-
Untitled Document Join us on November 22nd, 7pm EDT
for the CBEC Virtual Meeting
Adventures & Follies
All EYO members and followers are welcome to join the fun and get to know the people you've met online!
See the link below for login credentials and join us!
(dismiss this notice by hitting 'X', upper right)
Got Design Questions?
- Thread starter Martin King
- Start date
Bill Upchurch
Member II
Martin,
Thanks for the invaluable information. We are indeed fortunate to have access to you.
Thanks for the invaluable information. We are indeed fortunate to have access to you.
Sven
Seglare
Hugh,
Did you actually mean to write steel floor ? If by floor you meant sole I thought it was teak (plywood) in our E39B but now you have me wondering if there is steel under the visible sole ?
I do know there is a corroded iron/steel frame (partial bulkhead) ahead of the mast but wasn't aware of any other such construction details so I'm eager to hear the answer.
Thanks,
-Sven
Did you actually mean to write steel floor ? If by floor you meant sole I thought it was teak (plywood) in our E39B but now you have me wondering if there is steel under the visible sole ?
I do know there is a corroded iron/steel frame (partial bulkhead) ahead of the mast but wasn't aware of any other such construction details so I'm eager to hear the answer.
Thanks,
-Sven
HughHarv
Hugh
Sven, we're talking about the same steel floor/frame, no steel in the sole to my knowledge. My forward floor/frame was soo rusty the center section was crumbling to pieces and making a big mess so I removed it. Am now considering what options to take to replace the frame. Could make a replacement of G-10 or regular fiberglass, or maybe just do some extra tabbing of the bulkheads to tie things in better. Would be interesting to hear what you'll do on yours.
E35 vs E35 MKII vs E35 MKIII
Hello All...
I own a 1985 E35 MKIII Tall Rig, hull #211, "Mr Toad". (formerly "Molly May")
Can anyone tell me the differences between an E35 vs E35 MKII vs E35 MKIII?
I am asked this question often and am starting to get a complex when my response is not much more than a blank stare.
Please help!
Thanks,
Steve Wallace
Campbell River, BC.
Hello All...
I own a 1985 E35 MKIII Tall Rig, hull #211, "Mr Toad". (formerly "Molly May")
Can anyone tell me the differences between an E35 vs E35 MKII vs E35 MKIII?
I am asked this question often and am starting to get a complex when my response is not much more than a blank stare.
Please help!
Thanks,
Steve Wallace
Campbell River, BC.
treilley
Sustaining Partner
The 35 is an Alberg design while the other two are Bruce King designs. If you look at all 3 side by side you will see similarities in the II and III and they are nothing like the traditional looking original 35. The III is definitely an evolution of the II. I think a little more thought was put into the III's interior. I will let Martin chime in here.
35 differences
Thanks, T.R. Your answer to my post makes the evolution clear now...
35 is older Alberg design
35-2 is King design
35-3 is King design refined. (latest/last version)
Thanks, T.R. Your answer to my post makes the evolution clear now...
35 is older Alberg design
35-2 is King design
35-3 is King design refined. (latest/last version)
The vibe of the time
I was hired as part of the Ron Holland era. My title was customer service/warranty, but a big part of my job was doing the custom deck layouts for all of the models in production, and the biggest part was to run the factory race programs for the RH 36 and 33. We had our own 36 which I sailed, and NORCAL Yachts in SF also raced one-they actually sailed the aluminum prototype (mostly) and I mostly sailed our factory production hull.
I can tell you that there was no feeling of snubbing BK, and he was held in the higest esteem during my time at Ericson.
I think the only issue was that Ericson wanted to bring an IOR type boat to market, and Ron Holland and Doug Peterson had the most succesful IOR boats during that time.
Make no mistake, BK designed some of the most significant IOR boats ever, and I was lucky enough to sail on all 3 of these (Terrorist, Hawkeye, and Aggressive II). They were aluminim bilge boarders, all custom, and not suited well for production building.
But, from a production and marketing perspective, Holland was very hot, and more marketable as a designer for an IOR racer/cruiser.
That was the story as I recall it.
Later,
S
I was hired as part of the Ron Holland era. My title was customer service/warranty, but a big part of my job was doing the custom deck layouts for all of the models in production, and the biggest part was to run the factory race programs for the RH 36 and 33. We had our own 36 which I sailed, and NORCAL Yachts in SF also raced one-they actually sailed the aluminum prototype (mostly) and I mostly sailed our factory production hull.
I can tell you that there was no feeling of snubbing BK, and he was held in the higest esteem during my time at Ericson.
I think the only issue was that Ericson wanted to bring an IOR type boat to market, and Ron Holland and Doug Peterson had the most succesful IOR boats during that time.
Make no mistake, BK designed some of the most significant IOR boats ever, and I was lucky enough to sail on all 3 of these (Terrorist, Hawkeye, and Aggressive II). They were aluminim bilge boarders, all custom, and not suited well for production building.
But, from a production and marketing perspective, Holland was very hot, and more marketable as a designer for an IOR racer/cruiser.
That was the story as I recall it.
Later,
S
Thank you Mr. King
Hi Martin!
Since year 2000 I own an E 35 mkIII 1982 and from the time I had that boat, that I called Decision, I am in love with it. There is only one thing that is always coming in my mind when I am looking at my boat, waiting for me tied to its mooring :God gave a tremendous talent to Bruce King. My boat is so beautiful, sailing so perfectly, that I want to thank him gratefully. Every time I am going sailing with my beloved Decision, it is the joy of my life time, I am so proud of it that some friends call my boat: Eric's son.
Eric Meunier
E-35 mk3
Decision
Hi Martin!
Since year 2000 I own an E 35 mkIII 1982 and from the time I had that boat, that I called Decision, I am in love with it. There is only one thing that is always coming in my mind when I am looking at my boat, waiting for me tied to its mooring :God gave a tremendous talent to Bruce King. My boat is so beautiful, sailing so perfectly, that I want to thank him gratefully. Every time I am going sailing with my beloved Decision, it is the joy of my life time, I am so proud of it that some friends call my boat: Eric's son.
Eric Meunier
E-35 mk3
Decision
mmackof
Member II
The 1971 E39
There are two steel members that run athwart-ship under the sole. They are only partially visible from two center-line access ports. One is in the middle of the main salon and the other is forward of the mast.
What is their function?
They are heavily rusted by now and I don't know if the sole needs to be torn open to replace them or to just ignore them.
Perhaps your Dad recalls why they are there.
Thanks,
Mort
There are two steel members that run athwart-ship under the sole. They are only partially visible from two center-line access ports. One is in the middle of the main salon and the other is forward of the mast.
What is their function?
They are heavily rusted by now and I don't know if the sole needs to be torn open to replace them or to just ignore them.
Perhaps your Dad recalls why they are there.
Thanks,
Mort
Chainplate support
IIRC, These are the structural tie-ins for the chainplate bulkheads.
Martin wrote:
"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."
When he refers to later boats and the fiberglass grid he means newer designs 38, 35-III, etc. This was not changed during produciton of the 39, and they are important structural members.
Most likely you are seeing suface corrosion, but if they are compromised structurally this is a "must repair" item.
Good luck!
S
IIRC, These are the structural tie-ins for the chainplate bulkheads.
Martin wrote:
"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."
When he refers to later boats and the fiberglass grid he means newer designs 38, 35-III, etc. This was not changed during produciton of the 39, and they are important structural members.
Most likely you are seeing suface corrosion, but if they are compromised structurally this is a "must repair" item.
Good luck!
S
I must defer....
I think Guy Stevens has posted something about this, and if not, I think he may know the answer, and Martin may have more to add here as well. There may have been other 39 owners who have commented about this- maybe do a search on the site? I do know these are structural, and important.
Happy hunting,
S
I think Guy Stevens has posted something about this, and if not, I think he may know the answer, and Martin may have more to add here as well. There may have been other 39 owners who have commented about this- maybe do a search on the site? I do know these are structural, and important.
