Howdy, I'am ah newbe. The only sailing I've ever done is hard water sailing,(ice boating) I only know what I've read on line re: sailing/sailboats. I really like what I've read on the E39B and would like to here what you think about how it compares to the Freya 39. The Freya being a cutter. Motion comfort,speed,overall sailability.ease to single hand, and anything you could add will be well received. Another question is what is the 39B s displacement? I've read 19,000 and 21,000 also how much water does it hold? Thanks, D.y
http://bluewaterboats.org/freya-39/
From this write-up I found on the 'net, it seems to have competed with the Valiant 40. AFIK the E-39B was designed to compete in that market, but it is quite a different boat from the Freya.
If you study the underwater profile you can see that your comparison is kind of an "apples to oranges" sort of comparison.
It will be interesting to see if any of the other vikings here have sailed a Freya.
Regards,
Loren
From this write-up I found on the 'net, it seems to have competed with the Valiant 40. AFIK the E-39B was designed to compete in that market, but it is quite a different boat from the Freya.
If you study the underwater profile you can see that your comparison is kind of an "apples to oranges" sort of comparison.
It will be interesting to see if any of the other vikings here have sailed a Freya.
Regards,
Loren
Attachments
-
212__300x_freya39-sailplan.png -
E-39B.jpg
Last edited:
Hi DY,
As Loren put it so perfectly, comparing the E39B to a Freya 39 is very much an "apples to oranges" situation. I have not sailed a Freya but have sailed a Baba 40 which has a very similar underbody and sail plan. If you are seeking a boat which will take you to the deepest blue without the need to point well to weather and are willing to sacrifice overall good performance while living in comfort, consider the Freya 39 or Valiant.
If you are seeking a boat which will take you to the deepest blue, with good pointing abilities, good seaway motion comfort and wish to have good performance and a comfy cabin with a safe warm and fuzzy feeling, choose the E39 or E39B. Granted the E39 flush deck design lacks the generous cabin of the "B" they both share the same underbody, great sailing and ease of short handed characteristics and in my humble opinion are quite easy on the eyes. The E39B displaces 19,000 lbs and carries a generous 60 gallons of water(some had 80 gallons) and 60 gallons of diesel.
It is hard to beat the fine joiner work on the Valiant's or Baba's or Freya's as the cabins are quite nicely appointed. It all depends on your mission although, the Ericson's are no slouches in that category, either. If you compare the price points on the Ericson's versus the other named boats, you will find a lot of bang for your buck in the Viking camp.
If you are seeking a strong boat incorporating nice performance and ease of sailing with nice creature comforts, there are many in the Viking line which may just fit your bill. I would encourage you to explore the Ericson.
As I write this, I have narrowed my personal search down to two cool Bruce King designs; the E34T and E39B and favoring the first. Each have their respective pro's and con's however, both share two things in common as do most Ericson's; great performance numbers and high ratings in the solidly built, go anywhere category. For me, cabin space is not as important as some since I rarely have a party for 10 onboard.... the E34T is a "lil" hotrod!!!! My first boat was a 1968 E30 and funny how once you get the "bug" in this case the "Viking Bug" one eventually wanders back...
Just my humble opinion and hope it helps.
--Ron
As Loren put it so perfectly, comparing the E39B to a Freya 39 is very much an "apples to oranges" situation. I have not sailed a Freya but have sailed a Baba 40 which has a very similar underbody and sail plan. If you are seeking a boat which will take you to the deepest blue without the need to point well to weather and are willing to sacrifice overall good performance while living in comfort, consider the Freya 39 or Valiant.
If you are seeking a boat which will take you to the deepest blue, with good pointing abilities, good seaway motion comfort and wish to have good performance and a comfy cabin with a safe warm and fuzzy feeling, choose the E39 or E39B. Granted the E39 flush deck design lacks the generous cabin of the "B" they both share the same underbody, great sailing and ease of short handed characteristics and in my humble opinion are quite easy on the eyes. The E39B displaces 19,000 lbs and carries a generous 60 gallons of water(some had 80 gallons) and 60 gallons of diesel.
It is hard to beat the fine joiner work on the Valiant's or Baba's or Freya's as the cabins are quite nicely appointed. It all depends on your mission although, the Ericson's are no slouches in that category, either. If you compare the price points on the Ericson's versus the other named boats, you will find a lot of bang for your buck in the Viking camp.
If you are seeking a strong boat incorporating nice performance and ease of sailing with nice creature comforts, there are many in the Viking line which may just fit your bill. I would encourage you to explore the Ericson.
As I write this, I have narrowed my personal search down to two cool Bruce King designs; the E34T and E39B and favoring the first. Each have their respective pro's and con's however, both share two things in common as do most Ericson's; great performance numbers and high ratings in the solidly built, go anywhere category. For me, cabin space is not as important as some since I rarely have a party for 10 onboard.... the E34T is a "lil" hotrod!!!! My first boat was a 1968 E30 and funny how once you get the "bug" in this case the "Viking Bug" one eventually wanders back...
