|
Are Stainless Steel Props Worth It?
One of the most common questions that boat
owners ask is "what type of material should my propeller be made of?"
The choices for most of us are: aluminum, composite or stainless steel.
A typical 3-blade stainless steel propeller runs around $350+. Compare
this to around $110 for an aluminum prop. Composite props are in the same
price range as aluminum, but some brands can be found for less.
While stainless steel is the most expensive material,
stainless propellers have a reputation for being much
more durable that either aluminum or composites. They also
purportedly offer better performance, but we could not find
detailed data for boats like Toy Boat 2. Most reports dealt with much
higher horsepower engines, and much higher horsepower/weight ratios.
That's why we decided to do this article. We've now tried propellers
made of these three materials on Toy Boat 2, and here are the
results...
Aluminum versus
Composite
In our last issue, we had an article
comparing hydrofoils to trim tabs. We briefly
mentioned the fact that during initial setup, we started with aluminum
propellers, then switched to a 4-blade ComProp for our
final configuration. That propeller was a 13.75 diameter x 15" pitch model
that yielded wide-open-throttle (WOT) engine revs of 5100
RPM, and a top speed of 31 MPH. This was in the middle of the
recommended WOT range for the motor (4500 -5500 RPM). NOTE:
these tests were done with our old carbureted Johnson 90 HP outboard, not our
new Evinrude E-TEC.
We then switched to a 3-blade 13.75 x 15 Vortex aluminum propeller from
Michigan Wheel This propeller produced wide-open-throttle
(WOT) engine revs of 4900 RPM, and a top speed of 29 MPH.
A slight degradation in performance, and contrary to the conventional
wisdom that a 4-blade propeller would give better holeshot and less speed.
However, if you held the two props next to each other you could immediately see
why: the ComProps blades were much thinner and had a much sharper leading edge
than the Vortex.
We
then switched to a 3-blade composite Piranha prop.
The Piranhas have interchangeable blades, so we chose a set of 13.75 x 15
blades. We originally thought performance would return to the
same level as the ComProp's, but were surprised to find the performance
unchanged from the Vortex prop. This is actually consistent
with Piranaha's claim of performance equivalent to aluminum props. We
didn't have independent measurement of the various specs like rake and cup, but
visually the props looked pretty close.
When we looked closely at the blades, it appeared like the blade foil
design for the Piranha looked very similar to the Vortex. The leading edge was
thicker and duller than the ComProp.
Composite versus
Stainless Steel
In our last issue, we ran a series of
charts showing performance of our new Evinrude E-TEC 90
. These tests were done with a 3-blade Piranha propeller with 14 x 13
blades.
Given that the ComProp was a better performer than the Piranha, why hadn't we
changed back to the ComProp? The main reason was that the ComProp was not
offered with a 13" pitch. Even if it had been available in 13"
pitch, it was more cost effective to simply buy new blades for the Piranha.
After
running the E-TEC with the Piranha propeller for a couple of months,
we switched to a 3-blade Evinrude SST stainless propeller, in 13.75 x
13 size We re-ran our earlier performance tests and
replotted the data. While the weather conditions were not exactly the same
(warmer air and water temps), we feel like they were close enough not to have
materially affected the results.
Here are some comparison charts. The red lines are for the SST, the blue lines
for the Piranha. Click on the charts to see a larger version:
Clearly, there is a slight performance boost above planing
speeds. At 1000 RPM, the apparent increase in fuel economy is probably a
result of math roundoff issues. Our
Standard Horizon fuel flow meter only reads to tenths
of a gallon per hour, so in all likelihood the MPG at 1000 RPM are the same for
both propellers.
To the naked eye, the SST has slightly more
rake than the Piranha, but it has a much thinner foil design and
a sharper leading edge than the Piranha.
Its top-end speed is nearly identical to that of the ComProp with the
old motor. This leads us to suspect that the ComProp would have
performed similarly, had we been able to find it in the same diameter and
pitch.
Stainless is clearly the toughest material of the three. As noted in the
Toy Boat 2 Blog, it easily survived a close encounter
of the worst kind with the pavement in front of our home. That incident, in our
opinion, would have seriously damaged either a composite or an aluminum
propeller.
Value Comparison:
In the analysis below, we are going to assume the following:
-
The Vortex aluminum and the Piranha composite will perform identically
-
We will run an average of 1500 miles / year
Cost Comparison at Constant Speed:
| Propeller |
Typical
Street
Price |
Speed |
MPG
@22
MPH |
Annual
Gas Cost
@$2.50/gal
|
Annual
Gas Cost
@$3.00/gal
|
Annual
Gas Cost
@$3.50/gal
|
| Vortex |
$110
|
22 mph |
4.7 |
$798 |
$957 |
$1,117 |
| Piranha |
$125 |
22 mph |
4.7 |
$798 |
$957 |
$1,117 |
| SST |
$400 |
22 mph |
5.1 |
$735 |
$882 |
$1,029 |
So at the $3.00/gallon point it would take around 3.9 years to pay off the
difference in price vs. the aluminum propeller, or 3.6 years vs. the composite
Cost Comparisons at Optimal MPG
|
Propeller
|
Typical
Street
Price |
Speed |
MPG
|
Gas cost
@$2.50/gal
|
Gas cost
@$3.00/gal
|
Gas cost
@$3.50/gal
|
| Vortex |
$110 |
23 mph |
5.0 |
$750 |
$900 |
$1,050 |
| Piranha |
$125 |
23 mph |
5.0 |
$750 |
$900 |
$1,050 |
| SST |
$400 |
26 mph |
5.6 |
$670 |
$804 |
$938 |
So at the $3.00/gallon point it would take around 3.0 years to pay off the
difference in price vs. the aluminum propeller, or 2.9 years vs. the
composite. Note, however, that our average speed would be more than
10% higher (26 vs. 23 MPH).
Perhaps more important than gas cost, however, is the impact on total range.
At optimal fuel economy, the stainless steel propeller would give TB2 a
maximum range (assuming similar loading conditions) of 252 miles, versus 225
miles for the aluminum or composite - a 27 mile difference!
Our Conclusions:
-
In this horsepower/weight/RPM range, propeller blade foil design has more
of an impact than either propeller material choice or number of blades.
-
Composite propellers can perform as well or better than aluminum props
-
Stainless steel propellers provide better mileage than aluminum
propellers, possibly more than a composite, depending on blade
foil design
-
The stainless steel propeller provides more speed, but in this
horsepower/size/RPM range, only 2 - 3 MPH more
-
Stainless is tougher, no doubt about it.
Is a stainless steel
propeller worth it?
In this horsepower/size/RPM range, the small incremental increase in speed
would not justify the additional cost, nor would the savings in the cost
of gas. However, if you combine these factors with the increase in
range and the toughness of the propeller (keeping in mind that we don't
want to have to try to change a prop while at sea), in our opinion, it is worth
the extra cost.
If the price of stainless steel is a bit too much, we would strongly
recommend a composite prop over an aluminum prop. If you are not
looking for the convenience of interchangeable blades, and can find the right
diameter and pitch. the ComProps are the least expensive, and
were great performers on TB2. The Piranha composites are also
a great choice.
|