Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe?

I never found steering compensation a problem with a side mount. The main
problems with rigging the motor off the stern are thus:
* It's harder to reach the motor for adjustment, pulling up, fiddling with,
or shutting off.
* It puts the motor's weight that much further back from the center of the
canoe, requiring more ballast to compensate for it.
* There's more structural rigging, adding more weight.

If you do try this route, I'd suggest arms back to a flat piece for the
motor coming from pivots on the gunwhales, with some form of adjustable
stops to vary the prop's bite. Any more of the motor down into the water
beyond the anti-cavitation plate increases its drag exponentially.

Personally, I think the side mount would work fine, and be a good deal less
trouble, but this world is built on "bad" ideas that turn out to be
earth-shatteringly effective!

Brad Snow
s/v Aldonza



"Al D" wrote in message

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:26:31 GMT, "padeen"
> wrote:
>
>>Please don't take my word as fact; I'm not really a very knowledgable
>>small
>>engine mechanic, but I think one screw is idle and the other is power
>>(cruising rpm).
>
>> AND, there is some danger in running an engine too lean as
>>it runs hotter and can burn rungs. If it won't run anywhere else, check
>>the
>>air filter.
>
> I will. Thanks for the suggestion.
>
>>Also, a jet that will run best only closed is a worn jet.
>
> Could be...
>
>>That six horse Evenrude sure gave some service. I ran it for three years,
>>probably 3hrs a day for 150 days a year, then sold it to a friend who got
>>another six years from it as a spare.
>
> That's reassuring!
>
>> Its biggest problem was that the top
>>"bearing" wasn't a real bearing; just sleeved in the aluminum block. When
>>it got older the shaft would wobble, causing the points to become
>>inaccurate
>>and the motor to start hard and run lousy. Still worked, though.
>>
>>The other problem was that the Yukon was heavily silt-laden so we'd go
>>through a water pump rebuild kit every year.
>
> Hmm.. I have that problem too... the water I canoe in is not clear but
> somewhat muddy.
>
> Still, if I can even get one or two years of life out of it, it will
> have been worth the money I paid. It certainly seems ideal for my
> purposes.
>
> I'm thinking of building a bracket that will sit the motor directly
> behind, and in-line with the center-line of the boat -so no steering
> compensation will be required.
>
> Al D
>
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:45:45 GMT, "padeen"
wrote:

>If you do try this route, I'd suggest arms back to a flat piece for the
>motor coming from pivots on the gunwhales, with some form of adjustable
>stops to vary the prop's bite.

Adjustable stops seems a definite good idea.

>Any more of the motor down into the water
>beyond the anti-cavitation plate increases its drag exponentially.

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks! The cavitation plate (such as it is)
on this little motor is directly above the prop, so if I only just
submerge the plate, the prop will only be about 3" below the
surface... At the moment, I have it set at about 13" below the
surface. Less efficient, perhaps, but it does make the whole
motor+boat more stable (less top-heavy).

>Personally, I think the side mount would work fine, and be a good deal less
>trouble, but this world is built on "bad" ideas that turn out to be
>earth-shatteringly effective!

A side mount is what I now have. I built it a few days ago from teak
offcuts and tested it at the weekend. It does work, but I have to
surmise that the setup is not as efficient as it would be if the prop
was behind the stern, aimed along the boat's center line. Obviously,
that's because when the prop is off to one side, it's going to be
expending some proportion of its energy in trying to make the boat
turn towards the opposite side. I guess a quick fix (but not an
efficient one) would be simply to clamp the motor-mount bracket on
slightly skew, so that the direction of the prop is aimed slightly
inwards of dead-ahead.

I suspect the effort in building an in-line motor mount would be quite
a money-saver in the long-run, since gasoline costs about $8.50 a
gallon over here.

Unfortunately, as you pointed out, there would be some safety and
comfort issues in that the controls on the motor will be much harder
to reach (unless I remove the rear seat so I can move right back into
the stern when using the motor). But that may not be a good idea
beacause I think the seat may be needed to brace the hull.

So perhaps I'll just leave things as they are (for now, at least).
Paying a few pennies more for gasoline, per trip, is not a big deal,
after all. And I am, at least, getting good overall speed from the
side-mounted motor (seemed like about 15 knots to me - with the bow
out of the water).

