Barracuda strut to prop distance

 

Sorry but I'm not a math teacher

Yes, the struts are different. Looks like you have a 6A and Charlie's is a 6A6. The 6A6 is 1 inch longer at the aft end so, that really puts the prop farther aft. I'd say the aft move was due to CC going to a 13" prop. 

Plenty of CC's had a lot of strut to prop clearance over the years.

Gen 2 SN's and the Martiniques on that same hull come to mind with over 2 inches of distance.

You have the info you wanted, you know the boat, I'd go with what you think needs to be done right now 

Bruce 

It sounds and looks like you have the original spec between the picture of Charlie and the measurement numbers from Charlie by way of Pete

What I wonder about is your comment on the rudder port that is not mounted flush but sticks down from the bottom of the hull.

Was that bigger rudder and new port on there before the problem started or was it put on to try and solve the handling issue?

You mentioned Reid thinking that might be the problem, you can add me to that list.

Is it hanging down say 1/4 inch or so with squared off edges or is it tapered so it's at least somewhat hydrodynamically efficient

If you recess it like it was originally built, you'll be back to "baseline" there too

There are 2 things to consider, prop to strut clearance which affects shaft performance, and prop to hull clearance which affects boat performance.  I don't see how anyone can disagree that shaft performance is secondary to boat performance. If perfect shaft performance is causing poor boat performance, what good is the perfect shaft performance?

In the case of the Cuda, Correct Craft put long shafts on them for a reason. While some people might cringe at the sight of their excessive prop to strut distance, they perform well and have been running like this since the 1960's.  In our case, we went with a short shaft in order to have perfect shaft performance as we were installing an engine that had 300 hp, much more than what was in the boat originally, and we knew it would require more prop, which it did.  We went from 12x13 to 12x16.

I've explained the handling characteristics on page one.  Based on my experience with 2 Cudas, I believe lengthening the shaft will be an improvement and make the boat handle better as it did with the longer shaft.  I'd rather not go to 2.5", but certainly .5" is inferior as far as boat performance goes to the original spec of 2.5".

As far as weight of the engine, I cannot find an Interceptor spec that has the weight of the FE marine engine.  I did find automotive specs that have the 318 at 550# and the 427 at 650#.  Chrysler Marine states that the 318 was 750# with all their beefy marine parts on it.  Given all of the light aluminum parts that the Interceptor has, I'd bet the 2 marine engines weigh about the same and the Interceptor maybe slightly lighter.  

This isn't rocket science and I often think some of us are overly critical of some of the things Correct Craft did in building their boats.  The long shaft on the Cuda may have been an unorthodox fix to enhance boat performance, but it worked.  

I simply want the original spec so that we have a base line. 

In your experience what exactly happens without minimization? "reliability and performance perspective" is pretty vague. 

Tim,

I know he wants to go back to the original length. How is that an "errant path". The overhung load issue? 

That's what I thought. 

Not enough...

What exactly are you looking for? From the start of the thread, it sounds like just a shaft length? 

Relative to the transom or rudder...