30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

bjcsc

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
1,805
Often times I read here about a loss of HP with a jet drive. I can't figure out why there would be such a loss, and as a result, am skeptical about such a great loss existing. I would think the HP losses would be similar to those of an outdrive. As the only one here with a jet drive (AFAIK), I'm curious. Why the big difference?
 

tommays

Admiral
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
6,768
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

i think it depends on the age if you get and 30 year old berkely jet with fixed trim its not going to do well (we had one and it sucked gas )

The water has to be moved around a LOT more to do the samething (IN TO The pump and then out again

I think a lot of the new ones do much better but NOT at all RPM'S


Even a boat with with props and a tunnel hull sucks up gas compared to one with out




Tommays
 

bjcsc

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
1,805
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

OK, but using fuel and losing HP are two different things. Maybe it's like you said...I don't know much about the Berkely jets other than reading a little about them from time to time. Based on that, I'm calling BS on the HP losses I always read about here. My jet drive (below) is very straightforward. The driveshaft leaves the engine coupler goes through a big bearing and a few grease and seawater seals, through the impeller, and into a smaller bearing in the bowl. There's no way I'm losing significantly more power than the outdrive guy turning several gears and u-joints...
Maybe Volvo got it right...

2143826Jet.JPG
 

Scout Sport Fish

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
197
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

I think it has to do with the impeller having to push the water through such a tight whole. You need Y amount of horsepower to reach the same efficency as X (Y>X). Thats why you see jet boat with insane HP numbers. Thats my take, not a fact but I think thats whats going on. At the marina I work at one Yamaha ha I think 310 HP.
 

Reel Poor

Vice Admiral
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
5,522
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

I wouldn't say your losing hp, I would say your losing efficiency. The jet drive creats its moving force with a stream of water which has more slippage than a prop spinning under a boat.
 

bjcsc

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
1,805
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

I wouldn't say your losing hp, I would say your losing efficiency. The jet drive creats its moving force with a stream of water which has more slippage than a prop spinning under a boat.

OK, I can see that, although some would be offset by nothing hanging below the keel creating drag...

I guess it's a combination of compressing the water and efficiency...they both make sense...
 

Starflight

Seaman
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
55
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

Here are my thoughts. I do a/c repair and installs. I believe it has an effiecency loss do to having to create a static pressure w/ the water before being able to use the force that it creates.
Looking at it from moving a mass standpoint, I can take a 3 ton air handler to move 1200 cfm's of air to do the job in a duct system. It will require a 1/2 hp mtr to do the job at 3.0 amps. If I install a ductless 3 ton system, the mtr. required to move 1200 cfm's is only 1/8 hp @ less than an amp. of power. It doesn't create a static pressure(or very little) to get the job done.Does this have a likeness to moving water? I think so.
 

Tail_Gunner

Admiral
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
6,237
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

I wouldn't say your losing hp, I would say your losing efficiency. The jet drive creats its moving force with a stream of water which has more slippage than a prop spinning under a boat.

:cool: Mechanical coupling vs liquid, seam's simple enough...
 

jedimaster

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
336
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

With HP it depends where you meaure HP.
Like in a car for example rear wheel horsepower is different than horsepower at the crank.
If you add a tonne of weight to the car you lose rear wheel horsepower but your engine still puts out the same horsepower at the crank, smae goes if you put on fatter tires, you increase drag, lower the wheel horsepower but your engine still has the same crank horsepower.

A jet drive to my understanding has to pick the water up and force it through a tube around a corner. Also since it is working via venturi effect it also losses flow velocity and volume as the water will move slower the instant it goes up. The impellor has to accellerate the water just to get it to move at the same speed as the water going past the hull, or the boat through the water.

Where as an prop only needs to maintain the water speed.

Of course other things have an effect but they are all equal, hull drag, hull weight, plan angle, etc...

While an outdrive does have added drag over a jet drive, I think that the dag would not have as much of an effect on speed as the items I listed above as drawbacks for the jet drive.

In my eyes a jet drive's advantage is not speed. Its alot of other really important things.
Draft Height and Maneuverability


I am sure someone else can tell you better though. :)
 

jedimaster

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
336
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

I shoudl say when I mean maneuverability, that I mean highspeed as jet drives suck at low speed.
 

