T wrote:
No one has done such extensive modifications to an Outrage 17 so there are no direct experiences.
While you are free to do whatever modifications you choose, this would not be my choice of hulls.
Mindful of Phils history with a stock layout,
that alone makes me think it's time someone tests out that hulls limitations!
The weight differences seem similar enough,
and you've already experienced a heavier combo.
The worst that could happen is you don't like it,
and have two 50's to pawn off!
I think it'll slow plane with one 50...
Not to toot my horn,
but I made a 12" bracket on our old 17.
90% of the HT forum responses were negative.
In the end it's exactly what I wanted for multiple reasons,
and only took moving the battery and fuel tank 2' forward for balance.
Always fun to hot rod a good hull!
MolokaiMike wrote:
I would imagine a bracket which could accommodate twins would also need a wider bolt patter than I have access to through the splashwell, no?
As far as the cowls clearing; the transom has been raised to 25" so with that back deck/gunnels removed I will/should have adequate room. Good thought though as I also need to take into consideration tilt room for the hydraulic steering
Honda bf90 weighs 390lbs
Honda bf50 weighs 214lbs
For some reason I remember access outboard of the splash well.
Since it's gonna be custom,
the base would be better wider anyway.
So you found 25" Honda 50's?
TP
Edited by Perichbrothers on 02/15/16 - 8:52 PM |
| |
|
