Options

High five prop replacement

I have a 2012 MTX200 with a Volvo Penta 4.3 GL/SX. The Mercury High Five prop on it is great out of the hole but it does not function well in reverse. What prop would you recommend that would give better control in reverse?

Comments

  • Options
    JoeStangJoeStang Member Posts: 1,116 ✭✭✭✭
    When you say it doesnt work well in reverse, what do you mean?

    The SX isnt a dual-prop, so its going to have some prop-walk in reverse.
    2013 276 Cuddy ~ 350 MAG / B3
  • Options
    GerryGerry Member Posts: 2

    The high five has very little bite in reverse. Maneuverability is very poor when backing. I was looking to find what other props would be a good choice.

  • Options
    KYSEANKYSEAN Member Posts: 121 ✭✭
    Mercury Enertia is a great prop although only 3 blade. Good choice for a 4.3. 4 blade Rev 4 is a good choice also.
    2012 Rinker BR216 5.0
  • Options
    KYSEANKYSEAN Member Posts: 121 ✭✭
    RinkerYan said:

    Has anyone switched to a 4 blade prop from a 3 blade prop? Would like to know top end results.

    I did and went back to the 3 blade. The 4 blade was poor at quick turning. It moved so much water that on a quick turn to return to a down skier, the blade would hit air.
    2012 Rinker BR216 5.0
  • Options
    212rowboat212rowboat Member Posts: 2,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
    RY, I swapped back and forth last season a couple of times... the top end was only affected at the very top end, and only by maybe a single MPH or so, but the bottom end was tighter with the four blade, and it allowed me to achieve plane and then back off a little and hold plane... there was a considerable amount of stern lift coupled with bow dive that pushed where the hull broke water (on plane) a full couple of feet forward of where the three blade had it... the boats attitude was 'flatter' with the four blade.. the three blade rises the bow hard out of the hole, and pitches the hull at a steeper angle in the water at full plane, which likely could be corrected with trim tabs but for the time being likely makes a 'push' out of any advantage it secured by pushing the 'water line entry point' aft..

    to be more simplistic, the three blade at plane allows the hull to cut the water right under the helm on my little 212... with the four blade, as closely matched in pitch and dynamic geometry+diameter, it cuts just under the bow seats/in front of the console.  it rides flatter with the four blade, which makes entry into the water flatter, but with more waterline.

    I like them both, for different reasons... I wish I could have the best of both in one, and give the other all the bad traits.. that would make this a much easier conversation though, huh? :-) 
  • Options
    212rowboat212rowboat Member Posts: 2,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
    the low speed handling was where the four blade was far superior.  there was simply more bite, and the control 'tighter'.  I think most recommend a drop in pitch when adding a blade, and due mostly to added drag- apparent in the RPMs which almost matches (in my application) a three or four blade comparison, one pitch apart with similar geometry (speaking specifically about individual blades on the prop; dynamic transition of an overall rated 21p blade that sweeps from 19.5p on the leading edge to 22.5p on the trailing edge)...

    the two props for my direct comparison were a 22p vented three blade and a 21p vented four blade, one 14.25" diameter (3blade), the other 14"(four blade).. the blade geometry was close enough that an individual blade was almost a perfect sweep compared to a single blade on the other (rate of rise considered).. the differences in overall rated pitch, and diameter were considered by me and me alone to allow a more direct comparison between the two props due to weight, balance, and inference.  I don't think it would be a fair comparison to just get a duplicate everything except blade count.  both were aluminum, too, by the way, as I was experimenting with cheap material before crunching pseudo data and dropping coin on stainless.  the aluminum will flex, and will take the form of almost a full pitch lower than stainless.

    I would recommend you consider slightly lowering your overall diameter while moving up a blade, and dropping a pitch as well (you were told by someone who subscribes to my notions, too).  your low speed handling will be superior and you'll hold plane at a slightly lower speed.. the most apparent alteration will be the boats attitude on plane, where it will ride much flatter.
  • Options
    212rowboat212rowboat Member Posts: 2,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
    no. I have a 212.. the above was results based on that, which was stated in the first comment I posted, and inline with this threads conversation about a mtx200 w/ 4.3.
  • Options
    212rowboat212rowboat Member Posts: 2,591 ✭✭✭✭✭
Sign In or Register to comment.