• Welcome to this website/forum for people interested in the Morgan 38 Sailboat. Many of our members are 'owners' of Morgan 38s, but you don't need to be an owner to Register/Join.

Fatal flaws

D

dennstap

Dennis L. Staples
Yeah the Morgans a good boat, but have you failed to notice:
1. shifting & moving interiors. 2. An ineffective rudder.
3. A short rig in the 382's. 4. The lack of a critical
bulkhead where the shower and head is installed. 5. Electical
connections using trailer crimp connectors and circuit breakers
using slide on sta-cons. 6. If you have a 6-ft draft how about
the factoy patch job to reinforce the hull by the keel. Maybe
I;m just a whiner.
 
All boats have flaws! What exactly are you trying to say? My 382 has been through a lot of rough water since I have owned her and the interior has not shifted or moved around, the electrical circuit breakers have all been replaced, and I would not trade Maluhia for most of what is being produced in the boating industry today. Fatal flaws, somehow I don't think so with the following the Morgan 382-3-4 has even though the boat has been out of production since 1985. I'm quite sure other Morgan 38 owners would sound off as well. By the way, what are you sailing?
 
Jim, you seem to know about these boats. What exacctly was the head bulkhead problem? My bulkheads are well bonded, to the hull, although, unfortunately, not to the deck. I think another flaw is the use of screws rather than bolts and nuts to attach the hull deck joint, but I knew that when I bought the boat, and went ahead anyway. I cannot afford perfection, and nothing seems to be coming apart. The boat has been across the Atlantic and back, then home to Puget Sound.
 
You're right about the Morgan having some flaws, but then there is no such thing as a perfect boat. I recognize some of the structural problems you mentioned as possibly related to the lack of bonding of the aft head bulkhead and inadequate support for the port forward lower shroud. The factory, much to their credit, launched a worldwide campaign to recall the 382's and fix them. They found all but a few and fixed all they found. I wonder if you've sailed on one of the few boats that the factory could never find?
Regarding the other stuff, it's true that the rudder is marginal, but then there is also an easy fix to that problem, but you have to do it yourself. The electrical wiring practices of 20 years were definitely inadequate compared to todays standards, but then over time most of us have substantially upgraded our electrical systems anyway.
Fatal flaws? Not hardly -- the boat is far better than that. Just a few things to improve upon -- which everyone knows is the reason people own boats, so we can spend money on them!

 
Jim, I am a 20 year owner of hull #75. Yes its true that the factory cobbeled together some patches. However in 1989 the leading edge of my keel cracked open where it intersects the hull. There is now a significat bulge in this area due to the fiberglass repairs. There are still minor cracks where the trailing edge of the keel meets the hull. The head problem is one of severe oil caning. The boat that prompted the factory's action was Bill Kolmos's "Reese River Belle" On a return trip from the south pacific, he started to notice problems about Santa Barbara. The boat was hauled out in the Bay area and I saw what was left. Not pretty. I have extensively modified #75 and she finds work as an around the bouys racer in the winter in the bay area and does several ocean races in the fall & spring. When the boat is on a port tack going out the San Francisco bar in lumpy conditions it puts a huge stress on the hull as we crash through the waves. My hull has cracked where the factory's secondary bond ends and the corner of the shower pan meets the hull. The shower pan forms a nasty corner that wants to work its way through the hull. You may think of this as inconsequential but it is a significant structural flaw. Do you have any suggestions on a repair?. By the way if you have a 6-ft draft boat what do you think is between the base of the mast and the top of the keel? Sleep tight. John
 
John,
It's hard to know what to think regarding all this negative information on your boat. You may be the unluckiest Morgan owner ever, or (a scary thought) that the 382's still have a latent weakness waiting to emerge. I know about the SF boat that triggered the recall, and everything I've heard, up to now, is that the retrofit/repair to that boat, and the rest of the fleet, was successful. I've heard from Morgan that keel separation at the transition to the hull is one of the more obvious results of prolonged hard-sailing in a boat that has not had the factory bonding job performed. The retrofit was expressly designed to prevent this from happening, and yet your keel separated. Why? Do you know if the retrofit design wasn't robust enough for your usage, or perhaps it was installed badly in your boat? Any light you could shed on this would be very helpful. I assume you've examined the retrofit bonding. Did it hold up? Have you had to repair or upgrade the retrofit? If it wasn't the retrofit bonding that failed, what did? Could the oil canning and hull cracking at the corner of the shower pan be related in any way to bond failure at the forward head bulkhead, or might you have one of the rumored non-cored (thinner) hulls? Sorry about all the questions. I have the standard draft model with the mast stepped on the keel/ ballast, so that's one less thing.
It's a little early to tell whether your experiences are unique or not, but I'm grateful for your input. I'm planning on leaving early next year for the South Pacific, and beyond, and I don't want problems such as you've described. This summer, as I'm bonding my decks to the top of the bulkheads, I'll remember this discussion and will definitely double-check the rest of the bonds around each bulkhead, plus the retrofit bonds. Hopefully that will do it. Is there anything you'd suggest doing in a preventative sense?
Thanks for the information -- hopefully even more information and history will follow. It would be nice to hear from other Morgan owners about how their boats have held up after prolonged beatings, or long ocean passages, etc.
 
A few of the 382-4 owners have spoken of bonding the bulkheads to their decks. Has anyone spoken to an architect about this? I wonder if bonding the bulkhead to the decks my promote delamination of the deck. Normally, any coreing material is removed were a bulkhead is to be bonded to the hull or deck. My surveyor instructed me to not bond the bulkheads to the decks. Any comments?
 
<div>John, I note you are not on the list of Morgan owners in the group. I am sorry to see this on the internet yet hope this information helps someone from having a problem. I am the original owner of Morgan 382 hull # 74. After her initial season (78) when she was hauled I advised Morgan I wanted the boat inspected by a surveyor because of the gap in the aft area at the head. upon hauling the boat was found to have a hull crack at the leading edge of the keel.After threats, correspondence Morgan agreed to repair rather than replace. There were and are no problems on the trailing edge of the keel. These are generally caused by grounding where the keel kicks. Vixen has had one serious meeting with some rocks and yet has no damage in this area. She also has no hull cracks in other areas, and has been inspected by me on 4/5/98 as the bottom has been fully striped and sanded for barrier coating this spring. The Morgan exterior hull repair has held up over the years and is fine today. I believe I had the first boat with bonding done to the after head bulkhead as a result of this work. This internal repair failed and was later part of the Beatrice foods general repair. This repair has also failed. Vixen has spent her career generally in the Marion, Buzzards bay area which is known for its robust winds as is your bay area. She has also done four Marion/Bermuda races and was in the 1991 race where we had winds to hurricane force and seas 25-40 feet. She was under once after broaching or sliding down the face of one and being buried by it. She and the crew did not like this. These conditions lasted for about 8 hours and when it got to 45 knots we thought we were in heaven. This was followed by tropical storm Annie which we went through on the return in '91.
My current bulkhead repair was done by me and is twofold.(1) a fibreglas flange has been built joining the hull and bulkhead and then thrubolted from the main cabin, and covered, in four places. this repair has been in place since '91 and is fine as of last weekend. (2) I had always felt the deck should share these loads and in discussions with Ted Brewer he came up with two ideas one of which I used. On top of the rubber gromet at the mast deck joint I have an Aluminum ring with flanges where a throughbolt is inserted and forces any downward mast movement to be shared by the deck and the hull. These repairs have been in place since 1991 and are in fine shape. Vixen was in the 93&95 (89 as well) Marion /Bermuda although conditions were not like 1991. She also on a weekend basis since 1978 has dealt with the normal 20-25 knot breezes both beating out and reaching(squirrelly with the small rudder) back on our normal trips to the cape and islands. I feel you may be unfortunate in having one of the 6 Ft. draft Morgan 382's and it sounds as if the area was added at the hull keel joint and not properly supported and the loads spread from this to other areas. Any other info I can offer? Please ask. I make no claims that these repairs will work for anyone else but only offer my experience.
</div>
 
Does a problem really exist? How many of you have had problems? This boat is still a very good vessel; as I have said, I have taken this 38 over extremely rough water and winds in excess of 60 kts. and it still without structural problems described by Mr. English. In fact I trust this Morgan 38 #109 even more than when I purchased her. I take pride in this vessel.
 
