Thanks. I'm still looking for a better run.

I was going to title it "CO2 Gone Wild" to try to get more hits but backed off to "...Squirt Boat". I agree, the prop is more period show than go. I debated profiling it, etc., but decided to leave it box-stock. At some point I may fabricate a "racing" prop. Thanks for your comments.

@@tomfey6020 Oh,I think nearly all of us would agree that we needed to see it run box stock. I have no expertise here, but am aware that modern speedboat props are of the "surface piercing" type and look very different from yours, which looks more like something you'd find on a slower cargo vessel. If you were to test a variety of Amazon or 3D printed or otherwise home-made props on this boat, I would delightedly watch any follow-up videos.

@@Del350K4 , thanks. The CO2 motors are high torque/low RPM, so it will never be very fast; more tugboat than Cigarette boat. I had one non-video'd run where the prop did get under water and the speed went up, RPM went down, duration seemed to improve up. And that is the type of run I'm trying to get on vid.

@@tomfey6020 Additional weight astern is a double-edged sword, of course. You get a fully immersed prop at the cost of having to accelerate more mass...

@@Del350K4 What you make on the peaches you lose on the pears...

Congrats on taking on that challenge! I suspect the CO2 or pressurized gas supply system would be quite a challenge for such a large engine.

@tomfey6020 Sorry, I didn't mention that was 60 years ago. I was using compressed air at about 25 psi.

@@tsbrownie , I did some system leak testing on the little Herkimer motor with a shrader nipple soldered on to a spent CO2 cartridge, fed by a bicycle pump. I had a lot of tinkering fun.

The run video was indeed underwhelming, if not outright embarrassing. But I am encouraged that you stuck it out past that 170 seconds of propeller run. I intend to get a better boat run for video, then retire it to the shelf. But the Rain Gods have yet to smile upon me. Thank you for your comments.

Thanks. It was fun. Just need to get a better run out of it.

Thank you for your comments. My goal is to run it with the original, unmodified, stamped brass propeller with some transom weight and post an update. Stay tuned.

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I need to get couple good runs on the boat. But mostly it is just fun to see these little engines run.

@@tomfey6020 I always thought that the steel CO2 cartridge would be too heavy for use with an aircraft. My other CO2 motors all have aluminium tanks. But I didn't think of a boat. I have a small balsa cabin cruiser that my father made 60 years ago, from a Ron Warring design. Originally it had a small Mabuchi motor and ran on a flat 4.5V battery - haven't seen one of them for a long time! I think this is likely to be perfect.

@@RichardTapp1 , my minimal experience is only with the Herkimer engine using disposable 8-gram CO2 cartridges in the Squirt boat. The 12-gram CO2 cartridges will not fit the Herkimer holder. I have no experience with the refillable reservoir systems or other motors. I think it was a challenge for designers and builders back in the day to build suitable models for a power system that weighed around two ounces (motor + prop + 8-gram cartridge) to go into an airframe that might weigh 3 or 4 ounces by itself.

@@RichardTapp1 , if you have a postal scale, could you please weight your Herkimer CO2 motor assembly? I'm wondering how close it is to the "3/4 ounce" weight they advertised. And it saves me the hassle of disassembling my boat. Thanks. Tom

@@tomfey6020 38 grams. I tried to post a link to a photo of what I weighed, but it seemed that the link stopped the comment from posting.

It was $1.50 for the first guy; the last guy, me, paid $50! I do appreciate your watching that far into the video!

Thanks for your comments. Regardless of the design and construction, it's still an uncontrolled boat with sub-60 second run time. Cutting edge for 1955.

Thanks for your comments. It is a neat little time machine.