I love it that the keel on the E23 is an integral part of the hull. I have a fin keel 1976. Do any of the other smaller Ericsons have the same set up? Also, how was it manufactured this way. Did they have a casting that they just roughly shaped and then enclose it in the hull molding or was it cast in the fiberglass mold already on the hull. To cast it in the fiberglass they would have to cool the mold pretty seriously to prevent burning, so I suspect it was a cast enclosed in the hull. Anyone have any Ideas?
Integrated Keel
- Thread starter mdgann
- Start date
-
- Tags
- integrated keel
The lead's gotta go somewhere...
For FRP production boats, including quite large ones, there are basically two ways to get "internal ballast" into the molded keel cavity. Plan A is to have enough internal volume to the cavity so that the layers of glass and resin can be layed up by reaching down there with long-handle rollers and building up the layers. Note that this is only appropriate if the the actual hull is being layed up as one piece. After the hull is done, the keel casting, shapped like the bottom of the cavity, is lowered into place into a mush of resin and fillers, and then may have layers of roving layed over the top. Yes, I know that some builders pour lead shot into a resin mix, along with chunks of lead and rough castings. (But not Ericson, AFAIK)
Plan B is where the hull has an inward flange for the deck or has tumblehome to the topsides and needs to be molded out in two halves. Then the two are joined down the centerline. Even this method has other possible iterations -- the mold may itself be a take-apart setup with major sections that unbolt to extract them from the finished hull.
In my "B" example, the lead would still be lowered in place after the hull was put together.
There are great advantages AND disadvantages to internal ballast. Same for a bolted-on external keel. Whether you are considering damage from groundings, blistering, fairing the keel, having a deep or shallow intermal bilge area... each construction method has its peculiarities.
I have owned both types of construction over the decades, and both can be strong and durable.
The real experts need to weigh in here with "plans C and D", and whatever else I have left out, not having had my morning coffee yet.
Best,
Loren in PDX
For FRP production boats, including quite large ones, there are basically two ways to get "internal ballast" into the molded keel cavity. Plan A is to have enough internal volume to the cavity so that the layers of glass and resin can be layed up by reaching down there with long-handle rollers and building up the layers. Note that this is only appropriate if the the actual hull is being layed up as one piece. After the hull is done, the keel casting, shapped like the bottom of the cavity, is lowered into place into a mush of resin and fillers, and then may have layers of roving layed over the top. Yes, I know that some builders pour lead shot into a resin mix, along with chunks of lead and rough castings. (But not Ericson, AFAIK)
Plan B is where the hull has an inward flange for the deck or has tumblehome to the topsides and needs to be molded out in two halves. Then the two are joined down the centerline. Even this method has other possible iterations -- the mold may itself be a take-apart setup with major sections that unbolt to extract them from the finished hull.
In my "B" example, the lead would still be lowered in place after the hull was put together.
There are great advantages AND disadvantages to internal ballast. Same for a bolted-on external keel. Whether you are considering damage from groundings, blistering, fairing the keel, having a deep or shallow intermal bilge area... each construction method has its peculiarities.
I have owned both types of construction over the decades, and both can be strong and durable.
The real experts need to weigh in here with "plans C and D", and whatever else I have left out, not having had my morning coffee yet.
Best,
Loren in PDX
Thanks, quick reply
Thanks for the info Loren. I was born and raised just North of Portland outside of a small town called Toutle by Mt. St. Helens. I now live in a desert and crave the green of home. Also the water. The reason I like the integrated keel is that I have had some experience with an Iron, bolt on that was then fiberglassed over (catalina 25). Every time we grounded, no matter how softly, it would crack the seam where the iron met the keel stump. This would precipitate a haulout and grinding out the crack and reglassing. With the Great Salt Lake so low, grounding is getting to be a frequent experience and I am grateful my ericson doesn't have this problem.
Did Ericson use the solid casting lowered into the resin mush method?
Thanks for the info Loren. I was born and raised just North of Portland outside of a small town called Toutle by Mt. St. Helens. I now live in a desert and crave the green of home. Also the water. The reason I like the integrated keel is that I have had some experience with an Iron, bolt on that was then fiberglassed over (catalina 25). Every time we grounded, no matter how softly, it would crack the seam where the iron met the keel stump. This would precipitate a haulout and grinding out the crack and reglassing. With the Great Salt Lake so low, grounding is getting to be a frequent experience and I am grateful my ericson doesn't have this problem.
Did Ericson use the solid casting lowered into the resin mush method?
How Solid?
I believe that they did for all their internal ballast construction. I only referenced the "other" methods, because I have a durable memory of watching a 30-something Newport in a boatyard, with uncured resin and a pile of lead pellets pouring out of a test hole drilled into the lower keel area. This was after a purchase survey indicated a problem in the keel area during the sounding of the whole hull. They finally had to create a hole about a foot square and had a lead block cast up and glassed back in, and then layed up a cover with appropriate eight to one scarfing for the new cloth and resin. It was not inexpensive, and I was told that the owner got into a bit of a tiff with Capital Yachts, the builder, and finally got some of the yard bill reimbursed.
Ericsons are not perfect, but are indeed a higher quality production yacht than that, IMO.
Loren in PDX
ps: even though many builders use cast iron to save money, your experience is the main reason I much prefer lead, like the external keels on later Ericsons and Olsons.
mdgann said:
I believe that they did for all their internal ballast construction. I only referenced the "other" methods, because I have a durable memory of watching a 30-something Newport in a boatyard, with uncured resin and a pile of lead pellets pouring out of a test hole drilled into the lower keel area. This was after a purchase survey indicated a problem in the keel area during the sounding of the whole hull. They finally had to create a hole about a foot square and had a lead block cast up and glassed back in, and then layed up a cover with appropriate eight to one scarfing for the new cloth and resin. It was not inexpensive, and I was told that the owner got into a bit of a tiff with Capital Yachts, the builder, and finally got some of the yard bill reimbursed.
Ericsons are not perfect, but are indeed a higher quality production yacht than that, IMO.
Loren in PDX
ps: even though many builders use cast iron to save money, your experience is the main reason I much prefer lead, like the external keels on later Ericsons and Olsons.
Last edited: