Ma kdo izkušnje s takim tohatslnom, je za kej? V teoriji zgleda obetavno.
Če prav razumem, mercury propelerji pašejo na tohstsuje?
http://www.boatpoint.com.au/editorial/e ... i-90-8213/

Moderatorji: moderator2, cibro, Marchi, moderator

Spinning a 15-inch stainless steel Power Tech prop and pushing a total of 920kg (including two adults), the TLDI 90 trolled at 4.1kmh on 700 revs consuming 0.7lt/hr and at 900 revs it averaged 6.0kmh using 0.8lt/hr. In comparison, spinning a 14-inch Quicksilver Vengeance prop and pushing 920kg, the F90 trolled at 3.9kmh on 700 revs using 1.2lt/hr but with lower vibration levels.
The TLDI 90 achieved a clean plane at 25.6kmh on 3000 revs, whereas the F90 planed us at 22.2kmh on 2900 revs. At steady cruising revs of 4000 the TLDI 90 averaged 40.9kmh consuming 12.8lt/hr, while the F90 averaged 45.5kmh using 10.5lt/hr. And through tight figures of eight at 4000 revs the F90's prop refused to ventilate, whereas the Power Tech prop let go even with the leg trimmed right in.
It was to be expected that the 4-strokes would prove to have the lowest fuel consumption at cruising speeds, followed closely by the directinjected 2-strokes, with the old-technology carburetted 2-strokes the worst. However, that’s not entirely what the test data shows. The 4-strokes, as expected, were superior, but the data for the Tohatsu carburetted 2-stroke had it right up there with the 4-strokes for fuel economy, ahead of both of the direct-injected 2-strokes. Even more surprising was the data for the E-TEC direct-injected 2-stroke, which had it right down there with the bottom three carburetted 2-strokes. Our guess is that the propeller choice and set-up was not the optimum for this motor, but from the outset we made it clear to the engine suppliers that the choice of propeller and set-up were their responsibility.
kakšn korak propelerja maš? To se mi zdi ogromn za take obrate.. A to če se ne motim maš na 90 odprt al s 75 konji tolk leti?



Po forumu brska: 0 registriranih uporabnikov in 2 gosta