• 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.

Hull distortion

J

jhudnut

Jim Hudnut
Gentlemen, I have owned my 382 for 20 years. It has been
strengthened by the factory some 10 years ago but lately the
yard has been tightening the shrouds too much and I notice some
excessive separation between the bulkheads and the sole. Does
anyone have some advice in this matter. Reducing the tension
helps some. I do not see any separation between the glassed
bulkheads and the hull. Thank you.
 
<div>Julius. Pete Brown, the National Service Manager for Morgan during the construction of our boats, believes that the problem you are experiencing was/is associated with the internal glass unit (IUG). The IUG supports some of the cabinetery in the soloon as well as the mast step. The IUG mast step is not supported directly by the keel. As least not as I understand it. This arrangement was changed in the 383/4s. In the later models, the IUG was cut away and the mast was stepped directly onto the top of the keel. You might call Pete and quiz him. He is listed in our members directory. Pete believes that the mast compession is pushing the IUG (and anything connected to it) downward. You might be able to bridge the gap between the IUG and the keel and solve, or at least improve, the situation.Good luck. I hope you can share your success with the other members.Jay
</div>
 
I learned a while back that the Mast step box in some boats was not supported underneath, hence not sitting direcly on top of the keel. I will have to go back to my paper notes to see who it was that I was talking to from Morgan Yachts. The individual had been on the production line when the 382s were being built. As I recall, it was not the intent for the box to be unsupported but in the production some of the boats came out that way. To check for the box I was told to sound it with a hammer or drill a small hole in bottom to see if it is sitting on glass or air. Supposedly some boats had a hole put in the bottom and then the space filled with a fiber glass mixture. On my boat, I apparently have one where the box is still on a solid structure from everything I have been able to check. I have tied my cabin sole in the head area and the door into the forward cabin together with steel tie rod. I have added a piece of flat bar across the entire front of the mast step box and then this is bolted in the middle to a metal angle plate that is then bolted with a backing plate to the bulkhead just forward of the mast. In addition I added another angle iron to the port side of the mast inside the head vanity and bolted this to the aftbulkhead. In the door sill area into the head I ran two tie rods thru the sill and down thru the for and aft beam in the deck. I did the same in the sill going into the forward cabin. What I did was to try and "tie" the entire area together to share in the loading from the mast. So far I have no movement of the deck from the bulkhead in the mast area since I did this. I did it when the boat was out of the water and mast removed. At that point everything was together, and it hasn't moved after launching and restepping the mast. It's been a year now and I have sailed in some rough weather. Not a lot but enough that I should have see something happen if it was. So, so far so good. But I am no Naval engineer. I did talk with Ted Brewer about this and a couple of folks from Morgan. So for what it's worth I am interested in any thoughts on this project.

 
<div>Andy. I have never seen the mast step in a 382 so it is a little difficult for me to draw a mental picture of your solution in my mind but, it appears that it is working. When I am down below in a seaway, I have noticed that this area of the boat is "working." Note enough to see movement but just enough to cause some squeaking. Some of the squeaks are from the mast partners and some from the vinyl headliner working against the bulkheads. I have been of the opinion that if I should need to strenghen this area I would take your approach. In addition I may even run a compression/tension post from the under side of the coach roof to the partial bulkhead on the starboard side of the boat at the same station as the mast.By the way, what did Ted Brewer think of your idea?
</div>
 
I don't know how anyone else feels, but discussions about inadequate mast support or hull distortion always makes me feel uneasy. I see no distortion and have no evidence of my boat working, but then I have not sailed it very hard -- yet. At the end of this year, my wife and I plan on departing on a very long cruise, probably spanning several years, and we'll cross quite a bit of blue water. How can I determine if my boat is up to the task? Marcus, did the distortion begin to appear this year, or is it something that has grown over a few years? Could the hull-deck joint have anything to do with this?
 
This sounds quite complicated and a bit overkill and perhaps ugly to live with. For all who care to listen, I have a six foot draft 382 with factory upgrades, and have had the boat down and up the West Coast of California and Mexico without problems. I have been in 58+kt. winds, 14 ft seas, with the boat falling off wave crests, and it is like the day I brought it. Any boat will make noises and move off shore. I feel quite secure aboard this boat. I constantly check bonding throughout the boat and have added a tiedown between the deck and the keel but feel the boat is still one of the better designed and constructed boats. Within a year I plan to leave again to ports far away from S.F. I only hope I hold up to nature as the boat has held up in the past. We all need to maintain close observation on our old boats, but they're now approaching 20 years old and still look modern, perform well, and generally better built than new boats. I am a proud owner of a Morgan 38, hull # 109.
 
These discussions make me a little uneasy too, but they are useful. Andy's solution also seems unnecessarily complicated to me. The tradition is to have "keel stepped" masts, so the tension is translated to the hull as a whole. Although I recall the fellow from California felt it was causing distortion or separation in the keel itself.
I have a slight downward movement of the sole away from the head bulkhead, but all the tabbing is strong, so the explanation of the IGU being pushed down somehow makes some sense. I find it hard to believe that that IGU could support the mast at all, however, under tension. It would give way or flex a lot more than anyone has described. In short, it seems essential to me to step the mast on the keel. Unfortunately, I cannot see down there. I have thought that if I finally take the boat any distance, I will want to take out the existing fuel tank and add a larger one(I have lots of room to do this in a 6 foot draft). At that point, I could get into to build a support for the mast, if I am missing one. Perhaps drilling a little hole to check makes sense, now.
I have to say though that the boat seems very solid and even when being pounded hard to weather in 40 knots, nothing seemed to budge and I did not hear any "squeaking" or groaning that seemed out of the ordinary. If you want to hear a boat working, go sail hard on traditionally built wooden boat.
 
Jim. I agree. I don't see any movement and the sounds I here are normal. Your comments are helpfull because I wonder what movement will be like in another 10 years (Njord is only 13). The modification that I mentioned isn't anything elaborate and wouldn't need to be noticeable at all. I mentioned it because there are owners that have a concern and one or two others that belive that they have a problem. I would not hesitate to venture off shore in this boat for one minute and feel that she can take anything that I could. From what I understand there are a few M38 that have successfully circumnavigated the globe wihtout a hitch. I have always believed that too much emphasices is placed on the boat and too little on the crew.
 
Jim. I do not believe that the hull to deck joint is related to this discussion. I firmly believe that if you are up to blue water sailing that your M38 is up to it. They have crossed oceans and circled the globe. I have seen very expenxive cars broken down along the road but that dosesn't mean that they are inadequate vehicles. Likewize, I have read about Hinkley's that have had structual problems. I read a story once about a new Hinkley that was being delievered to her new owner when the pedistal came adrift from the cockpit sole and had to be jury rigged at sea. The boat was grossly overloaded and was being pushed hard at the time this happened. Yet, I doubt that anyone would question the blue water ability of a Hinkley and I don't think that we should question the ability of our M38's.
 
<div>I'm currently working a project on my boat (382#24) based upon what I've seen on my boat, and what I've seen on other 382's (I've seen the work Andy did on his boat, I'm impressed enough to emulate.....). I'm showing gaps between the bottom of the bulhkead surrounding the head. The door into the forward cabin would not close due to the doorway being bent out of shape. I slacked the rig way off to relieve the pressure, and now the door opens and closes. I'm tearing out the floor to see what's under the keel step and will go from there, but at this point, the reinforcement that Andy talks about seems like a good idea to me (even if it's overkill, I tend to "fix" things on the boat in that manner). Suffice it to say, when I get done with the current project (I'm also going to tab the port forward lower shroud to the hull, rather than the deck) I shouldn't have to worry about the boat's abilities as much as I'll have to worry about mine....Bill
</div>
 
I think any discussion of the structural integrity of the 382's must start with the hull number and whether it is a 6-foot or 5-foot draft boat. In my particular case I ordered the optional 6-ft draft for sailing in SF bay. Over the years I have regretted this decision. The boat was designed for a 5-ft draft. Moving the ballast down 1-foot adds a tremendous moment arm to the hull/keel joint which was never properly re-engineered. Also keep in mind that your entire floor stucture is (or was) kept in place by a number of soft wood wedges. As these shifted out of place the flooring sank. The starboard water tank which I keep full to offset the tendency of the boat to list portdue to all of the interior weight being concentrated on the port side as caused an ever further separation at #4 bulkhead. Ok so the flooring is sinking. How about hull flexing on the port side. I have seen at least 2 boats with serious damage in this area durung the early 80's. Any person taking this boat off shore should seriously consider how the pounding in this area will affect the hull. PS when's the last time you checked your "Orion" steering cable/conduit system or replaced your #50 ss chain that Edson recommends changing every 5-years?
 
Whatever you do, i would recommend removing the mast. Do you have a 6 ft. draught vessel? Have you checked the bonding between the bulkheads and the hull? Did the factory upgrade your vessel? I have hull #109, 6 ft. draught and have had no problems, although I have rebonded the amidships bulkhead. Standing rigging tension should not be over-tensioned, which I believe is important for all to consider. Over tightening will cause problems in any vessel.
 
I agree to extremely close inspection of any vessel that is 15+ years old. That means all working mechanisms thoughout the boat and all bonding between elements. I own a 6 ft. draughtMorgan and am happy with all aspects. I realize that it is not a perfect boat, but I trust what I have known to be sound in conditions that have been extreme. I constantly monitor the interface between bulkheads and hull. Every boat owner should do this.

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