QC

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
22,783
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

I agree with Yoda's assessment and would like to add that jet drives "suck" a boat down as well. Look at the diagram from bjsc . . . you can see how a jet can actually increase the load on the wetted surface.
 

bruceb58

Supreme Mariner
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
30,581
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

Efficiency of modern jet drives isway better than the original jets of the 60s and mid 70s. I have read that they are very close to be as efficient as a propeller
 

uaw9fan

Petty Officer 2nd Class
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
112
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

In a sterndrive you have gear reduction. Your jet drive has a direct drive shaft to the impeller. It makes sense to me that you require a bigger hp engine to do the same job.
 

Tail_Gunner

Admiral
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
6,237
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

Ohh this is going to trouble, Guy's it's mechanical lock vs liquid.....ala lack of tourqe......now why do you think it's almost impossilbe to get a manual tranny in a big deisel truck........ tourqe lock auto's use the tranny fluid to lock up,(less schock better reliability) manual's use mechanical and more tourqe. (More stress higher tourqe) Mechanical is more efficent..:eek:
 

bjcsc

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
1,805
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

OK, I follow gear reduction yeilding higher torque...and thus no gear reduction (jet drive) requiring more HP to get to the same torque value...

I follow the HVAC comparison regarding static pressure (seems a similar effect would occur with water)...

I'm not sure about the extra load on the wetted surface as 1) jets suck at a pretty good angle so the force is more forward than down and 2) trimming an outdrive would seems to have a similar effect and 3) jet drives make a far smaller wake which leads me to believe the hulls displace less water which seems contrary to this position. When I'm cooking (60mph+), only the last 21" of my hull are in the water (which is pretty much from the intake grate back).

But I don't follow you, TG. How do mechanical and liquid lock relate to outdrives and jet drives? Which is which? My big diesel truck experience is limited, but I have never seen one with automatic transmission. Most I've seen are 15 or 18 speed manuals, with some 8 and 10 speed manuals on some smaller ones. That said, monster diesels (heavy equipment and dumps) are mostly driven by hydraulic motors, which gets us back to your liquid...
 

jedimaster

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
336
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

I don't think there would be much suck downards action either but I did find this interesting so I did a bit of reading and this is what I found from a few different articles.

The biggest net loss in Jet drives is due to the backpreasure in the tube after the impellor. So the sucking up is not that big, but the pushing it through is difficult.

I read an article of a patent that was done to design a turbo charged marine engine whereby the expelled turbo charged air was force injected behind the impellor and this reduced the backpreasure to the point wherby you get nearly identical net horsepower of a propellor driven system.

Here is a bit of a primer on how I understand horsepower.
Horsepower is a calculation based on RPM's and Torque. It has nothing to do really with the available power from the engine. It is just a derivitave. It can be used to calculate speed with gear ratios and drag co-efficients. and the vice versa can be done, you can calculate accuratly with cars the horsepower, based on top speed.

Torque is a measurable force that the engine is able to exert in a twisting motion

I think the calculation for hp is something like
(Tourque * RPM) / 5250 or something close the that

Eventually the torque an engine is able to produce stops increasing. Thats when you stop accelerating or your acceleration slow down.

Different engine designs are able to produce increasing torque at higher revs some at lower revs. The lower revs are good off the line and the higher revs you increase torque the faster your top end is.
Shortly after your torque stops increasing your Horsepower drops and you can't go faster.

Torque is simply a measurement of the twisting force of the engine at a given RPM. If you bolted a rod to the flywheel and hung a weight to it there is another little formula to determine torque in pounds per feet by how much weight the engine can lift. I don't know exactly how they manage to measure this but thats not my job. :)

A dyno uses a fluid coupling to determine the HP and tourque curve of the wheels of a car or prop of a boat. The water coupling acts as a fluid brake. The preasure exerted on the brake is what is used to determine the BHP or brake Horse Power. The fluid coupling/pump is powered byt the wheels of the car or the prop of a boat.
BHP is Dyno measured brake horsepower and
HP is calculated via the calculation and torque measurements

What does this mean for Jet Drives? Well not a heck of alot but I had some time to kill at work. :)

If you wanted to increase your horsepower for a jet drive you could eliminate the lenght of the tube after the impellor or increase its diamter to decrease the backpreasure, but without enough back preasure the impellor would just cavitate and self destruct(I think).

That turbo thing I mentioned above must try to find a balance of backpreasure and efficiency.

Eitherway you lose HP with a jet drive but increase other advantages of driving the boat.
 

Reel Poor

Vice Admiral
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
5,522
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

You cannot change the HP of X engine by adding or modifying a drive unit of any kind to the flywheel. You can only increase or decrease the efficiency of the HP from X engine. The only way to gain or lose HP from X engine is to modify X engine.

To overcome decreases in efficiency would require more HP.
 

jedimaster

Petty Officer 1st Class
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
336
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

Horsepower equals Torque * RPM / 5250(maybe a different number but something like that)

If you increase the ammount of weight in your vehicle you will decrease the RPM's required and increase the ammount of torque output and this will increase the HP rating of you vehicle.

This is not HP of an engine on a bench this is the HP rating of your boat. HP is a function of RPM and Torque output. increase the efficiency and the HP goes up.

The HP stamp on a motor is derived from running on a bench with no vehicle.
If you measure your vehicles HP while using it is different.

HP IS the effiency of your motor's torque output.
 

Rob454

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
508
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

the output of the drive is less than the input. Its actually a very inefficient design but it works. basically the water has to wait to get compressed and pushed out. you have a 12 inch hole that is reduced to a 6 inch hole.
on jet skis you can widen the outlet but that will give you bottom and you loose top due to the drop ion pressure. ( Im not talking 10-20 MPH here im talking 1-2. I dont know abotu jet boats but the pump is very similar to the jet ski pmps
Rob
 

bjcsc

Lieutenant Commander
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
1,805
Re: 30-40% HP loss for a jet drive? Why?

jedimaster: The formula is correct, but the constant is 5252. RP is talking engine HP and you're talking brake HP. You're both correct. The formula is where the answer to my question comes from.

Take two drive packages, mine and one identical to it, only differing in that it has an outdrive. HP rating for my engine, as I have found reported, is 220HP +/- 5HP. What would be the braking torque (not HP) of each package at WOT? By transposing the HP formula, you can see that

Torque=(5252*HP)/rpm

Midrange WOT for my engine is 4600rpm, but the rpm you need for the formula is not at the flywheel, it's at the terminus - the impeller or prop. I have no idea what the ratio is for any of the drives that may have been available, but let's assume it would have been an SX drive with somewhere around a 1.6:1 ratio. The PJX of course is 1:1. Thus

Jet
Torque=(5252*220)/(4600/1)=215ftlbs

Prop
Torque=(5252*220)/(4600/1.6)=402ftlbs



Now let's take those numbers and figure Brake HP with your formula, HP=Torque*RPM/5252:


Jet
HP=(215*4600)/5252=188 HP

Prop
HP=(402*2875)/5252=220 HP

The outdrive has considerably more torque and HP at the prop than the jet has at the impeller (jet is showing ~ a 15% loss in brake HP). This begs the question about efficiency. Why would the prop need nearly twice the torque to so the same job? Does it not logically follow that the jet drive must be more efficient if it can do the same with less? I've never even had my engine at WOT. At ~4000rpm I'm going over 60mph, and that's fast enough for me! I wonder what the 176 Flyers that had outdrives and the 4.3GS are doing at 3900rpm...top speeds reported vary from 45mph to 55mph at WOT...but I know I'm turning about 3600rpm at 50mph.

So, taking the middle of what is reported, at a speed of 50mph, what do we see:

Jet
Torque=(5252*220)/(3600/1)=320ftlbs
HP=(320*3600)/5252=219 HP

Prop
Torque=(5252*220)/(4600/1.6)=402ftlbs
HP=(402*2875)/5252=220 HP


Thus, at a given speed, the difference between the jet and outdrive brake HP is not 30-40%, but, in fact, statistically insignificant. There is still a decent loss of torque (or requirement for less?) for the jet, but the speed (which is the goal) is the same. Based on this, which is more efficient?
 
Top