• Untitled Document

    Join us on March 29rd, 7pm EST

    for the CBEC Virtual Meeting

    All EYO members and followers are welcome to join the fun and get to know the guest speaker!

    See the link below for login credentials and join us!

    March Meeting Info

    (dismiss this notice by hitting 'X', upper right)

Ericson 29 Hull & Deck Reinforcement

jkenan

Member III
I am considering puchasing a 1977 Ericson 29. I would be using this boat for limited coastal cruising along the southeast. Expect to be at times 40-50 miles offshore with the possibility for heavier weather.

I know it is a strong boat, with a heaver displacement, and I am interested in knowing what makes it strong.

Does anyone have any information on hull lay-up, resins used, stringer/girder configuration or any other reinforcement used in hull lay-up?

Regarding the deck, what is thickness of total deck vs. thickness of balsa? Any issues with compression around mast step? Is there a tendancy for crazing around hardware fittings that take stress? In manufacturing, were deck through-holes drilled through balsa or laminate (I know winches are reinforced with sandwiched plywood). Is this boat's deck susceptible to delamination or water intrusion to balsa core?

Finally, are there any issues with hull-to-deck joint being glassed and not fastened?

I can't any of this information on all the resources available on this site, and would appreciate anyone's knowledge on these subjects.

Thanks in advance.

John
 

Seth

Sustaining Partner
29

This will be a good choice for you.
The hull is solid glass, and was built in the days before we knew how little we could get away with, and I would say that the hull is "overbuillt".

The balsa coring in the deck is a proven way to maintain stiffness while saving weight, and as long as it has not been compromised, should pose no real problems. There CAN be an issue around the mast step area-inspect carefully.

Regarding the hull/deck joint, it is VERY strong-both the hull and deck have outward facing flanges during production. The deck is laid down and bolted through (with sealant in between). The 2 halves are then generously glassed together on the INSIDE, and once it has set up, the bolts and most of the flange are cut off-leaving just enough of a "lip" to attach the rubrail to.

Provided there has been no damage to the joint-it is virtually a one-piece boat!

Enjoy!

S
 

jkenan

Member III
Thanks Seth.

Regarding the mast step, the main problem I could think of would be deck sagging. If so, wouldn't that also point to a weakness in the keel floors under the mast support? (question: are there any keel floors, or any other type of structural grid for that matter, or is the hull stiffened by the interior liner)? A good indicator of this problem would be the rig becoming loose over time.

Another mast step issue I could see would be having a balsa sandwich construction under the mast step (it should be solid laminate there), and heaving crazing or cracks in that area could be a good indicator of crushed balsa underneath. Do you know if balsa is under mast?

Thanks for your input!

John
 

gareth harris

Sustaining Member
I have not ripped up an E29, but from the exterior they look similar to my E35 deck set up, so this may be valid for you.
Under the mast is a steel plate, which sits on top of plywood strips. The plywood extends about a foot in every direction from the mast base before it becomes balsa. Beneath the plywood there is obviously solid fibreglass to the mahogony post in the cabin, which extends to the cabing sole. Below that, there is a plywood block glassed to the hull above the keel.

Ericsons in general were well built boats, so even if what I have written does not apply to the E29, you do not need to worry about basic construction. What you do need to pay close attention to is how much attention has been paid by past owners to keeping the water out of the deck, as all the deck fittings were drilled right through (or into, in the case of the handrails) the coring; and being that age, there could be major rot/delamination problems if there has been neglect, especially with the boat being in a high rainfall area like most of the south east.

Gareth
Freyja E35 #241 1972
 

jkenan

Member III
Thanks for the info Gareth (btw, nice looking beer. If I ever meet you, I'll buy you one).

Does anyone know if the E29 has the steel plate under the mast which Gareth speaks of?