Just my humble opinion and hope it helps.
--Ron
Last edited:
Having Sailed both..
Having sailed both, I would prefer the E-39b. The 39B is faster, easier to sail (And even easier if you upgrade the necessary sail handling gear). More comfortable in a seaway, better looking, and in most cases far more bang for the buck. However both boats are older models and may require a lot of work in updating and fixing previous owners fixes!
I have seen a few Freya owner finished boats. As a rule owners are not Yacht designers, and really get it all tangled around when trying to design an interior that works. Most never even get close to a workable interior design. The fit and finish also in most cases of owner finished boats is far below the average production boat. (There are exceptions to this, but they are rare.)
The interior layout of the Ericsons, and all of the Bruce King designs that I have been on are far superior to most of the other boats out there. Bruce designed some of the best interiors that I have ever been to sea on. (Yes the 39-b is a combo effort between Ericson Yachts and Bruce, but it is a very nice and very workable offshore and coastal solution for a 39 foot boat.)
Go with the Ericson.
Guy
Having sailed both, I would prefer the E-39b. The 39B is faster, easier to sail (And even easier if you upgrade the necessary sail handling gear). More comfortable in a seaway, better looking, and in most cases far more bang for the buck. However both boats are older models and may require a lot of work in updating and fixing previous owners fixes!
I have seen a few Freya owner finished boats. As a rule owners are not Yacht designers, and really get it all tangled around when trying to design an interior that works. Most never even get close to a workable interior design. The fit and finish also in most cases of owner finished boats is far below the average production boat. (There are exceptions to this, but they are rare.)
The interior layout of the Ericsons, and all of the Bruce King designs that I have been on are far superior to most of the other boats out there. Bruce designed some of the best interiors that I have ever been to sea on. (Yes the 39-b is a combo effort between Ericson Yachts and Bruce, but it is a very nice and very workable offshore and coastal solution for a 39 foot boat.)
Go with the Ericson.
Guy
Ericson 39B vs Freya 39
Howdy again, Thanks for the response. I've always leaned toward the Ericson, one reason because of there following and Ericsonyachts.org One can't beat hands on experience. I used the Ted Brewer motion comfort formula, comfort ratio= Displacement lbs. / {0.65x (0.3 loa + 0.7 lwl) x B^1.333 From that I get the Ericson 39B @ 35 The Freya 39 @ 45 Being a complete novice those ten points seem like a lot. There must be alot of wiggle room in the formula, and I'am sure if the E boat is smoother there must be forces at work that I'll never understand. Thanks, D.y
Howdy again, Thanks for the response. I've always leaned toward the Ericson, one reason because of there following and Ericsonyachts.org One can't beat hands on experience. I used the Ted Brewer motion comfort formula, comfort ratio= Displacement lbs. / {0.65x (0.3 loa + 0.7 lwl) x B^1.333 From that I get the Ericson 39B @ 35 The Freya 39 @ 45 Being a complete novice those ten points seem like a lot. There must be alot of wiggle room in the formula, and I'am sure if the E boat is smoother there must be forces at work that I'll never understand. Thanks, D.y
Sven
Seglare
There are only a few
I think there were 19 (some say 20).
For obvious reasons I'd obviously vote for the E39B if you can find one.
The only interior issue is that there really isn't a place for a shower, if that is important to you.
The only design issue is that the stock rudder is too small. We're just having a new one made that is 14" deeper and has a few more inches forward to add some small degree of balance.
Otherwise, absolutely love the design and will follow her anywhere
-Sven
I think there were 19 (some say 20).
For obvious reasons I'd obviously vote for the E39B if you can find one.
The only interior issue is that there really isn't a place for a shower, if that is important to you.
The only design issue is that the stock rudder is too small. We're just having a new one made that is 14" deeper and has a few more inches forward to add some small degree of balance.
Otherwise, absolutely love the design and will follow her anywhere
-Sven
Homework
I'am just trying to do all the homework I can,ask all the questions I can, and listen all I can. I have read about the factory rudder, and improvements made by some owners. I'ed be real interested in hearing about yours when you give it a sea trial,or anything you have to add. I'am quite sure theres a photo of an improved 39 rudder on the net, the boat is "Sundowner" from what I recall. See thats why this is such a great site, all this shared information is invaluable. Well I do beleive I've narrowed the field/ocean of boats down to 1. Thanks again, D.y
I'am just trying to do all the homework I can,ask all the questions I can, and listen all I can. I have read about the factory rudder, and improvements made by some owners. I'ed be real interested in hearing about yours when you give it a sea trial,or anything you have to add. I'am quite sure theres a photo of an improved 39 rudder on the net, the boat is "Sundowner" from what I recall. See thats why this is such a great site, all this shared information is invaluable. Well I do beleive I've narrowed the field/ocean of boats down to 1. Thanks again, D.y
Sundowners rudder
Sundowner, a 39b does have a modified, but not improved rudder.
There are issues with the rudder design that Foss sells for the 39's however the easiest way to put it is that simply it does not steer the boat well.
There is a plan from Bruce King to make the rudder bigger, which we can get to you.
Guy
Sundowner, a 39b does have a modified, but not improved rudder.
There are issues with the rudder design that Foss sells for the 39's however the easiest way to put it is that simply it does not steer the boat well.
There is a plan from Bruce King to make the rudder bigger, which we can get to you.
Guy
Howdy Guy, I did read your story on the N.Z smack down,,,, no thanks !!! Sobering to say the least. It really made me think,, sea anchor. On that rudder. Yes , modified, not nessarly improved. Good point. There are a lot of dynamics involved there. I'ed like that rudder information if you would be so kind. Thanks everyone it's made my decisino to concentrate on the E39B more reasuring. Being totaly land locked here I can't walk the docks. When I was in Wis. I could drive the forty miles east to the Mckinley marina. Thanks everyone, D.y
Um, since when is a Valiant a full keel boat? Every one I've ever seen is fin keel, skeg hung rudder. And they aren't particularly slow either if the skipper has a clue. There are a few of 'em here on the Bay, they ain't J-Boats but they sure aren't full keel slugs either......
RT
RT
Sorry for any misunderstanding. I mentioned the V-40 only because of the particular sailing (cruising/voyaging) market that it was aimed at. It has a longer fin keel compared to the short chord ones on the higher performance designs. Skeg rudder rather than a spade.
For the 70's, it was rather a "radical" idea for a blue-water cruiser.
Some upstart designer named Robert Perry (!) pushing this design over all those derivatives of the Colin Archer legacy boats.
Perry's concept turned out to be fast, sea worthy, and as they say - the rest is history.
LB
Attachments
-
40small3.gif
Last edited:
DY wrote: Howdy again, Thanks for the response. I've always leaned toward the Ericson, one reason because of there following and Ericsonyachts.org One can't beat hands on experience. I used the Ted Brewer motion comfort formula, comfort ratio= Displacement lbs. / {0.65x (0.3 loa + 0.7 lwl) x B^1.333 From that I get the Ericson 39B @ 35 The Freya 39 @ 45 Being a complete novice those ten points seem like a lot. There must be alot of wiggle room in the formula, and I'am sure if the E boat is smoother there must be forces at work that I'll never understand. Thanks, D.y
DY, All of these formulae are certainly interesting (motion comfort, capsize ratio, etc.), but no serious cruiser uses them as primary factors for decisions about what boat to select. "Comfort" is subjective, and comes at the expense of performance, which is directly related to safety and seaworthiness. A poor performing boat which does not go to weather in a blow is certainly not seaworthy OR SAFE in my opinion, and I am not alone. I include many of the heavy, full keeled "classic" offshore designs in my list of "don't go there" boats.
The truth is that there is a spectrum with comfort at one end and performance at the other, and each sailor needs to decide where he/she wants to be on that line. Moreover, what is intolerable to one sailor is a nice day on the water to another.
So, don't put too much faith in that formula-it is information for sure, but take it with a grain of "salt".
The Capsize Ratio also is not 100% valid. There are a number of boats with poor enough numbers to suggest they are unsafe, and I would tell you to go look at them at the harbor, but many of them are in remote parts of the world completing a long passage! You get the point. ANY boat if improperly handled will get into serious trouble-regardless of any of the numbers they can claim with respect to these criteria.
Guy's points about the Freyas and the folks who build them are very right on, and at the end of the day, the 39/39B cannot be considered an extreme performance type-it is fairly heavy with a long-ish fin keel by today's standards, and these features help it be a good, comfortable offshore passagemaker while retaining the advantage of good speed and upwind ability. The Freya will never go upwind with a 39, and could give you a scare if you really need to go upwind in some rough stuff when compared to boats similar to an E 39. It will never make the # of miles on a 24 hour run that the 39 will, and this can be a factor as well....consider you are offshore and working your way around some nasty weather. an extra 30-40 miles a day may be enough to stay ahead of a front, or get out out of the path of something nasty. THIS has a bigger impact on comfort than a formula...
Sorry for the rant. Take Guy's advice!
Happy trails!
DY, All of these formulae are certainly interesting (motion comfort, capsize ratio, etc.), but no serious cruiser uses them as primary factors for decisions about what boat to select. "Comfort" is subjective, and comes at the expense of performance, which is directly related to safety and seaworthiness. A poor performing boat which does not go to weather in a blow is certainly not seaworthy OR SAFE in my opinion, and I am not alone. I include many of the heavy, full keeled "classic" offshore designs in my list of "don't go there" boats.
