Got Design Questions?

[celtium]

E-38's

Hi Martin,

First of all, thank you for the project you are doing. Chronicling his work is very thoughtful and I think an honor to him and his work.

I have a 1989 38-200, oddly enough,berthed directly beside me is an earlier model 38, I think 83 or so.

Obviously I look at each one looking for differences , a couple things I've seen...my shear at the bow seems higher, my stern seems more vertical and narrower, the steering quadrants are totally different. (And I won't mention the obviuos interior layout design changes.) First, am I correct, and what other design changes were made to the 38 series?

So...a history of the 38's evolution...also, confirmation to the forum opinion if any were built south of the border might be interesting as well.

I have been a huge Ericson fan for years! My first was a 1973 27', then an 81 35 MK II, now my 38-200...Salute Bruce King!

Thanks - Jay
E 38-200
SF Bay

 

[richwilson]

I would be interested to know why the E31 and E36 were the only boats designed in that more "traditional" style. They are so different from the other Ericson designs!

-Rich
E31 Hull 66
Channel Islands, CA

 

[steven]

I sold Ericsons for Albatross in the mid 70s. Fell in love with the E35-2, so now I have one. Wondered then, as now, under what conditions the double-headed configuration made sense. A couple of brochure pictures show the rig - but I never sold one or saw one in real life.

--Steve

 

[Cory B]

Keels and Masts

Martin,

I've notice on our 35-3, and a friends 38-200 that there is a hollow in the keel about 3/4 of the way back (if you put a straight-edge on it). Its symetrical and on both sides. Was this by design or just a common casting flaw? Also, I've heard various things, but why a "Delta" keel shape?

On the masts of most of the 80's boats, the top couple feet is tapered. Does this really make a discernible difference, or was this a marketing decision that "tapered masts are sexier!" ?

And almost all the Ericsons I've seen have huge foretriangles. I know IOR influenced the designs of the day, but I'd like to hear BK's take on how all that played together, and any "compromises" he felt he had to make in the boats.

And I have to add that most the BK designed boats have a certain "flow" to the lines that most other, newer, faster, and "better" designs lack. Not to dis on the RH Ericson designs which have their own plusses, but even with their "Ericson branding" they don't look quite right when sitting next to a BK design.

Thanks for letting us ask.

 

[Brass Dragon]

Design questions

Martin
I would very much like to hear about the evolution of the 36C design. there is not much information about this boat. I believe B King sailed a 36C for a time so would also be interested in the commentary good and bad; how its performance faired against his design vision. Specifically, I would like to know how he felt about the cockpit and if he developed alternative cockpit layouts. The interior layout was also complete departure from contempories of the day worthy of comment.

Dave Gane
s/v Brass Dragon (36C)

 

[Martin King]

Well I'm back from my visit, and will try to plow through some of these
questions. Suffice to say I will not be able to address everything but
might shed some light on some dimly lit corners of Ericson products.

Why were some of the Ericsons designed as masthead rigs, and others like the E30+ designed as fractional rigs? What governs that decision?

Where the rig is placed in the boat determines if it's fractional or not. This
has to do with the CLR, CE, and other factors to do with balancing the
helm.

3) In retrospect, what major design feature would Mr. King re-do if he were designing these boats today?

Nothing major.

4) What led to development of the delta keel, which was quite different from others at that time?

The delta keel was developed using identical lasers as trial horses. They
were equipped with different keel configs. and the delta was significantly
faster. They went straight to production based on this "test" although
tank testing was done later.

5) What modifications would Mr. King suggest as being highest priority on each of the E models now?

Great question. To get maximum lifespan out of the hull, proper barrier
coating procedures are the highest priority. This includes proper
drying of the laminate using a moisture meter to ensure this. Also
proper bedding of deck fittings is important too. Maine Sail did a
great write-up on this site on this.

6) The TAFG (sp?) makes it difficult to access wiring, plumbing and other aspects in the hull. Any suggestions to remedy this? Would he design this the same way now

The TAFG was actually designed by David Pedrick.

How did the Ericson cove stripe come to be agreed upon?

That's the look he developed for Ericson after a couple designs had
been built.

what happened to the Ericson 50 or 51 design, which was mentioned in some of the early marketing material but that never got built?

The 51 was designed and tank tested but management pulled the plug
on building it. Later it was stretched a little and became the Islander
55.

Thoughts about deck stepped versus keel stepped designs and intended boat use- were we deck stepped on the I31 as part of an offshore orientation so we could loose the rig and not have a hole in our cabin?

This is true regarding deck stepped, however when a rig comes down,
it usually folds over and a stump remains so having a deck hole during
keel stepped dismastings is not a problem.

How much did the bean counters alter the original designs?