Dick,
The reality of the factory repair appears to be that it's OK for most sailing, but for truly rough conditions it would be better to add more bonding and support in the area of the aft head bulkhead. Could you please provide a more detailed description about what you did? For example, how long is the fg flange you installed, and did you have to remove any of the cabin sole to install it, etc. Pictures in addition to the details would be great. From my perspective, your response can't be too detailed.
Thanks,
Jim
 
Jim: you will have to wait til next week as my boat is at my house in Marion,and as it has been 7 years I' rather look and review, will advise more to you and Ed O'Brien on ports next week.

 
Jim, If you have a 5-ft draft boat you are probably not at risk for the inherent problems of the 6-ft draft. Think about it. They moved 6800 pounds of lead 1-ft further down the standard hull without any apparent regard to the moment arm that was created. My mast sits on the nice fiberglass well, howver between the bottom of that fiberglass and the top of the keel is nothing but resin similar to the type that they used to bod the lead ingots in the bow for trimming ballast. As far as the shower pan is concerned, it is no more than a square corner hitting a hull and since the entire interior is subject to movement in a seaway together with the lack of support on the port side, its going to flex and corner is going to protrude through the hull. My surveyor agrees with this analysis. I try to stay off the port side when crashing through chop. FYI the 382's hull is only cored to the waterline, below that it is solid glass and from the through hulls Ive installed its not all that thick. =/- 1/2" in the keel area. I think everyone needs to post their hull numbers when they make reference to their boats to establish the time line of possible corrections. I watched the factory team make the "repairs" to my boat. They were done properly, but they were still secondary bonds, just not that strong.
 
Jim, my bulkheads were bonded to the deck and still are. My speific problem is oil caning and the sinking of the interior. My starboard water tank has dropped about an inch.
 
Dick, Im sorry to break up any love fest regarding our boats, but facts are facts. I dont have any separation from the main cabin bulhead at the hull, however where it meets the coach roof, it has separated about an inch and has become more or less stable. I have a turnbuckle connecting the coachroof to the mast an this may have prevented some breakdown of the bulkhead/hull bond. Again I believe the most serious threat is where the square corner of the sower pan meets the hull. I want to to the Pacific Cup in 2000 and am looking for a genuine repair for this area. p.s. see my comments on a new rudder. Chowder, John
 
Terry, It was not a bulhead bonding problem it is the lack of a bulhead at a place where the boat really pounds in a seaway. there should bulkheads, typical port & starboard. The starboard side is stong but the port side has a bulkhead missing. There should be one where the shower curtain is. Since its not there I'm trying to find out if anyones's come up with a suitable repair. as far as the hull to deck joint, Mine is working as advertised. The value engineering guys had that one right.
 
Re; Head bulkhead. There is a bulkhead bonded in at the aft end of the head. There is a bulkhead bonded at the forward end. According to Practical Sailor, some of the early boats did not have the aft bulkhead in the head bonded to the hull, but that was subject of a recall. (Affected mast pressure on the keel, it says.) Previous owner of my boat said some workers from the Morgan Plant came to Seattle in the 80s some time and checked out the boat, opened up a new access in the cabin sole and did some retrofit near the starboard side of the mast, below the sole. The declared the boat sound--but then who is to believe them. Seems to me, although I am no expert that two bulkheads for and aft of the "whower curtain" should be adequate. I hope to learn more from others as they learn.
 
So, the early Morgan's had a bonding problem. thanks to all for the info. What about the boats that were bonded at the factory, rather than retrofit? Later 382s, and the 383s and 384s? Do folks consider there to still be a problem here? My boat, atthough a 6 foot draft 382, appears to have had the bulkhead bonded at the factory. There is no indication of unreasonable stress. I am unhappy to hear that the 6 foot draft boats may have some other problems; I selected it after talking to owners of 5 and 6 foot boats, and Brewer, and decided I wanted slightly better upwind performance.
 
In hindsight, even though two people have reported bond failures, with such a small sample size it can't be determined for sure whether or not the factory retrofit is strong enough to take severe conditons in stride. Since there was only one failure noted in each of the two different draft versions, more information is needed. At this point it seems equally as possible for the faillure to be caused by other factors, including variability in retrofit workmanship, as opposed to being rooted in an inadequate retrofit design.
I tend to doubt the failures are primarily due to weakness of secondary bonds. This is because, except for those bonds developed as the hull was being laid up, every bond on the boat must be secondary. This includes the mid-line bond created after the two hull halves were pulled from their molds and later on glassed together. This mid-line bond is known to be massive, and there has never been a question about the integrity of that bond. The question at hand, therefore, is probably more about the amount, physical size, and quality of bulkhead bonding, than anything else.
Terry brings up a vital question regarding what differences may exist in the performance of retrofit bonding vs later production bonding (perhaps Pete Brown could give us some informaton on factory bonding changes over time, if any). With a few more histories and some facts, it should be possible to generalize on what sort of problem pattern may exist. Lacking enough information, though, it would seem prudent for those of us who plan to do hard sailing to add some "insurance" bulkhead-to-hull bonding. I look forward to hearing about the additional bonding on "Vixen".
Since more information is needed, I think this might be a good time for an owners survey to see how many boats have had a problem. Perhaps Lenny could serve as a focal point for a brief email survey, then report a summary of the results in the newsletter? Sort of "Practical Sailor style". Such a survey should include information on boat usage as well as whether or not any bonds have failed. I'd also like to see information collected on the shower pan question.
 
I don't know too much about this bonding issue but would be happy to send my e-mail list to anyone who would like to post questions and interpret the replies.
 
Jim Etc. Yes the floor had been taken up by Morgan in one of the repairs, about 1 foot back from the bulkheah and filled it with holly, I removed the bungs etc and took up the floor again at the same point, this gave limited access to that side.The flange is about 17 inches long and is made up by (1) grinding all areas big time for a good secondary bond. (2) Using first Mat and then multople woven roving to form an L flange this was then bolted. (3) A piece of 3/4 plywood was the relieved on the backside to cover bold heads, this was then screwed iinto place over the existing repair and this was then mat and woven rovinged to the hull as well. Has been there for seven years and still looks new.
If your boat does not have a 3/8 1/2 " space between the shower unit and the floor under full sailing load (port tack) I would check with Pete Brown to get his input B/4 proceeding. Good Luck

 
John: as I said in some earlier transmittal here my bottom is completely striped for barrier coating at this point (no blisters but hundreds of very small voids from air and moisture in the gel at time of layup, all epoxied at this point), I did examine the hull closely for any problems showing unusual internal loading and found two areas. ther is crazzing at the head corner area aft next to a knee brace for the port forward shroud (note there is a knee brace here). There was also crazzing at the corner of the ice chest forward. Neither would I consider serious, but as evidence there is serious loads at these points, There is no hull deformation. My bulkheads are not bonded or tabbed to the deck anywhere in the boat and this has not created a problem over 20 seasons so I would leave alone. based on your comments if I were doing offshore work I would Seriously consider a wood or wood edged aluminum grid for mast and hull support. I don't envy the job. Good luck.

 
<div>I am the owner of a 1986 vintage 38-4. The vin number changed after Catalina's purchase of Morgan. By the vin #, I have hull #020 which was laid up in June of 85 or 86 (not sure which I'll check and report later). I may have the last 384 built. Definitly one of the last. I have not had any problems that I know of. As far as I can tell, there is not any significant difference between my 38-4 and earlier 38-4,3,2's with the exception of bonding the bulkheads to the hull. All the shroud chainplates (including port forward) are carried to a bulk head which is bonded below the water line. There are braces bonded to the hull located below the cabin sole at 1) just aft of the mast, 2) just aft of the fuel tank, 3) mid way in the bilge, 4) just foreward of the companionway ladder. There may be more which I cannot see. Two years ago, just after my last haul out, I hit hard aground on a sand bar. It was an uncharted shoal well inside the marker. I was steaming ahead at 6 knot when we hit. I heard the prop cavatate. I later swam under and checked on the damage. I could see no damage where we hit. There is an area just above the top of the lead balast where it appears (remember, I'm looking at this in murkey water while hold my breath) the hull flexed enough to pop out an area of fairing compound the size of my hand. It looked surfical and I chose to not haul at that time. That was before all of this discussion. I am schedule to go on-the-hard May 26. I am very curious to inspect the damage again. I will post everyone on what I learn.On one last note in the "for what its worth" catagory. I have had two surveyors instruct me to NOT bond bulkheads on this boat to the deck.
</div>
 
The only bulkhead I would bond to the deck is the chainlocker bulkhead. This not only adds strength for a windlass, but prevents seawater from entering the veeberth in serious seas.
 
I agree. The bow and stern both have bulkhead that are bonded to both hull and deck. I forget them in my previous message.
 
Jim Mc. must be an engineer. I appreciate his perspective on boat analysis and all the stuff he knows about, so that I don't have to fret over all that stuff and just plain enjoy sailing! No offense - really! I am grateful for his comments and analysis. I guess I'm just one of those knuckleheads who puts up the sails and enjoys, but I'm no dummy and am referencing everything being said for insurance.
Bottom line, it would appear, we have great boats regardless! Just look at some of the other boat boards and gratitude will overwhelm you.

 
Gentlemen
Thank you for your wonderful words of experience with our boats. I have '78 382 #46. The repairs were completed to my boat. I've only had her 3 yrs and your experience is so valuable to me. I'm heading offshore this fall to the Carribean and on to the Med next spring. All the things you've been talking about have been a complete eye-opener to me! I'll be checking things out really close next week when I pull her.
Again, thanks for sticking with it. Tony
 
One more note...I've heard nothing but good things about our boats and heard stories of long wonderful passages with solid performance and reliability. All this scarey stuff you are talking about would never be found. This BB idea is wonderful. Great job Lenny!
 
I've had my 382 #95 for ten years now with the factory retro and have not experienced any problem related to bonding. I will be keeping an eye out and very much apprecieate reading everyones comments.

 
There would appear to be a fix, although complicated and expensive. Cut out the back of the shower unit, lay in stiffeners on the hull as needed--either horizontal or vertical--and then do something with the hole--god knows what that would be, but lots of boats I have owned or sailed do without a one piece shower/head sump. Thanks for the note, however, because previously I could not quite understand the problem. As I think about it, I think the whole shower unit might not have to be cut out--I have some access to the area already, so I can get to shroud attachments, etc. If the problem is pounding and flexing, isn't the solution, in other words, simply to strengthen that area of the hull. It might not be as good as a full bulkhead, but I have glassed in members in bows of boats before and gotten substantial additional strength, plus the bonus in that case of a nice place to hang a yellow cedar interior.
 
I have hull 170 a 382 and am the third owner. Most of my repairs were apparently factory done. Other than the usual problems from a 1979 boat, I have had very little problems, and no significant structural problems. The mast step support was sloppily done and did not drain right, but nothing that 10-12 hours of work couldn't fix. It might be kept in mind that these boats weren't sold or advertised for southern ocean sailing, and none of you paid 150 to 400k for boats that are advertised for that. If you need an upgrade for your intended use, fine, do it. But don't continuously refer to "fatal flaws". Witness the large # of boats still sailing, in good shape, and the stable market. There are plenty of boats out there that can't say that.

 
I would appreciate any information on repairs done in or with water being the factor to make repairs impossible.Could any one advise on this subject.My application is alittle different Boats.Our units are under ground.How to repair a unit that has water behind it.Could you offer some helpfull thoughts and materials to do repairs
Thank you

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top