No, the small hollow area in the bow of the 38 has virtually no
effect on how the boat sails.
-
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
No, the small hollow area in the bow of the 38 has virtually no
effect on how the boat sails.
upnorthfrank
Member II
I got lots of questions
But I'm still getting the battle plan together. I have an E38 that needs a whole new interior. The hull, mast, standing rigging, etc. (basically the external stuff & the motor etc. is in good shape)-
I'm wondering if there are still blueprints for her?!? Some of the bulkheads are in place but a bunch of stuff is missing. I'm an accomplished cabinetmaker/carpenter w/ tools & a lot of remodeling experience, plumbing/electrical etc. & it would be nice to have a picture to look at. I want to keep her close to original in layout but enhance her w/ my skills...
I can't imagine a boat under 40' that I'd rather have. Looking @ her gutted it's easy to see. I'll be up for all the info I can possibly find-
Looking at her I sense that she's never really been out there, a boat that was neglected on the dry for far too long. I'd rather see her rot in the ocean than sit on a cradle slowly disintegrating in the sun. Poor old boat...
Her & I are going sailing, f*** it all. Any advice is greatly appreciated
But I'm still getting the battle plan together. I have an E38 that needs a whole new interior. The hull, mast, standing rigging, etc. (basically the external stuff & the motor etc. is in good shape)-
I'm wondering if there are still blueprints for her?!? Some of the bulkheads are in place but a bunch of stuff is missing. I'm an accomplished cabinetmaker/carpenter w/ tools & a lot of remodeling experience, plumbing/electrical etc. & it would be nice to have a picture to look at. I want to keep her close to original in layout but enhance her w/ my skills...
I can't imagine a boat under 40' that I'd rather have. Looking @ her gutted it's easy to see. I'll be up for all the info I can possibly find-
Looking at her I sense that she's never really been out there, a boat that was neglected on the dry for far too long. I'd rather see her rot in the ocean than sit on a cradle slowly disintegrating in the sun. Poor old boat...
Her & I are going sailing, f*** it all. Any advice is greatly appreciated
Wetted surface
I have always thought the e38 had relativly low wetted surface area for a 38 foot racer/cruiser. I saw the following PDF for a modern race boat and wondered what the wetted surface for a E38 actually is? My guess is that it is less than the modern raceboat off the wind http://www.sailinganarchy.com/classified/images/062610_thompson35.pdf
I have always thought the e38 had relativly low wetted surface area for a 38 foot racer/cruiser. I saw the following PDF for a modern race boat and wondered what the wetted surface for a E38 actually is? My guess is that it is less than the modern raceboat off the wind http://www.sailinganarchy.com/classified/images/062610_thompson35.pdf
Martin, One thing that I would have to say, after owning 2 later model Ericsons, is that the lines (which I always admired), still are quite beautiful. They are, as far as I'm concerned, modern classics! All of the visual elements in the design worked well together. Pacific Seacraft felt that they needed to change the window design to a small opening-port design. I felt that even a seemingly insignificant detail such as this, detracted from the appearence. There were some logical next steps that PSC took to make the boats modern and more marketable, such as swim-platform transoms, that were okay. Also, the boats sailed beautifully. They seemed to strike a compromise between cruising accomidations and performance that was pretty rare. They were boats that could be enjoyed in differing conditions. They were good in light air and were pretty stiff in a blow.
As in any vessel 20 or more years old, there are some details that could have been done differently, such as the cockpit drain fitting and plumbing inaccessability. This has nothing to do with the basic design that I think is very close to perfection.
As in any vessel 20 or more years old, there are some details that could have been done differently, such as the cockpit drain fitting and plumbing inaccessability. This has nothing to do with the basic design that I think is very close to perfection.
Stobias,
The design of ports is hardly an insignificant detail, in fact it can make or break the look of a boat.
Kudos to you for being sensitive enough
to comment on it.
Aesthetics were an overriding priority with my
father and often a battle royal ensued when it clashed with client
requirements. This was a war he had to fight pretty much his whole
life, and often had to make modifications with "a gun to my head". In spite
of interference from outside forces, he managed to give most
of the Ericsons timeless good looks.
Martin
The design of ports is hardly an insignificant detail, in fact it can make or break the look of a boat.
Kudos to you for being sensitive enough
to comment on it.
Aesthetics were an overriding priority with my
father and often a battle royal ensued when it clashed with client
requirements. This was a war he had to fight pretty much his whole
life, and often had to make modifications with "a gun to my head". In spite
of interference from outside forces, he managed to give most
of the Ericsons timeless good looks.
Martin
Last edited:
Hi Martin,
this ties into one of the warnings Glyn gave me when I became the proud owner of Emerald. He basically prepped me for an extra 1/2 hour or so on either side of any docking event where new people were involved - someone's guest at the neighboring slip, pulling in to get fuel, whatever. Why? Because you would be stopped by the people wanting to talk about what a neat and beautiful boat you had. Well, as usually is the case, Glyn was right on the money, and I can't tell you the number of times I've gone down to the pier for a quick boat check to return much later because of one of these nice chats. Pretty cool and kudos to your father on such wonderful designs
this ties into one of the warnings Glyn gave me when I became the proud owner of Emerald. He basically prepped me for an extra 1/2 hour or so on either side of any docking event where new people were involved - someone's guest at the neighboring slip, pulling in to get fuel, whatever. Why? Because you would be stopped by the people wanting to talk about what a neat and beautiful boat you had. Well, as usually is the case, Glyn was right on the money, and I can't tell you the number of times I've gone down to the pier for a quick boat check to return much later because of one of these nice chats. Pretty cool and kudos to your father on such wonderful designs
Preparing E 38 for ocean crossing
Hi folks,
I am new to this board and a perspective E 38 owner. My goals are to liveaboard nearly fulltime, cruise Mexico, the caribbean and ICW. I may at some point want to cross oceans.
Besides the usual assortment of gear that any boat would require for crossing oceans such as liferaft, windvane etc, what if any modifications would you do to prepare a 1980's E 38 for such a trip?
Would you...
-beef up the standing rigging?
-is the rudder well built internally? would it require beefing up?
-how about the rig itself? would the mast and boom require stronger fittings?
Thanks in advance for answering these questions. I appreciate the knowledge on this board and your patience.
Tommy.
Hi folks,
I am new to this board and a perspective E 38 owner. My goals are to liveaboard nearly fulltime, cruise Mexico, the caribbean and ICW. I may at some point want to cross oceans.
Besides the usual assortment of gear that any boat would require for crossing oceans such as liferaft, windvane etc, what if any modifications would you do to prepare a 1980's E 38 for such a trip?
Would you...
-beef up the standing rigging?
-is the rudder well built internally? would it require beefing up?
-how about the rig itself? would the mast and boom require stronger fittings?
Thanks in advance for answering these questions. I appreciate the knowledge on this board and your patience.
Tommy.
davisr
Member III
Hello Martin,
I've been following the discussion on the current thread that concerns Unicorn, the Ericson 41 that your family used to own.
http://www.ericsonyachts.org/infoexchange/showthread.php?t=9951
In the Yachtworld listing for Unicorn, the seller has posted a copy of Bruce King's article, "Aesthetic Values Relating to Yacht Design." It appears the seller snatched this off of your dad's website.
http://www.brucekingdesign.com/
At any rate, I really enjoyed your dad's thoughts in this article, and after I read it, I started thinking about your research project that you started several years ago with regard to the history of Ericson yachts. Are you planning to publish your research in some form or another at some future date?
Thanks,
Roscoe
E25, #226
I've been following the discussion on the current thread that concerns Unicorn, the Ericson 41 that your family used to own.
http://www.ericsonyachts.org/infoexchange/showthread.php?t=9951
In the Yachtworld listing for Unicorn, the seller has posted a copy of Bruce King's article, "Aesthetic Values Relating to Yacht Design." It appears the seller snatched this off of your dad's website.
http://www.brucekingdesign.com/
At any rate, I really enjoyed your dad's thoughts in this article, and after I read it, I started thinking about your research project that you started several years ago with regard to the history of Ericson yachts. Are you planning to publish your research in some form or another at some future date?
Thanks,
Roscoe
E25, #226
Roscoe,
Thanks for the inquiry. Yes, the broker pilfered that copy right off
off the BKDA website. By the way, Unicorn is not an Ericson 41. She is a cold molded custom 41' ketch.
Regarding publishing, I am leaving that up to my dad, as he is the one
most qualified to write about it.
Martin
Thanks for the inquiry. Yes, the broker pilfered that copy right off
off the BKDA website. By the way, Unicorn is not an Ericson 41. She is a cold molded custom 41' ketch.
Regarding publishing, I am leaving that up to my dad, as he is the one
most qualified to write about it.
Martin
Last edited:
CaptDan
Member III
There's likely a way. The bigger question is 'why?'
The E41 is among the most beautiful production sailboats ever, in my opinion, and her appearance is an extention of her sailing qualities. Messing about with her draft and altering her keel profile could prove counterproductive, and in the wrong hands - detrimental to the vessel.
My advice would be to seek another boat whose draft is better suited to your requirements.
Capt Dan G>E35II "Kunu"
Gorgeous Ericson, but, WYSIWYG
Here's one located in Puget Sound. Beautiful lines and a fine sailing rep.
http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1967/Ericson-Sloop-2242006/Puget-Sound/WA/United-States
At 5'11", the draft is quite modest for a boat of that length.
One caveat is that any boat with internal ballast, whether Ericson or another make, is going to be prohibitively expensive to modify. You would be modifying the hull itself, and then probably recasting the lead ballast weight. (Removing that keel might require a lot of un-building of the deck and interior, too.)
That's a lot of labor and yard time...
...Opinions rendered on the hour, deposit one cent...
LB
Here's one located in Puget Sound. Beautiful lines and a fine sailing rep.
http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1967/Ericson-Sloop-2242006/Puget-Sound/WA/United-States
At 5'11", the draft is quite modest for a boat of that length.
One caveat is that any boat with internal ballast, whether Ericson or another make, is going to be prohibitively expensive to modify. You would be modifying the hull itself, and then probably recasting the lead ballast weight. (Removing that keel might require a lot of un-building of the deck and interior, too.)
That's a lot of labor and yard time...
...Opinions rendered on the hour, deposit one cent...
LB
Attachments
-
E41.jpg
Last edited:
Roger
Member II
Steve,
I think it would be possible to reduce the draft to some extent, but as Loren said it's likely to be a complex and expensive operation. The same righting moment can be maintained (highly recommended) by fastening a lead shoe to the bottom of the shortened keel. The net result would be enhanced downwind performance (due to less wetted surface) but diminished upwind pointing ability.
-Roger
www.rbrown-navalarchitect.com
I think it would be possible to reduce the draft to some extent, but as Loren said it's likely to be a complex and expensive operation. The same righting moment can be maintained (highly recommended) by fastening a lead shoe to the bottom of the shortened keel. The net result would be enhanced downwind performance (due to less wetted surface) but diminished upwind pointing ability.
-Roger
www.rbrown-navalarchitect.com
CaptDan
Member III
The net result would be enhanced downwind performance (due to less wetted surface) but diminished upwind pointing ability.
One of the most attractive features of the King designed Ericsons - and I'm sure the E41 is no exception - is their ability to 'sail themselves' on a close reach, sails trimmed in moderate air. I recall reading Mr King's description of that concept and it's having to do with prismatic coefficients and other arcane design particulars.
The sum total of the hull, its shape, rigging dimensions, ballast, etc, not only yields an aesthetically pleasing result, but contributes to the boats' sailing capabilities. I think there's a danger of sacrificing those subtleties via modifications. One might achieve a particular goal at the risk of losing some other intrinsically valuable feature.
Of course, this may be an unfounded concern based on my paltry understanding of naval architecture. Just saying...........:nerd:
Capt Dan G>E35II "Kunu"
One of the most attractive features of the King designed Ericsons - and I'm sure the E41 is no exception - is their ability to 'sail themselves' on a close reach, sails trimmed in moderate air. I recall reading Mr King's description of that concept and it's having to do with prismatic coefficients and other arcane design particulars.
The sum total of the hull, its shape, rigging dimensions, ballast, etc, not only yields an aesthetically pleasing result, but contributes to the boats' sailing capabilities. I think there's a danger of sacrificing those subtleties via modifications. One might achieve a particular goal at the risk of losing some other intrinsically valuable feature.
Of course, this may be an unfounded concern based on my paltry understanding of naval architecture. Just saying...........:nerd:
Capt Dan G>E35II "Kunu"
Last edited:
New to forum, learning about Ericson designs: Keel construction question
Sorry if this has been answered (many times) before, or if the info is in a spec sheet somewhere ...
Are the keels of all Ericsons made of the same materials and with the same design?
In particular, is the ballast iron or lead, and if lead, are the keels 'lead outside' (i.e, completely lead with only barrier coats and antifouling paint over the bare metal - like C&Cs, J-boats, etc), OR, are they 'lead encased in fiberglass'?
Thanks,
Neil
Sorry if this has been answered (many times) before, or if the info is in a spec sheet somewhere ...
Are the keels of all Ericsons made of the same materials and with the same design?
In particular, is the ballast iron or lead, and if lead, are the keels 'lead outside' (i.e, completely lead with only barrier coats and antifouling paint over the bare metal - like C&Cs, J-boats, etc), OR, are they 'lead encased in fiberglass'?
Thanks,
Neil
Last edited:
Vagabond39
Member III
Design
The real question is the percentile designed by the corporate bean counters?
The real question is the percentile designed by the corporate bean counters?
Indeed there are past threads about keel types and shapes and you might want to start doing some searching... the Search dialog box is on the upper right corner area of this screen.
In general, all of the Ericsons (and Olsons) had lead keels. This was a more expensive way to construct a boat but results in a better ballast ratio for a given physical amount of ballast material.
Earlier Ericsons had internal ballast, i.e. the keel casting was inside the hull, and later ones have an external ballast keel stoutly bolted onto the bottom of the hull.
From the late 70's onwards, the general keel construction would be more like the C&C and J Boats. Having said that, Ericson was using a very strong internal structural "grid" and their hull-to-deck joint (glassed over on the inside) was better engineered than most production boats, including those in the present day. A comparable hull/deck joint for strength, IMHO, would be the C&C (and the Olson) joint with their inward hull flange and the deck being attached on top of that with bolts and nuts all the way around.
Best,
Loren