Regards,

Al Deveron
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

padeen wrote:
> '74 to '83, but still own property in Eagle. Don't know the Murrays

The Murray's or Murry's (?) were instrumental in establishing ANWR.
Which was a conservation program, similar it would seem to what
happened where you were, with the Government coming in and regulating
the natural resourses. I did not get a sense about how you perceived
the take over where you were at. I did not listen to all your audio, so
you may have covered this question there. Looking back, how do you feel
about the take over now? HYY
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

" - with the bow out of the water)."

Remember, the speed (efficiency) of the hull is directly related to its LWL;
I think you'll lose more efficiency (gas) with your bow in the air than w/
the sidemount. Bringing the bow down can be affected by adjusting the angle
of attack of your motor and redistributing your weight. On the Yukon it was
very unusual to see a 19' Grumman squarestern WITHOUT a 5gal gas can on its
foredeck.

Brad





"Al Deveron" wrote in message

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 22:45:45 GMT, "padeen"
> wrote:
>
>>If you do try this route, I'd suggest arms back to a flat piece for the
>>motor coming from pivots on the gunwhales, with some form of adjustable
>>stops to vary the prop's bite.
>
> Adjustable stops seems a definite good idea.
>
>>Any more of the motor down into the water
>>beyond the anti-cavitation plate increases its drag exponentially.
>
> I wasn't aware of that. Thanks! The cavitation plate (such as it is)
> on this little motor is directly above the prop, so if I only just
> submerge the plate, the prop will only be about 3" below the
> surface... At the moment, I have it set at about 13" below the
> surface. Less efficient, perhaps, but it does make the whole
> motor+boat more stable (less top-heavy).
>
>>Personally, I think the side mount would work fine, and be a good deal
>>less
>>trouble, but this world is built on "bad" ideas that turn out to be
>>earth-shatteringly effective!
>
> A side mount is what I now have. I built it a few days ago from teak
> offcuts and tested it at the weekend. It does work, but I have to
> surmise that the setup is not as efficient as it would be if the prop
> was behind the stern, aimed along the boat's center line. Obviously,
> that's because when the prop is off to one side, it's going to be
> expending some proportion of its energy in trying to make the boat
> turn towards the opposite side. I guess a quick fix (but not an
> efficient one) would be simply to clamp the motor-mount bracket on
> slightly skew, so that the direction of the prop is aimed slightly
> inwards of dead-ahead.
>
> I suspect the effort in building an in-line motor mount would be quite
> a money-saver in the long-run, since gasoline costs about $8.50 a
> gallon over here.
>
> Unfortunately, as you pointed out, there would be some safety and
> comfort issues in that the controls on the motor will be much harder
> to reach (unless I remove the rear seat so I can move right back into
> the stern when using the motor). But that may not be a good idea
> beacause I think the seat may be needed to brace the hull.
>
> So perhaps I'll just leave things as they are (for now, at least).
> Paying a few pennies more for gasoline, per trip, is not a big deal,
> after all. And I am, at least, getting good overall speed from the
> side-mounted motor (seemed like about 15 knots to me - with the bow
> out of the water).
>
> Regards,
>
> Al Deveron
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

padeen wrote:
> > The one thing I couldn't find on that Oral History website was an
> > enumeration of the 54 Eskino words for "Brad".
>
> Just two: "small nail" you open-boat reprobate!

Don't you have to be, like... OLD, to be a reprobate?

Are you typing to me? Are YOU typing to me? Are you typing to ME?

-R
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:21:07 GMT, "padeen"
wrote:

>Remember, the speed (efficiency) of the hull is directly related to its LWL;

As I understand it, that applies to displacement hulls. However, my
canoe has a flat bottom, making it technically a semi-displacement
hull which has some lifting capacity and therefore the ability to
exceed its maximum displacement speed. Otherwise, I don't think I
could have got it up to the 15 knots I estimate I was doing the other
day.

>I think you'll lose more efficiency (gas) with your bow in the air than w/
>the sidemount.

You may be right. I have no idea.

>Bringing the bow down can be affected by adjusting the angle
>of attack of your motor and redistributing your weight. On the Yukon it was
>very unusual to see a 19' Grumman squarestern WITHOUT a 5gal gas can on its
>foredeck.

I'll have to do some experimenting..

Thanks again,

Al Deveron
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

Al Deveron wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:21:07 GMT, "padeen" wrote:
>
>> Remember, the speed (efficiency) of the hull is directly related to its LWL;
>
> As I understand it, that applies to displacement hulls. However, my
> canoe has a flat bottom, making it technically a semi-displacement
> hull which has some lifting capacity and therefore the ability to
> exceed its maximum displacement speed. Otherwise, I don't think I
> could have got it up to the 15 knots I estimate I was doing the other
> day.

Were you using the Evinrude for a power source to hit 15 knots?

Steve
--
Steve Cramer
Athens, GA
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

Yes, they (primarily Margaret) were the driving force behind setting up the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ("Anwar", in a Texas drawl, to the oil
industry; they don't like to use the word refuge!). An excellent read: Two
in the Far North, by Margaret (one of the books that brought me to Alaska).
She was to the Arctic what David Brower was to the west, and the two spent
much time together.

There are a number of dissimilarities between Yukon-Charlie Preserve and the
Refuge.
1) The Refuge is administered by Fish & Wildlife, the Preserve by the Park
Service. The styles between these two agencies is dramatically different.
To oversimplify, NFW allows and encourages local residents to use the land
for hunting, fishing, trapping, and other historical uses by allowing them
the continued use of their traditional trails, cabins and camps. The NPS
through selected enforcement of local regulations, has forced all
inhabitants of the Preserve from doing what the Refuge residents are allowed
to do. Whether this happened because the Preserve residents were white and
the Refuge residents were Inuit & Athabaskan is an issue I'm not going to
deal with here. The Park Service wanted the land free of human use and the
F&W did not.

2) The country around the Eagle area is very beautiful, but except for the
memories kept by individuals who've passed through, it is not a special
place; it's just another tract of boreal forest which has historically been,
except for the brief gold rush era, very sparsely populated. There are
millions and millions of acres just like it girdling the globe, and much of
it far more productive wrt game and other resources than the Eagle area;
even the indigenous people, the Han Indians, would migrate to the Yukon only
during the summer for the salmon, then leave for ten months to chase the
caribou into the Ogilvie Mountains. But the day the Park Service landed
they started developing their fiefdom, with the river traffic going from a
boat a week to two or more a day, regular helicopter flyovers, and an
administrative system designed to free the land of its human inhabitants.
The Refuge couldn't be more of a contrast. Between migratory birds,
caribou, brown & polar bear, muskoxen, moose, fox, and wolverine it is the
feeding, calving, nesting and childhood area to uncountable numbers of
varied species, as it is to its intricate and spectacular flora. But F&W is
seldom even seen in the Refuge: I've been guiding there for the last six
years, and saw ONE F&W employee, and he was on holiday! But nowhere on
earth, nor certainly in the US, is life more diverse, unique or fragile than
Alaska's Arctic. A few drilling rigs, pipelines and roads the Bush
administration says. Well, picture a beautiful, embroidered white shirt,
and then judge your reaction to that same shirt with a little spaghetti
stain, Now imagine that that is the last white shirt in the nation. What a
careless slob, that diner, no? Barring hotel complexes, strip malls and
coal strip-mining, there is little to fear with what the current
administration can do to Yukon-Charley. Not so the Arctic.

Another excellent book: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and
Land (Hardcover) by Subhankar Banerjee This is the book that countered the
Republican claim that the Refuge was just a frozen wasteland, and had its
elaborate Smithsonian display stripped of its elucidating captions and
stuffed into a loading dock access corridor by order of Alaska's Senator Ted
Stevens

So, how do I feel about each federal land grab? Really pissed that the Park
Service is trying to develop Y-C for the tourist industry by sterilizing the
land, and pissed at the Republicans for trying to destroy what Edward Abbey
called, "The last bite on the plate." Guess I can't win either way.







"Hanta-Yo-Yo" wrote in message

>
> padeen wrote:
>> '74 to '83, but still own property in Eagle. Don't know the Murrays
>
> The Murray's or Murry's (?) were instrumental in establishing ANWR.
> Which was a conservation program, similar it would seem to what
> happened where you were, with the Government coming in and regulating
> the natural resourses. I did not get a sense about how you perceived
> the take over where you were at. I did not listen to all your audio, so
> you may have covered this question there. Looking back, how do you feel
> about the take over now? HYY
>
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:31:16 -0400, Steve Cramer
wrote:

>Were you using the Evinrude for a power source to hit 15 knots?

Let me put it this way: I certainly wasn't *paddling* at 15 knots in
my 14 ft canoe!

Al Deveron
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe? 

Al Deveron wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 20:31:16 -0400, Steve Cramer
> wrote:
>
>> Were you using the Evinrude for a power source to hit 15 knots?
>
> Let me put it this way: I certainly wasn't *paddling* at 15 knots in
> my 14 ft canoe!

Aww, I was prepared to be really impressed.

--
Steve Cramer
Athens, GA
 >> Stay informed about: Evinrude Junior outboard OK for canoe?