I also spoke to a former Ericson dealer who dealt Ericson's in the 70's (I'm hiring him to do the survey), and he thought, but was not completely certain, that there is no structural grid in the E29 but was reinforced with the interior liner being tabbed to the hull. This was disappointing to me, not that I'll be crossing oceans, but you never know what you may find yourself in. I know the older hulls were probably overbuilt, but if there is anything else structurally 'built' into the hull and deck, I'm all ears.

I'll be going up to do my own inspection this weekend. If people know of other specific things to look for with the E29, please pass it along. I'll add it to my list.

Thanks.

John
 

Dave G

Member II
John,

I have a 1971 E-29, had the mast down this past year during haul out. I replaced the mast plate as it was badly carroded. I did not find any eveidence of a steel plate inside the deck when I drilled holes to mount the new mast plate. Appeared to be glass/plywood sandwhich directly under the mast.

Biggest issue I discovered was the original fuel tank was paper thin and ready to have a major leak at any moment. I replaced it with a custom made aluminum tank. Other issues have been relativly minor cosmetic stuff and some funky wiring by previous owners.

We've had the boat for 2 year now and have been really pleased, very strong stable boat.

Dave
E-29 Spirit
 

jkenan

Member III
I spent the weekend putting 800 miles on my car to see the E29 in question, and by doing so, answered alot of my own questions... and of course, came up with more questions.

As to hull reinforcement - I was very pleased to see a form of stringer used with bonding the interior liner to the hull - the seams that join the interior seats/v-berth/q-berth (and everything along that level) to the hull use a convex, hollow stringer in glassing the liner to hull. With all other joints, almost everything else is tabbed perpendicular. I say 'almost', because, in the majority of areas (I'd guess about 70%), the joint was tabbed, and in other areas, it was not but seemed like it should have been (if I were to take this boat offshore for any considerable distance, I would go ahead and tab all joints). Question - Is there a reason why some joints where liner or bulkhead meets hull are not tabbed?

Seth and Gareth pointed to the mast step issue, to which I paid close attention. Surprisingly, there was no block or other structure underneath the teak mast support to put the load on the keel, and looking into the bilges under the mast support, I could see clearly that the cabin sole was deflected from bearing this load. The deck around the step did not look sunken at all, which also surprised me given this fact. Question - can I just put a block there and expect everthing to be OK, or should I glass it in, or what?

Another area of concern were the chainplates. A previous owner had wrapped the chainplates with paper towels and then used duct tape to keep them there, which points a lead, probably due to a bedding failure on deck (later inspection confirmed this belief). Question - assuming overall laminate is relatively dry, which it seems to be, can water intrusion along chainplate weaken chainplate bond? I couldn't see down far enough to see how chainplates were bonded to hull with elbows mentioned in a prior thread. Can anyone give more info on how these elbows are constructed/bonded? Has anyone had a chainplate bond fail?

Lastly, most areas of the hull under the water line seemed pretty tight, but one area, about 2/3 of the way down from the bow on the port side (about where the ice box is), was slightly deflectable with just a little pressure of the hand. Tapping on the hull still sounded bright. Has anyone else noticed this deflection? I would be concerned about oilcanning in rougher seas...

Those are the major things. Thanks in advance for any insight anyone can offer. It seems like a good boat overall, but structural issues are definitely a big deal.

John
 

jkenan

Member III
Another questions on the E29 chainplates - I was reading the "E35 Purchase advice" thread, and subject of leaky chainplates came up there as well. Does anyone know if the E29 chainplates go through Balsa? On looking at the underside of the deck where chainplates come through hull, it looked like the balsa may have stopped an inch or so before chainplates, but I wasn't sure. Anyone?

Thanks.

John
 

Seth

Sustaining Partner
29

Hard to comment on the area under the mast support without seeing it. Regarding the chainplates, my biggest worry (the deck leak is pretty straightforward) is whether the actual bulkhead has weakend(rotted) from water streaming down and into the bolt holes where the c/p is bolted through the bulkhead. This is somewhat common and obviously serious(but fixable). I would do a core sample of the bulkhead in this area.

The softspot along the side should be nothing more than an area of the liner not being well supported, but this is not structural.
Note that in the liner boats (pre TAFG), this liner is not structural-except to some degree in a very few areas. Don't confuse this as being anything similar to the structural grid the later models have. Not a bad thing-just different.

Sound like a good one, though- enjoy!
Fair winds,
S
 

jkenan

Member III
Seth- I made detailed photos of the mast post support issue, as well as the chainplate issue. I can e-mail them to you if you are interested.

Are the E29 chainplates for the center shroud fastened to the bulkhead? What about the fore and aft shrouds (someone mentioned elbows)? How would I check for water damage. I couldn't see any way to access these areas for a visual.

Thanks.

John
 

Joe Benedict

Member II
E29 Chainplates

Sorry for jumping in at the end here but I'm a little confused as this boat sounds different than my 1977 E29. On my boat, the chainplates (all 6) are glassed directly into the hull. There are some reports of them rusting and snapping where the metal meets the fiberglass. Basically they are this T shaped piece of stainless that was bent to form the angle up to the mast. The chainplate cover on deck is just to keep water out - it is not structural as the load is carried completely by the glassed in chainplate - I asked the surveyor this question. The deck is cored with balsa where the chainplate goes through. As for access, the port ones are accessed by removing the upper raceway mahagoney paneling in the clothing closet and, if necessary, the panel in the main cabin just aft of the closet. The starboard side is accessed by removing the raceway paneling in the main cabin. I didn't have to remove the paneling in the water closet. As for leaking the biggest hidden problem I have found is water damage to the aft bulkheads of both closets. These bulkheads are "free floating" so it is not as critical as on some vessels where the chainplates are bolted to them. Does this help or confuse?
 

jkenan

Member III
Joe-

Your explanation is clear, and this helps immensley! It's not encouraging having duct tape and paper towels on chainplates below deck. That definitely implies a leak, and since the chainplates go through balsa as you say, there could be a problem with decks. It's a shame, such an easy thing to fix.

Would you be able to see where the chainplates were rusted (presumably also the point at which they would break) by removing the raceway panels as you've described, or could the rust exist behind where the chainplates are laminated to the hull? If chainplates looked clean, could I assume they were OK? Would you also expect a moisture reading in that area to be high, even if the boat was on the hard for 4 months and covered?

Finally, would water damage be on the inside of the bulkhead, or the side exposed to the main salon?

Thanks for the input.

John
 

gareth harris

Sustaining Member
When I asked a rigger to inspect my chainplates, he said the only way to do it for sure was to X-ray them, a cheaper but less thorough method was to dye them and inspect with a microscope.
The money he wanter was almost the same cost as replacing them, so I took them to a machine shop, who looked with a magnifying glass and said they looked OK, but welded a plate to the back of them near the top for extra security. They then got destroyed when my mast tangled with another during the hurricane, so I replaced them then.

The upshot of all this is you can not assume anything about them, as metal fatigue is as damaging as rust. I know of owners of the Ericson models with glassed in chainplates (unlike my E35) who have modified their rig to go offshore by having chainplates made that bolt to the hull.

Gareth
Freyja #35 #241 1972
 

jkenan

Member III
Point well taken, and you are absolutely right about not being able to assume anything. A visual will have to suffice for the chainplates (I like the welded reinforcement), and the main concern will be wet decks, which is an easy thing to test.

Thanks.

John
 

Joe Benedict

Member II
E29 Chainplates

Gareth's solution sounds like a viable option for an E35 but a bit problematic given the confined area for the location on an E29. I would be interested in a further explanation of the bolt through option. Metal fatigue is an issue best off explained by experts. Stainless shouldn't rust unless it was of poor quality or was damaged during manufacture. In the case of the E29 it is my understanding that the chainplate was manufactured and then bent. You are going through the same angst I went through so I would suggest you retain a qualified marine surveyor. There are several organizations that certify this profession and the cost is not that great. As for the bulkhead, on the port side the water found its way along the slot the wood fits into on the hull, traveled down and rotted the area on the sittee where your feet fit into the clothing closet and on the forward part on the inside of the clothing closet. On the starboard side, the water followed the same slot but ended up behind the table storage area. Finally on one of the chainplates I used tape as a backing while I applied sealer from above. (Had no help that day.) Thanks for reminding me to remove it.
 

Seth

Sustaining Partner
boltWHAT?

Hold on cowboys~!

Bolting chainplates to the hull will not buy you anything in terms of increased safety or strengh-it will likely result in a loss of same. Rigging loads (especially on boats designed for inboard sheeting like most Eboats) must be tied to a structural member of the boat (like the bulkheads or TAFG).
On boats designed with outboard chainplates which are attached to the hull, the hull has a HUGE reinforcing plate in those areas-Ericsons don't. The cost of this, combined with the loss of proper sheeting angles (as King intended) will only hurt the boat!

To beef up, the idea is to make sure the boat is strong AS DESIGNED-if this means repalceing a bulkhead and/or reglassing it to the hull, so be it. At that point, things like enlarging the chainplate portion which bolts through the bulkhead (extending it downward) become reasonable "improvements". Doubling up the mast supports, installing a deck tie down (if not already there), and beefing up the deck around the mast step (if deck stepped) pretty much rounds out the things worth doing. Beyond that, have the rigging inspected, consider running backstays (on some models), and move on to non-rig related offshore improvements.

Fair winds,
S
 

gareth harris

Sustaining Member
Seth - the only boat I have looked at up close with that modification was an E41, which had been used extensively for offshore racing. Chainplates had been made up for the outside of the hull, and some extra reinforcement (I do not remember exactly what) added to the hull on the inside.
To me, the idea of chainplates being glassed in, where salt water will inevitably leak down from above and bathe them permanently, and the chainplates can not be inspected at all, just seems a bad idea in a boat going into mature years. I know one 1970s E29 owner who lost his rig after a chainplate sheared. I agree that changing something like that is not something to be left to a cowboy, but when done properly....
Good point about the sheeting angle, reinstalling the chainplates to their original location would certainly be preferable, I do not remember why it was not done that way on the boat I looked at.
I vaguely remember someone on this site talking about doing it to an E29 sometime back, but I do not remember any specifics.

Gareth
Freyja E35 #241 1972
 

jkenan

Member III
I understand the risk of being a cowboy since they are a dying breed...

Do the bolt-on chainplates have to be external? Couldn't replacements exist in exactly the same form and position as the OEM designed chainplates, in the exact same contact with the hull, and also with the same sheeting angles? The difference would be that there are holes in them for thru-hull bolts, and the reinforcement would come from a much larger piece of marine plywood or other substrate glassed into the interior of the hull over them, with bolts going through the whole shebang.

Hmmm. Maybe I am a cowboy.

Will I die (from doing this)?

John
 

gareth harris

Sustaining Member
Since that is not a modification I have made on my boat, this discussion is getting outside my area of knowledge. The E29 owner who lost his rig I will try to contact for his thoughts.
I would talk to a rigger at a reputable yard where they are very familiar with sailboats, and if they give you a warm fuzzy feeling, get them to make the modification.
I intrinsically agree with what Seth said above, what I disagree with is based on the fact that I do not like glassed in chainplates. Several people in the boating industry have told me that replacing chainplates that were originally glassed to the inside of the hull with chainplates bolted through the hull, either inside or outside, is a suitable modification, but free advice is worth what you pay for it.

Gareth
Freyja E35 #241 1972
 

jkenan

Member III
I appreciate what both Seth and you have said, and agree with a conservative approach to such modifications. My suggestions were strictly intended to spur discussion of possible solutions to a possible problem, and not recommendations on what should be done. One of the greatest aspects of this type of discussion board is the sharing of innovative ideas. When you are dealing with a 25+ year old boat you want to last another 25 years, innovation is key.

Also, I thank you and Seth for your active discussion in this thread. I have received a great deal of the information I was seeking through your input and others who have joined as well.

John
 
Top