4:02 Without having a sharrow prop to compare, I would see that 2000rpm is the spot for fuel economy slow comfy mode and 4500 is the best compromise to go where I want quickly. In that case I would beat the sharrow that has an indecent price point. Despite cavitation, I can buy maybe 5 or more regular props with the money. Thank you so much for this seemingly honest review.
I don't get some of this chart. I'm guessing that running the diesel engines at 4,000 RPM would require the same amount of fuel regardless of the prop. Yes? If not, why not? So - at 2,500 RPM the Sharrow props push the boat 10% farther but get FEWER MPG? How is that possible? But no matter what is going on otherwise, the speed gain in the sweet spot is impressive.
doesn't it really mean that the original prop is optimized for 5000-5500 ... and the sharrow for -1k lower ? idk have to compare more designs I think ..
Given what I know about toroidal props I am not sold on the promises. Considering they have turned comments off on their own video's I think I may not be the only one. Toroidal props have been seen to create vortexes which interferes with the flow of water causing a lower efficiency, meaning more fuel to get the same power. Unless Sharrow have found a way to beat physics. Also the "no cavitation" claim is easily provable bs. It is physically impossible to spin a prop that fast and not cause cavitation.