This is too generic a question. Which design are we talking about? Ericson
was always trying to save a buck by altering existing tooling to produce a
"new" boat in the line.

His three favorite designs that Ericson built.

He liked different models for different reasons and it's hard to choose. When asked
what is your favorite design, he always used to say "the next one".

That's about it for this session.

 

[C Masone]

Martin

It is great to have Bruce's son here on the board with us, thanks for your input. Your architectural photography is outstanding, do you have any marine photography to share with us?

 

[gareth harris]

I have read a number of times that the rudder on the E35 was not the Bruce King design, but a cost saving duplicate of the E32. My questions would be firstly whether this is true, and secondly, what the specs for the ideal rudder would be.

Gareth
Freyja E35 #241 1972

 

[Martin King]

Session 2

Picking up where I left off.

1) On the face of it, there are lots of similarities between the E25, E25+, E26, and E27. How does a designer find ways of adding differentiatable functions/features when working in one foot increments?

You have to remember that the different Ericson models were designed
over many years. Whenever the management felt there was a "hole"
in the line, they would fill that void either by commisioning a new
design, or modifying an existing mold to create a new boat. It's not
surprising that there are similarities.

In his opinion, did Ericson's Mexican production boats have any substantial quality differences from the California boats?

No.

Was the Ericson 30-1 first laid up in two separate sections, or was it laid up in one piece?

The 30-1 was done in a 2 part mold.

Second question, and this is definitely design, can he comment on the evolution of the keel and rudder designs?

The early boats like the 41 have that CCA shape to the keel. This was
in vogue at the time. The 70's boats were IOR influenced and we see
the appearance of the bustle at aft end. Tank testing did much to help
see what was really going on below the waterline. The 80's boats had
the delta keel. Options like shoal and deep draft were offered as they
had switched to external bolt on keels by this time.

Principal Partner
I think it would be nice to know which ericson models were original designs and which were expanded or shrunken versions of another design. I have heard that Ericson did this.

Sorry, but I cannot comment on this except to say that he wasn't
happy when this occured.

What was the best idea the designer had that never made it into production?

I don't know about the best idea. Some of the boats were expensive to
build and we see that bit by bit, the factory" value engineering" the products.
An example of this is the disappearance of an inward turning hull flange and
through bolted toerail replaced with an outward turning flange covered with a
plastic rubrail.

Was there competition with the other designers for working with companies, or a gentleman's agreement that designs would not 'butt' in?

I don't think there was any gentlemans agreement. It was a free
market and you lived or died by your work. If your designs sold well,
then you lived to draw another day.

Did Mr. King get together with his peer and exchange ideas?

Never. R&D was jealously guarded, and competition from other
manufacturers was fierce.

If a high school student wanted to follow in his steps, what would he suggest, schools, apprenticeships, .....?

When asked this, he laughed and said they should pick another career.
He is first to admit that he was extremely fortunate to be in the right
place at the right time. I will add he also was extremely talented.

Basically I would like to know what makes his design of an interior so much better than other designers, which I will allow to be nameless. Can he put into words what goes on in his head?

Well that's flattering but in small boats, there is only so much you can
do with the interior. Basically the Ericson's have standard layouts with
a couple of options. I think they did very nice interiors for a production
boat.

Performance-wise, then, I would like to know if Mr. King agrees with me that the fore & aft weight distribution is one of the primary "cons" of the hull design and if he can answer why the engineering team would put the forward water tank in that position knowing its potential effect on sailing performance.

On a small boat, you don't have many options for water tank locations.
Usually, they are under the berths.

That's it for this session.

 

[Loren Beach]

Picking up where I left off.


I don't know about the best idea. Some of the boats were expensive to
build and we see that bit by bit, the factory" value engineering" the products.
An example of this is the disappearance of an inward turning hull flange and
through bolted toerail replaced with an outward turning flange covered with a
plastic rubrail.

<snip>
That's it for this session.

On this one engineering point... one of construction details that attracted us to our first keel boat, the Ray Richards-designed Ranger 20, in the mid 70's, was the thru-bolted hull to deck joint on an inward hull flange. We looked for this feature in a next boat and found it in the Hinterhoeller-designed (and built) Niagara 26. Bought that in the 80's and kept it ten years. I know that all hull-deck connections can be good, depending on construction/engineering details, but I was thrilled to find that joint on our present E-built Olson. On this and the prior Niagara I have rebedded one (1) seeping bolt on each craft in the total time of ownership.

Having said that, I do approve of the Ericson system with roving applied on the inside to permanently joint the parts. This beats the heck out of some unnamed builders that used rivets and sealant on their "coffee can joint", and have left their owners to fight leaks forever... and sometimes... worse.

Thanks again for the very informative posts.

Regards,
Loren

 

[Martin King]

Having said that, I do approve of the Ericson system with roving applied on the inside to permanently joint the parts.

The joint appears to be as structurally sound as any other.

The point being made is that with a toerail, particularly a wooden one, you needed
skilled shipwrights to build and install it. With the outward flange method, you
just put some polyester mush on it, plopped on the deck and shot
in some sheetmetal screws along the rubrail to cover the joint. Semi-
skilled labor could do it in much less time. Badda bing!

 

[Roger]

In my opinion, a robustly bonded hull-deck joint such as that on the later Ericsons is superior to a bolted joint. A proper joint should be as strong as the adjoining hull and deck, which I believe it was on the Ericsons. Bolt holes can leak or develop stress cracks over time. Of course, an aluminum or wooden toerail necessitates the use of bolts.

www.rbrown-navalarchitect.com

 

[Martin King]

In my opinion, a robustly bonded hull-deck joint such as that on the later Ericsons is superior to a bolted joint

Uhm, just to be clear, Ericsons had the flanges bonded together with
thickened resin regardless of whether it was to have a toerail or not.
Structural integrity here was not the issue.

 

[Roger]

Ericsons had the flanges bonded together with
thickened resin regardless of whether it was to have a toerail or not.

Perhaps on the older Ericsons. On the newer models built in the 80’s (26, 28, 32-3, 34, 38), the horizontal flange was cut off, leaving only about ¼” so that the small aluminum rubrail extrusion could fit over it. The internal joint bond, which consisted of fiberglass tapes centered over the joint, was responsible for the entire strength of the joint. No thickened resin, aka mish-mash, was used other than a small amount to smooth any gaps in the joint prior to bonding.

I do have an anecdote about production streamlining /cost cutting winning out over aesthetics, at least temporarily. When we tooled the E32-3, the decision was made to make the sheer stripe flush with the hull rather than standing it off a bit. This made it much quicker to mask off the stripe in the mold, and also saved a lot of gelcoat touchup time. Admittedly it took a bit away from the aesthetics.

When Bruce saw the sheer stripe on the 32, he wasn’t happy, but it was too late to change on that model. The profile drawing for the next new model we produced, the E28, contained a note which I can recall almost verbatim to this day: “SHEER STRIPE DAMN WELL BETTER STAND PROUD BY 1/8” “. All subsequent models had a sheer stripe that stood off.

www.rbrown-navalarchitect.com

 

[Martin King]

Session 3

Forward Steel Floor: I have what appear to be the original bulkheads at the forward end of the salon area. The steel floor there was never bolted to the port side bulkhead (no holes ever bored in bulkhead) and the steel floor also stopped short of the starboard bulkhead. Is the cored hull stiff enough to take the loads imposed here without the steel floor?

I didn't really cover this, but having owned a 39, I do vaguely recall
that the bulkheads were tied into the steel sub floor. Maybe Guy
can jump in on this one.

2) Galley bulkhead chainplates: What is the purpose of the chainplates that tie the bulkheads to the deck just forward of the galley? Is it to counter uplift from the inner headsail track loads or maybe the traveller?

Those chainplates are there to tie the deck in to those aft bulkheads.

Rudder tube: Would it be a good idea to reinforce the rudder tube on the 39?

Absolutely. The rudder tube on my own 39 cracked off right where it
met the hull! I reglassed the whole thing using epoxy.

The glassed in models were the 30-1, 41, 29, and the earlier non-King boats? They started bolting chainplates to bulkheads beginning with the 32-2? What was the rationale for glassing in chainplates and why the change?

Glassing in chainplates was a pretty bulletproof method of attaching them.
Whether it was glassed in, or bolted had much to do with where the
bulkheads were located in a particular boat. On many Ericsons like the
39 we were discussing, it was a combination of both.

Assuming this was discusssed, what did boatbuilers believe the functional lives of these boats to be back in the 1960s and 70s?

Nobody really knew back then.

I have an Ericson 30 (hull 123) and was wondering what the makeup or composition is of the beam in the cabin top under the mast step. Mine has flexed some and I am considering installing a support post.
__________________

Typically, Ericson used plywood instead of balsa in the deck sandwich
in high stressed areas.

So...a history of the 38's evolution...also, confirmation to the forum opinion if any were built south of the border might be interesting as well.

Well, a history on the 38 models would exceed the space I have here. Some
of the differences have been covered in previous threads. There were lots
of iterations.