The truth is that there is a spectrum with comfort at one end and performance at the other, and each sailor needs to decide where he/she wants to be on that line. Moreover, what is intolerable to one sailor is a nice day on the water to another.
So, don't put too much faith in that formula-it is information for sure, but take it with a grain of "salt".
The Capsize Ratio also is not 100% valid. There are a number of boats with poor enough numbers to suggest they are unsafe, and I would tell you to go look at them at the harbor, but many of them are in remote parts of the world completing a long passage! You get the point. ANY boat if improperly handled will get into serious trouble-regardless of any of the numbers they can claim with respect to these criteria.
Guy's points about the Freyas and the folks who build them are very right on, and at the end of the day, the 39/39B cannot be considered an extreme performance type-it is fairly heavy with a long-ish fin keel by today's standards, and these features help it be a good, comfortable offshore passagemaker while retaining the advantage of good speed and upwind ability. The Freya will never go upwind with a 39, and could give you a scare if you really need to go upwind in some rough stuff when compared to boats similar to an E 39. It will never make the # of miles on a 24 hour run that the 39 will, and this can be a factor as well....consider you are offshore and working your way around some nasty weather. an extra 30-40 miles a day may be enough to stay ahead of a front, or get out out of the path of something nasty. THIS has a bigger impact on comfort than a formula...
Sorry for the rant. Take Guy's advice!
Happy trails!
Last edited:
Seth , That was'nt a Rant ,, It was good solid information, and I'am glad you put it in that perspective. What you wrote really hit home. Theres alot more to this than just pulling the sheet rope on my ice boat. All this is quite encourageing . I'am feeling more and more confident that the decision to find the E39B is the right one. From what I've read the interior layout is just what I had in mind. I'am getting the feeling that when I step aboard I'am going to like what I see, and what I feel. Thanks again for the Rant ! ha. Thanks, D.y
Thanks
I'm glad you got the perspective..This is more of a philospphical discussion than comparing the 39 or 39B to another boat. We could be talking about a Valiant 40, Peterson 44, Cal 39, or any number of somewhat modern, moderate fin keel boats which are built to take an offshore passage. They will all have their spot on the continuum, and all are some sort of compromise. The choice is never absolute and always subjective.
If you find a boat you like, and there have been examples of that boat doing long passages, you can bet the boat is up to the task (provided it is equipped and set up properly)..
Cheers
I'm glad you got the perspective..This is more of a philospphical discussion than comparing the 39 or 39B to another boat. We could be talking about a Valiant 40, Peterson 44, Cal 39, or any number of somewhat modern, moderate fin keel boats which are built to take an offshore passage. They will all have their spot on the continuum, and all are some sort of compromise. The choice is never absolute and always subjective.
If you find a boat you like, and there have been examples of that boat doing long passages, you can bet the boat is up to the task (provided it is equipped and set up properly)..
Cheers
CaptDan
Member III
Thanks everyone it's made my decisino to concentrate on the E39B more reasuring.
I'm not a blue water sailor, nor play one on tv. But, I've owned a full keel cruiser, sailed on several, and can compare those experiences to Ericsons - including a fine E39 I had the pleasure to sail a few years ago:
To me it's a no brainer - the E39 is top drawer in every aspect I deem important: handling, seaworthiness, speed, and aesthetics. There are some features I don't prefer relative to the Ericson I own - and they're very subjective - including the forward positioned helm station. However, I can see an advantage to that as well, particularly on a long, wet passage under a dodger.
To underscore what Guy said, I've been aboard a couple of Freya 39s - boats whose interiors were finished by their owners. Suffice it to say, I wasn't too impressed with the 'joinery' work.
Okay, enough subjectivity. Just my 2 cents - or whatever currency applies.
Capt Dan G>E35II "Kunu"
I'm not a blue water sailor, nor play one on tv.
But, I've owned a full keel cruiser, sailed on several, and can compare those experiences to Ericsons - including a fine E39 I had the pleasure to sail a few years ago:To me it's a no brainer - the E39 is top drawer in every aspect I deem important: handling, seaworthiness, speed, and aesthetics. There are some features I don't prefer relative to the Ericson I own - and they're very subjective - including the forward positioned helm station. However, I can see an advantage to that as well, particularly on a long, wet passage under a dodger.
To underscore what Guy said, I've been aboard a couple of Freya 39s - boats whose interiors were finished by their owners. Suffice it to say, I wasn't too impressed with the 'joinery' work.
Okay, enough subjectivity. Just my 2 cents - or whatever currency applies.
Capt Dan G>E35II "Kunu"
Last edited: