Report on Cynthia Woods

[Roger Long]

Except for the Coast Guard report the only evidence we have is from interested parties ..

Don't assume the Coast Guard is disinterested and therefore the expert they hired is objective. I've seen the Coast Guard insert their agenda into an inquiry. The expert they hire could also have an agenda they aren't aware of. The marine community is relatively small. I'm not saying this was the case here but just pointing out that the theoretical structure of the Coast Guard hiring an "expert" does not guarantee an impartial report in the real world, at least as I've experienced it in similar situations that I was much closer to. Each report should be judged strictly on its own internal merits and not by its source.

We part ways again. You assert that a boat designed and built to best (or at least good) practices would have withstood the abuse.

I don't know the grounding loads and impacts. I'm not claiming that a typical keel attachment or even an industry best practice design would have survived whatever abuse this boat had without damage or weakening. I will assert however, that such a keel attachment, i.e. one that would be the last thing to fail as the boat could was pounded and dragged, could be designed. Such a design would have minimal impact on performance and cost. This is one of the few areas of the boat where the weight distribution issues make such very conservative construction possible. Few, if any, builders are taking advantage of this fact. However, an understanding this aspect of vessel design (deeply rooted in stability and weight distribution which are one of my primary areas of expertise) makes the design of this keel even more appalling.

I will fully accept the possibility that there are other production or custom boats that could have experienced this failure scenario with the same service history. I sure hope there aren't many designs as bad as this one out there but I'm beginning to suspect (largely because of how Richards assessed the keel design) that there may be. I simply haven't looked at that many fin keel attachments.

 

[tsmwebb]

Don't assume the Coast Guard is disinterested and therefore the expert they hired is objective. I've seen the Coast Guard insert their agenda into an inquiry. The expert they hire could also have an agenda they aren't aware of....

Neither the CG nor Richards stands in peril of civil and criminal penalties based on the findings of fact. That puts them in a very different category than TAMU or CFYW or anyone who was involved in the production or design of the boat. They may be incompetent or outright biased but they aren't being paid to provide support for a specific outcome.

...I will assert however, that such a keel attachment, i.e. one that would be the last thing to fail as the boat could was pounded and dragged, could be designed. Such a design would have minimal impact on performance and cost. ...

This is a very interesting line of thought. Stronger is easy. Stronger and affordable is not too hard. Stronger, affordable and having marginal performance impact is probably doable too.

The tricky bit is getting the whole system to work. If the keel stayed put but the hull split and the boat sank more quickly would the people below have had time to get out? I think the goal has to be a designed failure mode that is readily detectable, contained locally in the structure and that leaves the boat habitable. That plus stronger, affordable and performance neutral and all you have left is the job of selling it to industry... I think the last is the real stumbling block because people do know how to do this well but are content with they way they are doing it now.

--Tom.

 

[Roger Long]

Neither the CG nor Richards stands in peril of civil and criminal penalties based on the findings of fact.

Neither does Debroth. The quality of his report speaks for itself. I have many times been paid for providing owners with reports that were very bad and expensive news to them. In a few case, it even cost them their boat. Back when I was doing a lot of fishing vessel stability tests I remember muttering, "This is like being a cancer doctor."

I've been an expert witness and was never pressured shade or lie about my investigation results. You can go to jail for perjury and Debroth is at more risk of that than Richards since, working for an interested party, he is more likely to be deposed and end up as a witness. He is actually the one with the greatest incentive to be honest when you start talking about legal penalties.

I'm not picking one or the other based on the situation and I'm saying you simply can't. I've worked with the steel and aluminum ABS rules all my professional life. When I look at the two reports, I see that the author of one of them seems to have a much better understanding of how they should be used. He basically recreates the all the steps of properly designing a keel using the rules and then conducts a completely independent engineering analysis. The other author seems to be cherry picking results in a way the rules contain a paragraph specifically warning against.

If you believe Debroth, the simplest model of the case still becomes a philosophical rather than a technical question. Let's say an outboard boat has a capacity plate for 6. It swamps with 8 on board. During subseqent investigation, it is discovered that the manufacturer, either by mistake or deception, put 6 on the capacity plate when it should have been 4. How do you assign blame? Maybe the seamanship and handling were such that the boat would have swamped even with just 2 on board. If you can't answer that side of the question, do you just let the manufacturer off the hook?

 

[tsmwebb]

Neither does Debroth. The quality of his report speaks for itself.....

Just follow the money. The report was paid for and co-authored by the legal department of TAMU. They stand in great peril of the law. The report states that the groundings did not contribute to the loss in any way. That happens to be the only defense the TAMU has. Coincidence? Could be, but it must cast suspicion on the report. This is pretty much the definition of interested party. The section of the report ("E" ~p 20 as I recall) that deals with the critical question of grounding appears to play a little fast and lose to me...

BUT, I am REALLY interested in your and the groups ideas on keel design and lessons going forward. What should we look for when we stare into our bilges or walk around a boat on the hard? Where are things likely to break when we run aground? How could designs be improved? To get the ball rolling I've drawn a schematic sketch of a pretty generic set-up.

In this case you've got a keel bolt center-line fore and aft and then a series of pairs of bolts between them (the dots on the keel -- only center-line and port side are drawn). The bolts all tie into the floor flanges. The big floor at the front is the mast step. The shroud loads would be tied into the floors. The stiffeners in most real boats they would run up the hull and tie into the hull structure, furniture and bulkheads. A keel with a flange set-up would be similar but would have a nicer bolt pattern.

Here's my first cut on the advantages, problems and things to look for with this kind of set-up. Very much IMO only.

Advantages:

1) it is well understood and documented and there is a large and successful population of similar designs.

2) The tooling, layup and fairing is relatively easy.

3) The same tool can be used with a wide variety of keels.

Disadvantages:

1) the bolt pattern isn't ideal particularly in the aft section of the keel.

2) there are stress risers at the outboard ends of the floors / turn of the bilge.

3) the aft end of the keel concentrates grounding forces (there is a floor there and panel thickness is added to help deal with this).

4) The floors intrude into the living space of the hull.

5) the floors break the bilge into parts and limber holes and holes for wiring or piping are needed potentially weakening them. Users may drill holes into them.

6) In a grounding there can be invisible damage to the panel, the floors and their connection to the hull and to the hull well away from the keel area because of the stresses at the floor ends.

7) in many boats, after the furniture and tankage is installed there is no way to properly inspect the floors without major surgery.

Things to look for:

1) the tabbing on the floors must be very good.

2) large or poorly placed holes in the floor webbing will weaken the structure and may add stress risers.

3) Beware that in a grounding that the damage may not be localized to the keel area -- the classic failure is at the outboard ends of the stiffeners. Look for distortion or cracks in the hull and sound for laminate damage.

4)damage to the faces of the floor will greatly weaken the structure. The majority of the stiffness in the keel area comes from the stiffeners -- I bet that's why they call them that -- If there are cracks or buckling then you have serious damage. I note the CW had patches of WR on the floor faces suggesting there had been visible damage there. The patches look horrible to me -- WR laid on top of paint or gel coat. And if the faces moved enough to have visible splitting that means the rest of the hull had to move too -- did it break? I think it's likely but we don't know because nobody checked. Just because the patches on the floors were intact after the failure that doesn't mean the hull was repaired.

So, Roger, since you've thrown down the gauntlet, how should this be done? I hasten to add I'm not a designer or a professional boat builder -- don't assume I've got the fundamentals right!

--Tom.

 

[TimCup]

why I love this thread:

while there have been alot of discussion about design (ie- boltpattern, stressers, etc.), it's been written in a way that I can understand (not enginerr-speak).

I'm almost dumbfounded that Roger seems to be myopic as to blame, and because he knows so much more than me, I'm forced to look at my own blindspots (thanks, Roger!).

Tom, your input has been some of the most thoughtful I've read, maybe ever on this site. Even something as basic as designing a keel to better show potential damage (like a car), seems so simple.

"keel attachment should be a backbone support, not a weak link". Words to live by. Literally.


cup

 

[Ross]

Re: why I love this thread:

As a result of this thread I have considered to worst things that can happen to a boat.
The loss of the keel and thus stability. Much worse is the loss of the keel with a breach in the hull. Also very bad is the loss of the rudder or a breach of the hull below the waterline. By comparison a dismasting is very inconvenient. Rudder loss is more common than it should be judging by the frequency of the posts here. Keel loss is rare and it should be. Spreading the bolt pattern and the foot print of the attachment point to the hull would also spread the stress caused by a grounding. Supporting the rudder at two points would reduce rudder failures.

 

[Roger Long]

The report states that the groundings did not contribute to the loss in any way.

Are you sure you are reading the original Debroth report?

http://tamus.edu/offices/communicat.../Appendix E-Dobroth Design Science Report.pdf

and not the TAMU report to which it is appended?

I've just gone through the Debroth report again and I think your statement is an unfair characterization of his position. He does not say that the groundings did not contribute to the loss but that, if the keel had been designed to the ABS standards and properly engineered, the groundings would not have been a significant factor and there would not have been a loss. There is a subtle but very important difference and he presents examples to back up his contention.

I can't comment on your keel design since no image came up on my computer.

 

[Roger Long]

I'm almost dumbfounded that Roger seems to be myopic as to blame

You and others seem to think I'm defending the way TAMU ran their program and managed their boats. I'm not. I personally think having this boat in a school fleet was a program failure even before it ran aground.

 

[tsmwebb]

Are you sure you are reading the original Debroth report?

http://tamus.edu/offices/communicat.../Appendix E-Dobroth Design Science Report.pdf

and not the TAMU report to which it is appended?...

Pretty sure -- that's why I cited the page number in section "E".

Sorry the drawing didn't work for you. Looks okay on my screen (well it's a junk drawing, but it is visible anyway). I'm interested in your thoughts on the design and manufacturing lessons in any case.

Here I'll try the drawing again:


Anything?

--Tom.

 

[Peter Ross]

Improving the hull/keel joint

Just follow the money. The report was paid for and co-authored by the legal department of TAMU. They stand in great peril of the law. The report states that the groundings did not contribute to the loss in any way. That happens to be the only defense the TAMU has. Coincidence? Could be, but it must cast suspicion on the report. This is pretty much the definition of interested party. The section of the report ("E" ~p 20 as I recall) that deals with the critical question of grounding appears to play a little fast and lose to me...

BUT, I am REALLY interested in your and the groups ideas on keel design and lessons going forward. What should we look for when we stare into our bilges or walk around a boat on the hard? Where are things likely to break when we run aground? How could designs be improved? To get the ball rolling I've drawn a schematic sketch of a pretty generic set-up.

In this case you've got a keel bolt center-line fore and aft and then a series of pairs of bolts between them (the dots on the keel -- only center-line and port side are drawn). The bolts all tie into the floor flanges. The big floor at the front is the mast step. The shroud loads would be tied into the floors. The stiffeners in most real boats they would run up the hull and tie into the hull structure, furniture and bulkheads. A keel with a flange set-up would be similar but would have a nicer bolt pattern.

Here's my first cut on the advantages, problems and things to look for with this kind of set-up. Very much IMO only.

Advantages:

1) it is well understood and documented and there is a large and successful population of similar designs.

2) The tooling, layup and fairing is relatively easy.

3) The same tool can be used with a wide variety of keels.

Disadvantages:

1) the bolt pattern isn't ideal particularly in the aft section of the keel.

2) there are stress risers at the outboard ends of the floors / turn of the bilge.

3) the aft end of the keel concentrates grounding forces (there is a floor there and panel thickness is added to help deal with this).

4) The floors intrude into the living space of the hull.

5) the floors break the bilge into parts and limber holes and holes for wiring or piping are needed potentially weakening them. Users may drill holes into them.

6) In a grounding there can be invisible damage to the panel, the floors and their connection to the hull and to the hull well away from the keel area because of the stresses at the floor ends.

7) in many boats, after the furniture and tankage is installed there is no way to properly inspect the floors without major surgery.

Things to look for:

1) the tabbing on the floors must be very good.

2) large or poorly placed holes in the floor webbing will weaken the structure and may add stress risers.

3) Beware that in a grounding that the damage may not be localized to the keel area -- the classic failure is at the outboard ends of the stiffeners. Look for distortion or cracks in the hull and sound for laminate damage.

4)damage to the faces of the floor will greatly weaken the structure. The majority of the stiffness in the keel area comes from the stiffeners -- I bet that's why they call them that -- If there are cracks or buckling then you have serious damage. I note the CW had patches of WR on the floor faces suggesting there had been visible damage there. The patches look horrible to me -- WR laid on top of paint or gel coat. And if the faces moved enough to have visible splitting that means the rest of the hull had to move too -- did it break? I think it's likely but we don't know because nobody checked. Just because the patches on the floors were intact after the failure that doesn't mean the hull was repaired.

So, Roger, since you've thrown down the gauntlet, how should this be done? I hasten to add I'm not a designer or a professional boat builder -- don't assume I've got the fundamentals right!

--Tom.

Tom,
In '90 and '91 I ran a charter company (by default, what an experience to forget, I am not a people person) and had several Ericsons and other similar boats in the fleet. One of the Ericson 38's bounced on the bottom at anchor off Norfolk for a few hours until the delivery crew had the sense to move. The boat kept taking on water when on starboard tack. I brought the boat north from Charleston alone, not knowing the boat had this new issue. It had performed fine while in the keys and there was no mention of the water in the bilge.
The boat had a charter in Noank the day after I got home. The owner insisted I was nuts to haul the boat and off it went on a charter from another company. That charter owner had added ELEVEN qts of oil to the engine because he saw no oil on the dipstick. That oil pumped right out to the bilge and the molded "grid" Ericson touted as the only way to install structure. This could take forever to explain, so I will just skip to the photos and some limited babble.
I talked the insurance comany into removing the interior to inspec the grid, which had signs of failure in massive spider cracks. Once the interior was removed, the origin of the cracks was clearly the keel sump, which had signs of total failure.
The adjuster told me I could repair the boat, but I had to be careful the work didn't result in "betterment." I had a new term to deal with, not easy to work around for the original structure was not working. Plus they knew they would have their hands full if word got out that a high number production boat had structure issues.
The problem with this particuler version of the Ericson 38 was the removal of grid aft of the keel to relocate the engine. All evident in the photos.
End repair cost was $65,000. All furniture was replaced and any mods were paid by the owner. The boat was bettered, but not to a large extent, well in the spirit of the term.
Removing the keel was easy, and is quite normal practice when dealing with hull/keel leaks.
Will check in later to answer the expected replies.
Note the paint flaking around the sump...............there are many shots of the repair, all worth the time to view.
http://s119.photobucket.com/albums/o145/Tynaje/Ericson 38/

I thought this might be a bit closer to home for most here. I have been reminded that while I may think the CF38 is nothing more than a performance cruiser, most here consider it a performance racing boat. I won't dispute that since it did start life as such, only as a 33' sportboat, not the morphed 38.

 

[tommays]

I see them throwing Payco under the bus on page 26 for doing a repiar when all they did was lift the boat and follow school orders

It is strange as to what gets into school programs as places likes Kings Point get bleeding edge maxi boats donated all the time with outrageous running costs

 

[Roger Long]

It is strange as to what gets into school programs as places likes Kings Point...

Long before I had my own company, my boss sent me to one of the top maritime acadamies (which will remain nameless) to survey and report on a GOM shrimp trawler that had been donated to them and which they intended to use for coastal piloting practice cruises. A board member was uneasy about the boat and personally donated the survey against some resistance by the adminstration.

It was horrible. The shaft struts just ended in the middle of bottom panels with no interior framing support. No doublers around the rudder post. Wide, wide, frame spacing with inadequate flat bars. It was my first encounter with the term "Coonass". My report and survey basically said, "This thing shouldn't even be tied to a dock."

The administration's reaction was that they were a state owned school and therefore didn't need to comply with any Coast Guard, ABS, or other standards and requirements so they didn't see any problem. I was young and innocent and this experience was a real eye opener. I mean, these people were in the business of teaching people how to run and manage vessels!

 

[Peter Ross]

I see them throwing Payco under the bus on page 26 for doing a repiar when all they did was lift the boat and follow school orders

It is strange as to what gets into school programs as places likes Kings Point get bleeding edge maxi boats donated all the time with outrageous running costs

Actually if you dig deeper you can find employee time cards. Look for a guy who has added some time to "assist" repairing the shim. I do remember thinking that might become an issue if the shim issue ever came to light. I would love to see similar time cards from CFYW and the employee who fabricated those floors.
As an odd side note. When looking to expand the small shop the tooling was built in, Mitchell learned a building he was interested renting was in fact OWNED by him and his partners. Wouldn't it be ironic if there were silent owners of the repair facility? Maybe I should remove this thought, but it is quite possible they have a hand in all three entities.

Another reason TAMU has nothing to worry about regarding liability is a low # cap on their exposed liability, something to do with passed legislation.

 

[tsmwebb]

....
I thought this might be a bit closer to home for most here. I have been reminded that while I may think the CF38 is nothing more than a performance cruiser, most here consider it a performance racing boat. I won't dispute that since it did start life as such, only as a 33' sportboat, not the morphed 38.

Great stuff Peter!

Just a couple of months ago I had a friend who needed to re-rout some pluming and add a bilge pump to his Erickson of similar vintage. I was astounded at the level of "workmanship" in the boat. To be fair it was an older boat and some of the horrors were the result of "upgrades". Nevertheless, I was shocked that the grid was so poorly tabbed into the hull -- the glasswork was not good anywhere that I could see. Just tabbing the darn thing back together would probably constitute a "betterment". And, in order to run the new pluming w/o drilling new holes in the grid they had to remove most of the furniture on the port side and a water tank -- which had been enlarged. I've owned and worked on boats with various types of pans and grids and I understand the temptation to build them that way, but I hate all the mystery space. Inspection, repairs and upgrades can turn into real nightmares.

--Tom.

 

[Todd Smith]

<snip>
I'm almost dumbfounded that Roger seems to be myopic as to blame, and because he knows so much more than me, I'm forced to look at my own blindspots (thanks, Roger!).
<snip>
cup

Perhaps because Roger is not trying to place blame, but is interested in the implications about boat design.

Todd

 

[rbonilla]

Peter - holy smokes.....quite a project....

wow Peter...that's quite a project...great photos.....so, what is the rest of the story on the e 38? where is she now & how is she doing after the repairs? what are your overall comments / observations on the e38 as a club or charter boat? cheers.... richard / colorado / odyssey sailing corp

ps: we own a fractional sailing club..( small, only 5 members ) and are considering picking up a ericson 38-200 on the left coast....looking for opinions and expierenced ericson owners for comments on this topic.... A BIG THANX !!!

Tom,
In '90 and '91 I ran a charter company (by default, what an experience to forget, I am not a people person) and had several Ericsons and other similar boats in the fleet. One of the Ericson 38's bounced on the bottom at anchor off Norfolk for a few hours until the delivery crew had the sense to move. The boat kept taking on water when on starboard tack. I brought the boat north from Charleston alone, not knowing the boat had this new issue. It had performed fine while in the keys and there was no mention of the water in the bilge.
The boat had a charter in Noank the day after I got home. The owner insisted I was nuts to haul the boat and off it went on a charter from another company. That charter owner had added ELEVEN qts of oil to the engine because he saw no oil on the dipstick. That oil pumped right out to the bilge and the molded "grid" Ericson touted as the only way to install structure. This could take forever to explain, so I will just skip to the photos and some limited babble.
I talked the insurance comany into removing the interior to inspec the grid, which had signs of failure in massive spider cracks. Once the interior was removed, the origin of the cracks was clearly the keel sump, which had signs of total failure.
The adjuster told me I could repair the boat, but I had to be careful the work didn't result in "betterment." I had a new term to deal with, not easy to work around for the original structure was not working. Plus they knew they would have their hands full if word got out that a high number production boat had structure issues.
The problem with this particuler version of the Ericson 38 was the removal of grid aft of the keel to relocate the engine. All evident in the photos.
End repair cost was $65,000. All furniture was replaced and any mods were paid by the owner. The boat was bettered, but not to a large extent, well in the spirit of the term.
Removing the keel was easy, and is quite normal practice when dealing with hull/keel leaks.
Will check in later to answer the expected replies.
Note the paint flaking around the sump...............there are many shots of the repair, all worth the time to view.
http://s119.photobucket.com/albums/o145/Tynaje/Ericson 38/

I thought this might be a bit closer to home for most here. I have been reminded that while I may think the CF38 is nothing more than a performance cruiser, most here consider it a performance racing boat. I won't dispute that since it did start life as such, only as a 33' sportboat, not the morphed 38.

 

[RobertLangdirect]

Hmmm. Let's see what I observed in the University report but what the U DID NOT say:

We ran our boat aground, and at the juction where the keel meets the hull and where the only through hull fittings are bolt holes, we had leaks from an area near the bolt holes, but as you can see from the picture, these leaks were from NEW THRU-HULL CRACKS.

Don't be alarmed by this. We let STUDENTS cover the area with epoxy.

Hmmmm. I think I would have a field day with the U's report.

 

[Peter Ross]

wow Peter...that's quite a project...great photos.....so, what is the rest of the story on the e 38? where is she now & how is she doing after the repairs? what are your overall comments / observations on the e38 as a club or charter boat? cheers.... richard / colorado / odyssey sailing corp

ps: we own a fractional sailing club..( small, only 5 members ) and are considering picking up a ericson 38-200 on the left coast....looking for opinions and expierenced ericson owners for comments on this topic.... A BIG THANX !!!

I had at least one of the following in the fleet, 30, 32, 34 and the 38. The 30 was just a bit small but was still a lot of boat for the buck. The 32 my all time favorite and a real performer when needed. The 34 a fantastic boat as well. The 38 is the boat to own, due to it's size, ease of handling and speed. The 38 in the photos travelled with the 34 and found it difficult because of the speed difference.
That wing keel was a result of the AC trend at the time and can be a real pain if the boat runs finds the bottom, particularly in mud where the suction can really stick the boat. I would suggest avoiding the winged boat if you can, but it is not a show stopper. Check the sump for signs of cracking. A leaking hull/keel joint is common with the boats. Another really annoying issue is the dealer prep. For some reason the NE dealer in our area refused to sand a single bottom before painting, using a sandless etching goo instead. In almost every case, the mold release is still evident, which also added to extra blistering.
A friend showed me photos of an Ericson 38 that had fallen over on it's stands when the sump had failed over the winter, several years ago. That boat had never run aground as had the 38 in my shop. The glass work in some of the boats is not so good.
Make certain to get a good survey, you will really love sailing an Ericson.

As for the boat in the photos, I hadn't given the boat's current condition or location a thought in 17 years, until you asked. Can't believe I never did a google search, but just did and found the boat for sale. The galley was changed a bit. The stock boat had a poor ice box lid and seal. The sink was a pain to keep clean after charter and water often collected in the fiddle corners. I put the sink under the mica, opened the fiddle corner for easy cleaning and fabricated a new square ice box/frig lid that could be rotated to allow opening fore and aft or port/strbrd. The interior still looks great, the boat's been cared for, I like that.
The owner sold the boat when the repair was complete, got most of his money back, since it was a new boat again. I would love to see that boat and take some photos of the sump. Will dig up some shots of the completed boat, it's fun to see it is still looking good.
Thanks for the kind words, here's the boat's link. http://www.everyboat.com/pictures/1204-1989-ericson

Kind of makes me a hypocrite. I convince an insurance company to completely rebuild a high number production boat because I didn't like the look of a bulkhead trim cap and some spider cracks under an inspection port. Then tell the world the Cf38 was not damaged by the grounding in sand. Even I don't like that hypocrisy, but it is what it is.

Tom,
The biggest problem repairing the boat was re routing the utilities behind the engine and through the port lockers to the galley. Not one line is in that grid. Also note those"windows" they cut in the grid to tab it to the hull. In some places there was a 1" gap under it. Now the floors carry the loads to the chainplates. All the windows were opened,extended and not a single gap. Far too much work, but well worth the effort in the end.
One of the 38's had a bad "y" valve the dealer neglected to repair. When the boat returned from it's first charter, the charterer noted difficulty pumping the head. One pump of the handle was all it took to explode the diaphram and a very full holding tank emptied itself in the cabinet. All that sewage made it's way into that grid..............never got that cleaned, it was SO nasty. I made the dealer clean it, he was in tears for weeks. He should have bought the boat back from the poor owner, who was chartering to pay the bank while trying to sell his beautiful boat.

I do love those Ericsons though, just so nice to sail. Did I mention the 32 is the sleeper of the line? Only problem is they draw too much water for the keys and Bahamas.

 

[tsmwebb]

...
That wing keel was a result of the AC trend at the time and can be a real pain if the boat runs finds the bottom, particularly in mud where the suction can really stick the boat. I would suggest avoiding the winged boat if you can, but it is not a show stopper.

IMO wing keels are hard to do well. Very small changes to the geometry can make huge differences in performance. Not all keel shops can get work in tolerances of < 1 degree. But a 1 degree difference in the wing angle at the keel or the twist of the wing can make the whole system very significantly worse. And cruising boats generally sail slower beat less than racing boats and wing keels make up time at speed uphill and lose time off the wind... My general take on it is that a bulb with a low Cd is a better bet for most cruisers.

Just to add some pictures I did a quicky run in XFLR5 of a simple deep keel (1.8 meters) the same keel with winglets and wings and then a shallow longer cord version (1.4 meters) with wings.


If you look at the streamlines you can see that the wing has to interact with the tip vortex of the keel in very complicated way and the ideal angle of attack of the winglet changes along it's length for any given speed and angle of attack of the keel... The leeward winglet is pretty much just baggage but you need symmetry so you've got to optimize the winglets with that in mind, too... And the flow is way to complicated to make the computer models believable and robust so you have to go to the tank with all of its problems and .... Well, bottom line, they're hard to design right and hard to make right... But there's probably no real harm in them for cruising -- the losses, if any, will probably be below the threshold of noticability for most -- but I wouldn't pay extra for one either...

...The glass work in some of the boats is not so good.
Make certain to get a good survey, you will really love sailing an Ericson.

I like Ericsons. The one I saw had some issues but I wouldn't want anyone to draw conclusions from a sample of one.

Tom,
The biggest problem repairing the boat was re routing the utilities behind the engine and through the port lockers to the galley. Not one line is in that grid. Also note those"windows" they cut in the grid to tab it to the hull. In some places there was a 1" gap under it. Now the floors carry the loads to the chainplates. All the windows were opened,extended and not a single gap. Far too much work, but well worth the effort in the end. ...

That sounds right. In the case I saw they wanted to add a bilge pump and re-plum the existing pump (which used the head's sink drain). So they had to run pluming from the bilge to the transom and to do that they had to dissemble the port side of the boat from midships aft... Bummer. Also I noted a lot of solid PVC pluming glued to hoses and some of those connections were not readily inspectable and were marginal too. I'm not sure if that was as built or something that happened later -- but it was done with the furniture out...

--Tom.

 

[rbonilla]

thanx Peter for all the addt'l info......the e 38-200 does look to be a decent cruiser, esp once inspected and in solid shape.....the prices seem to be falling right now as well......cheers.....

I had at least one of the following in the fleet, 30, 32, 34 and the 38. The 30 was just a bit small but was still a lot of boat for the buck. The 32 my all time favorite and a real performer when needed. The 34 a fantastic boat as well. The 38 is the boat to own, due to it's size, ease of handling and speed. The 38 in the photos travelled with the 34 and found it difficult because of the speed difference.
That wing keel was a result of the AC trend at the time and can be a real pain if the boat runs finds the bottom, particularly in mud where the suction can really stick the boat. I would suggest avoiding the winged boat if you can, but it is not a show stopper. Check the sump for signs of cracking. A leaking hull/keel joint is common with the boats. Another really annoying issue is the dealer prep. For some reason the NE dealer in our area refused to sand a single bottom before painting, using a sandless etching goo instead. In almost every case, the mold release is still evident, which also added to extra blistering.
A friend showed me photos of an Ericson 38 that had fallen over on it's stands when the sump had failed over the winter, several years ago. That boat had never run aground as had the 38 in my shop. The glass work in some of the boats is not so good.
Make certain to get a good survey, you will really love sailing an Ericson.

As for the boat in the photos, I hadn't given the boat's current condition or location a thought in 17 years, until you asked. Can't believe I never did a google search, but just did and found the boat for sale. The galley was changed a bit. The stock boat had a poor ice box lid and seal. The sink was a pain to keep clean after charter and water often collected in the fiddle corners. I put the sink under the mica, opened the fiddle corner for easy cleaning and fabricated a new square ice box/frig lid that could be rotated to allow opening fore and aft or port/strbrd. The interior still looks great, the boat's been cared for, I like that.
The owner sold the boat when the repair was complete, got most of his money back, since it was a new boat again. I would love to see that boat and take some photos of the sump. Will dig up some shots of the completed boat, it's fun to see it is still looking good.
Thanks for the kind words, here's the boat's link. http://www.everyboat.com/pictures/1204-1989-ericson

Kind of makes me a hypocrite. I convince an insurance company to completely rebuild a high number production boat because I didn't like the look of a bulkhead trim cap and some spider cracks under an inspection port. Then tell the world the Cf38 was not damaged by the grounding in sand. Even I don't like that hypocrisy, but it is what it is.

Tom,
The biggest problem repairing the boat was re routing the utilities behind the engine and through the port lockers to the galley. Not one line is in that grid. Also note those"windows" they cut in the grid to tab it to the hull. In some places there was a 1" gap under it. Now the floors carry the loads to the chainplates. All the windows were opened,extended and not a single gap. Far too much work, but well worth the effort in the end.
One of the 38's had a bad "y" valve the dealer neglected to repair. When the boat returned from it's first charter, the charterer noted difficulty pumping the head. One pump of the handle was all it took to explode the diaphram and a very full holding tank emptied itself in the cabinet. All that sewage made it's way into that grid..............never got that cleaned, it was SO nasty. I made the dealer clean it, he was in tears for weeks. He should have bought the boat back from the poor owner, who was chartering to pay the bank while trying to sell his beautiful boat.

I do love those Ericsons though, just so nice to sail. Did I mention the 32 is the sleeper of the line? Only problem is they draw too much water for the keys and Bahamas.