I would be interested to know why the E31 and E36 were the only boats designed in that more "traditional" style. They are so different from the other Ericson designs

In the mid 70's, management was hot to get other big "names" in the
business. So they brought in Ron Holland and David Pedrick. Ron got to
do the racer/cruisers and Bruce was tasked with doing the cruising
division. Go figure. Anyway the results were pretty unique among
production cruising boats, combining a traditional aspect above the
waterline with a modern fin keel below. This style would serve him
well in the large custom cruising boats that were to follow soon after.

I sold Ericsons for Albatross in the mid 70s. Fell in love with the E35-2, so now I have one. Wondered then, as now, under what conditions the double-headed configuration made sense. A couple of brochure pictures show the rig - but I never sold one or saw one in real life.

The photo in the brochure is Doc Holliday's 35-2 Aquarius. Hull #1. The
staysail was an option. Many west coast races are sailed in light air
with long weather legs. Typical Ericsons were set up to perform well
in these conditions with tall rigs and high aspect sails. Aquarius is a
classic example of this.

 

[Martin King]

session 4

I've notice on our 35-3, and a friends 38-200 that there is a hollow in the keel about 3/4 of the way back (if you put a straight-edge on it). Its symetrical and on both sides. Was this by design or just a common casting flaw? Also, I've heard various things, but why a "Delta" keel shape?

Yes, the keels are a NACA profile and that slight hollow should be there. I
addressed the Delta keel earlier-it was developed using Lasers as
trial horses and later tank tested.

On the masts of most of the 80's boats, the top couple feet is tapered. Does this really make a discernible difference, or was this a marketing decision that "tapered masts are sexier!" ?

Tapering masts is nothing new. Anytime you can reduce weight aloft,
you see big gains in stability.

I would very much like to hear about the evolution of the 36C design. there is not much information about this boat. I believe B King sailed a 36C for a time so would also be interested in the commentary good and bad; how its performance faired against his design vision. Specifically, I would like to know how he felt about the cockpit and if he developed alternative cockpit layouts. The interior layout was also complete departure from contempories of the day worthy of comment.

Yes, he owned a 36C for a time. Even before I did this interview, I
asked him about that cockpit. He just said that he was able to do a
generous cockpit because of all the room in the aft end
of that boat. I didn't hear about any alternative layouts. The interior
on that boat mimicked what was done on Unicorn with the aft cabin.
Once again, he had the room there as this was to be a pure cruiser,
with no rating rules to influence the shape. The boat more than met
expectations but was expensive to produce as was the 31C. As a side
note, hull #1 was named New Leif, and christened by my mom.

 

[treilley]

Yes, the keels are a NACA profile and that hollow should be there. I
addressed the Delta keel earlier-it was developed using Lasers as
trial horses and later tank tested.

I don't think mine has that. I know a previous owner had contacted Foss about fairing the keel and rudder. Maybe the hollow is filled in on my boat. I will confirm once the boat is hauled in Nov.

 

[Sven]

Hi Martin,

I'm curious why there are soft iron (?) partial bulkheads (there is probably another structural term for them) in the E39s and E39Bs. I'm asking because I think our forward one is pretty shot and I'm trying to figure out its function and why is it iron. I'm tempted to conclude that really heavy FG transverse stringers in the same area, carried out as far as the sole allows, would be just as strong if the purpose is just to hold the two hull halves together. However, maybe there is another reason for the iron "bulkhead" that would not be served by such FG reinforcements ?

Thanks for digging into the history.


-Sven

 

[Martin King]

I don't think mine has that. I know a previous owner had contacted Foss about fairing the keel and rudder. Maybe the hollow is filled in on my boat. I will confirm once the boat

Tim,
It could be, we are talking very slight hollow if memory serves. There
also could be slight casting anomalies between keels that could account
for it, or god knows what else. I've seen yard personel get very
aggressive with grinders and mess up an otherwise fair hull. Really the
only way to tell for sure is with accurate templates.

 

[Martin King]

I'm curious why there are soft iron (?) partial bulkheads (there is probably another structural term for them) in the E39s and E39Bs. I'm asking because I think our forward one is pretty shot and I'm trying to figure out its function and why is it iron. I'm tempted to conclude that really heavy FG transverse stringers in the same area, carried out as far as the sole allows, would be just as strong if the purpose is just to hold the two hull halves together. However, maybe there is another reason for the iron "bulkhead" that would not be served by such FG reinforcements ?

Thanks for digging into the history.

Sven,

The steel beams in your boat were an attempt to anchor the bulkheads
and stiffen up the boat. This was replaced in later models with the
fiberglass grid-a network of stringers and floors glassed
into the hull. I don't think anybody at the time was thinking about
how the boat would age some 30 years into the future.

I realize that I couldn't answer everyone's questions. Some areas
he really didn't want to discuss at all and other areas we're going
pretty far back-some 40 years. I hope I was able in a small way
to provide a little clarity.