Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Best boat to match a 50/35 jet outboard

  1. #1

    Default Best boat to match a 50/35 jet outboard

    I am currently running a "custom" welded aluminum skiff with a 50hp yamaha outboard jet on the kenai for late season fishing. My load capacity is about 750 pounds plus 6 gallons of gas. Any heavier and I can't get on step. Once on step the boat seems to perform and manuever well. There is a lot of "vee" in the hull which is nice for chop and prevents cavitation, but the hole shot is terrible. The motor is inset about 18" from the stern which prevents squat in the rear too bad, and there are 3 sealed flotation voids which is nice, but definitly makes it heavier. What boat out there would provide better performance in terms of hole shot and load carrying capability?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Member AKRoadkill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beluga View Post
    I am currently running a "custom" welded aluminum skiff with a 50hp yamaha outboard jet on the kenai for late season fishing. My load capacity is about 750 pounds plus 6 gallons of gas. Any heavier and I can't get on step. Once on step the boat seems to perform and manuever well. There is a lot of "vee" in the hull which is nice for chop and prevents cavitation, but the hole shot is terrible. The motor is inset about 18" from the stern which prevents squat in the rear too bad, and there are 3 sealed flotation voids which is nice, but definitly makes it heavier. What boat out there would provide better performance in terms of hole shot and load carrying capability?

    I'd say a 50/35 Jet is a good match for a 1652 jon boat. riveted would probably be lighter, but I'd stick with welded...and a tunnel hull--not necessary for the Kenai, but I'd go with a prop on the Kenai anyway.

  3. #3

    Default Sea Ark

    I'm pretty impressed with the Sea Ark for a fairly light, simple jon boat. This model has a jet tunnel that works well and it's a welded hull. Deweys sells them with a dimond plate floor, so the ribs are covered. Install a transom jack and it's not much to swap bewtween jet and prop.

    SeaArk Boats 1652MVJT

    Length Overall 16′
    Beam 72″
    Bottom Width 52″
    Side Depth 20″
    Gauge .100 in
    Rating 45 hp
    Weight Cap 1100 lbs
    Persons Cap 5/735 p/lbs
    Approx Weight 345 lbs
    Transom Height 20″

  4. #4

    Default Jon boat is the way to go

    A 1652 would be good, but I think an 1852 would be better. I don't like floor boards as the add unnecessary weight. I also don't like tunnel hulls because they remove planing surface from the hull. This means that it takes more time/distance to plane and requires a higher speed to maintain plane. For both holeshot and weight capacity you need surface area. Given the same surface area, a long narrow hull is much more efficient than a shorter wider hull. The weight difference between a 1652 and an 1852 is negligible, and the longer hull will drop onto plane quicker.

  5. #5

    Default Yep

    Agree with the longer/narrower over the shorter/wider. The tunnel on this model is a "jet" tunnel, real close to the Wooldridge tunnel in dimension. It's not the long, deep tunnel used for prop driven boats. I didn't notice much of a difference in planing time and the motor I am familiar with on this hull is a 4 stroke Yamaha 40 hp...running both jet and prop. If it were me, I'd go this route over a regular Jon boat to keep from knocking the foot off the motor.

  6. #6

    Default

    hi beluga!.. i use a 40"jet" outboard with this 18 footer alumarine!
    beam 71"
    400 lbs
    20 inch transom
    bottom .080", riveted!

    i "think" it is rated 1200 lbs(cant check under tarp).
    as you can see in the pic, it needs about 3 inches of water to float!

    it is up in seconds and top speed about 28 mph as seen in the pic, with aux motor and 20 gallons gas!
    ..it is NOT made for hitting rocks--that is my only *****!..i have "nailed" the intake a couple of times tho!...LOL!...good luck in the search! larry


  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Soldotna, AK
    Posts
    108

    Default

    I have a 1660 Atec Hydrolite. 82" beam, 24" sides, and a tunnel. It does very well, in fact it is the shallowest running hull I have seen or heard of.

  8. #8

    Default

    I have a 55hp 2strk that was originally propped, I bought a jet kit and converted it. I estimate 40 jet hp at this point. It is mounted on a 1650 jon boat, no tunnel and is riveted. I can carry approx 1000lbs, get on step and run 3"-4" inches of water with no issues. I have yet to damage or break the foot of the jet unit.

    The reason I have the 1650 jon boat rather than the 1850 was the price was a super deal form a friend . Had I a choice otherwise the 1850 would be the way to go for the power supply. Longer and narrow is more efficient for planing, and as stated before, the difference in weight is negligible.

    I would love an 18footer over my 16 but it does the job.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    106

    Default longer...that's what she said

    Longer/narrower is great for planing, but wider is better if you are interested in carrying a larger load in shallower water at a slower speed (read: efficiency, fuel savings, and further upriver).

  10. #10

    Default I am going to have to respectfully disagree....

    ....with the wider hull being more efficient. It's not. The increased width equals increased drag. Increased drag takes more power to push on plane. A longer, narrower hull is more efficient, uses less fuel, and will provide longer range.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •