24 cigarette

[brianbecker]

anybody have an idea of the top speed of a 24 squadroon 12 would be before it starts to get out of hand I have a hull Im rigging and trying to decide on how much power to build for it That also determines what I would need for an outdrive I have a 502 and a new trs setup but not sure thats the way to go Any ideas would be appreciated

[RT930turbo]

I have a 24 with approx 550-600 hp. The hull handles it very, very well. I bet your boat is a bit lighter than mine, but the hull has no issues in the 75 mph range. Solid as a rock. I wouldn't be afraid to throw as much power as you want at it. They take a fair amount of power to get into the upper 70's compared to other 24's. The ride and hadling are worth it though. ( Mine is for sale btw )

[Sean]

Unless I'm mistaken, these two hulls are different unless the Squadron is a cut down Cigarette, but i dont think they share the same hull or beam.

[RT930turbo]

Unless I'm mistaken, these two hulls are different unless the Squadron is a cut down Cigarette, but i dont think they share the same hull or beam.

I was under the impression they did share the same hull. Maybe not though. Is the squadron 7' or 8' beam?

[brianbecker]

Well Im sure It will be up to the task of going fast

[boatnuts]

The Squadron was created by cutting down in the shear line on the original 24 with an aprox 8 foot beam.

[Hang Time 27]

The squadrons are a 7' 6" beam. The bottom is different from the reg Cig 24 in that the outside strakes are twice as large on the squadron - they are as large as a 35 footer's. This gives it more lift at cruise speeds, but makes it a little rougher ride as well. The hulls can handle way more than the occupants, so overpowering?? -- no such thing. The 24 squadron has the same type of horizontal line just below the rubrail that the 24 and 28 cigs do, but this line is gone on the 27 because it looks like they were trying to keep the sides of the hull the same height, and the way the rubrail curves from front to rear, it actually goes below that point, so I guess the detail was lost as they cut the mold down, or just chose not to use it. This leaves the height of the transom, as well as the tip of the bow, on the 24 a bit taller than the 27 - but midship they are about the same. Not sure about the original cig 24's, but the Squadron's have lots of cross bracing and fully glassed bulkheads. I've beat the crap out of mine for 6 years now and not one stress crack or glass separation anywhere... not bad for a 30 yr old hull !

I'd guess you'd be ok with a 502 and TRS, but upgrading further on power would be trouble for the TRS if you run any rough water.

I went thru 5 drives in 5 years with a 540 - running hard, but being very careful. 2 seasons, and 170 hours on a Konrad now, and having so much more fun !

[bootdaddy]

I have a 24 and been thinking about setup. I have 2 very nice Blackhawks and am considering those w small blocks for setup...any thoughts?

[old377guy]

WICKED!

[Ratickle]

I have a 24 and been thinking about setup. I have 2 very nice Blackhawks and am considering those w small blocks for setup...any thoughts?

My first thought is bad idea.....


The Blackhawk was only built for a couple years. It's basically a Bravo1 upper with a Bravo3 lower. I believe they did not last in the higher horsepower cinfigurations so they were discontinued. But, if I remember correctly........

Blackhawks where designed for high X demension settings on boats with pads & notched hulls. I think Mercury did a bulletin on applications. I haven't searched for it, but it should be available. I'll see if I can find it if you can't.

Blackhawks worked best on boats that naturally carried the nose high. From my deepest recesses of the old brain, that was because they created a lot of stern lift with the dual props. I'm not sure they would work as they were intended on the Deep V of the Cig. Blades or Throttle Up may know more about prop design and what can be done on that issue.

I also recall people having trouble getting the boats on plane because of the required high X, but once they were on plane, midrange acceleration was phenomenal.

One more possible consideration, your idle speed should be around 6 mph or more with only one engine running because of the dual props and around a 27 pitch in your application......

If those things can be figured out, that would be one heck of a cool project.........

[old377guy]

My first thought is bad idea.....


The Blackhawk was only built for a couple years. It's basically a Bravo1 upper with a Bravo3 lower. I believe they did not last in the higher horsepower cinfigurations so they were discontinued. But, if I remember correctly........

Blackhawks where designed for high X demension settings on boats with pads & notched hulls. I think Mercury did a bulletin on applications. I haven't searched for it, but it should be available. I'll see if I can find it if you can't.

Blackhawks worked best on boats that naturally carried the nose high. From my deepest recesses of the old brain, that was because they created a lot of stern lift with the dual props. I'm not sure they would work as they were intended on the Deep V of the Cig. Blades or Throttle Up may know more about prop design and what can be done on that issue.

I also recall people having trouble getting the boats on plane because of the required high X, but once they were on plane, midrange acceleration was phenomenal.

One more possible consideration, your idle speed should be around 6 mph or more with only one engine running because of the dual props and around a 27 pitch in your application......

If those things can be figured out, that would be one heck of a cool project.........

Paul, remind me to consult you whenever I consider re-rigging anything even remotely marine related

[Ratickle]

Thanks, but we have some real experts on here. Sometimes I just remember stuff (sometimes I forget stuff too).

I wonder if Jim did any testing on a Blackhawk. I think Ron Polli was working with the factory at one time and considering a Blackhawk.