Happy hunting,
S
Sven
Seglare
Was the 39B a BK design ?
I thought I'd seen here that the 39B was a redesign of the E39 that PSC did without the approval of the Master. IOW that PSC added the coach roof.
When I was digging through my stack of blueprints for the 39 I just realized that both the 39 and the 39B have the Bruce King stamp on them. Does that mean that he did indeed do the 39B too ?
I also noticed that the deck layout for the 39B has the scuppers (2) toward the front of the cockpit instead of all the way back towards the stern. I wonder if that was in intermediate design as it would have brought the starboard scupper drain down through the aft berth ?
-Sven
I thought I'd seen here that the 39B was a redesign of the E39 that PSC did without the approval of the Master. IOW that PSC added the coach roof.
When I was digging through my stack of blueprints for the 39 I just realized that both the 39 and the 39B have the Bruce King stamp on them. Does that mean that he did indeed do the 39B too ?
I also noticed that the deck layout for the 39B has the scuppers (2) toward the front of the cockpit instead of all the way back towards the stern. I wonder if that was in intermediate design as it would have brought the starboard scupper drain down through the aft berth ?
-Sven
39B by Ericson-not PSC
The 39/39B had been out of production for many many years by the time PSC got involved, so all versions of the 39 were full Ericson, full BK.
PSC never built any of the pre TAFG boats, so that is not part of your boat's history.
The B model was essentially an attempt to get a few more years of value from the tooling since the flush deck version was no longer a front-line racer, and by doing the coachroof version they could make a very nice performance cruiser out of the proven hull. This hull was of the old 2 piece type (pre TAFG) which is joined longitudinally along the center seam with the keel as part of the hull mold (rather than bolted on), and the lead dropped into the keel cavity.
As for scuppers, I don't recall how they were arranged at the factory, but as this is a different cockpit I would expect the arrangement to be different than the flush deck 39.
Hope this helps!
S
The 39/39B had been out of production for many many years by the time PSC got involved, so all versions of the 39 were full Ericson, full BK.
PSC never built any of the pre TAFG boats, so that is not part of your boat's history.
The B model was essentially an attempt to get a few more years of value from the tooling since the flush deck version was no longer a front-line racer, and by doing the coachroof version they could make a very nice performance cruiser out of the proven hull. This hull was of the old 2 piece type (pre TAFG) which is joined longitudinally along the center seam with the keel as part of the hull mold (rather than bolted on), and the lead dropped into the keel cavity.
As for scuppers, I don't recall how they were arranged at the factory, but as this is a different cockpit I would expect the arrangement to be different than the flush deck 39.
Hope this helps!
S
Sven
Seglare
I didn't know PSC took over from Ericson that late. We love the E39B so if it is all Bruce King we are even happier.
I can see that for the flush deck model with the wide part of the cockpit forward, where the wheel was. The blueprints I'm looking at are for the E39 with the wide part of the cockpit in the stern but the scuppers are still forward in the narrow part of the cockpit, going through the aft berth on starboard and the sail locker on port (in the plan view, I don't have it shown in any other view). It must have been a working blueprint since that arrangement doesn't make too much sense (in addition to the pipes invading the living space it would keep the T portion in the stern from draining under heel).
Maybe I need to double-check what I saw but I don't see how I could have seen it wrong
Thanks !
-Sven
I can see that for the flush deck model with the wide part of the cockpit forward, where the wheel was. The blueprints I'm looking at are for the E39 with the wide part of the cockpit in the stern but the scuppers are still forward in the narrow part of the cockpit, going through the aft berth on starboard and the sail locker on port (in the plan view, I don't have it shown in any other view). It must have been a working blueprint since that arrangement doesn't make too much sense (in addition to the pipes invading the living space it would keep the T portion in the stern from draining under heel).
Maybe I need to double-check what I saw but I don't see how I could have seen it wrong
Thanks !
-Sven