Morgan 382

[akopac]

<div>I'm in the market for my first sailboat and I've narrowed my search down to a Tartan or Morgan (I think). Both seem to be fine boats for what I want-- mostly coastal cruising with some blue water cruising down the road. I've talked with a broker who seemed to think that the Morgan may have some limitations due to the hull being molded in two halves. Has anyone out there had any hull problems? And why would a architect design a two piece hull? Also, I'm looking at a 1978 382, but understand Morgan went from a 52 ft mast to a 54 footer some time in the early 80s. Are there significant differences in sailing capabilities and sail area between the 382 and later models? What is the displacement on a 382?Thanks!!Eric Peterson

</div>

 

[balthazor]

check out Practical Sailor's review of both boats. Tartan 37 (original S&S design) is a fine boat and maybe slightly better built than the Morgan. But the morgan may be a more comfortable cruiser. Lots of folks build hulls with two halves--I think Ericson did for years and they are considered strong boats. There is no problem with that technique that I know of, as long as the bond beetween the two is firm--as is the Morgan's . Except for one fellow in San Francisco who has sent in some complaints on the archived bulletin board, I have heard no one say that the Morgan 382 is not strong enough. In fact, with the cored hull above the waterline, she is probably stiffer than lots of other boats. Try poinding on the forward section of the Morgan hull, and then try it on anything else--like a pearson, even probably a Tartan. STiffness up there avoids fatigue stresses. Everything is a compromise and unless you buy a Hinckley, every boat has some flaw.

 

[aistqm]

I can think of two reasons to use a split mold. First, M382's have a reversed transom and therefore you could not pop it out of a female mold unless it was laminated in the mold without the transom. Second, because the ballast is encapsulated, the keel portion of the mold is narrow and deep. It would be difficult to place a person in this area to laminate the glass. With the mold in two halves, this is not a problem. If you see a reverse transom boat (and there are a lot of them), chances are the boat was laidup in separate molds in two halves. I do not know of any boats, M38s or any other for that matter, where the boat has spilt apart at this seam.

 

[matt_fahey]

The displacement on Cherokee Wind (1978, 382 Hull #64) is 19,000#

 

[barefoot]

I also strongly considered the Tartan 37 before deciding on the Morgan 38. The Morgan is noticeably larger inside, if that matters to you. I also disliked the Tartan's fold-down saloon table, which was very difficult to put up and down. More importantly, when I spoke to several T-37 owners I heard a litany of problems, especially rotted balsa core in the hull and deck that had to be cut out and replaced, delamination of the hull near the transom, and jammed centerboards. In addition, I was told that the T-37 was rather tender--as you would expect given that the ballast is up so close to the hull.
In 1981, Morgan changed from the M-382 to the M-383, the primary difference is in the mast and boom. According to Morgan, the mast on the M-383 is 4 feet higher and the boom is 1.5 feet shorter. (But some people on this board may dispute those numbers.) The M-383/4 has mid-boom sheeting on the cabin top. There is little difference in sail area: 668 on the 382 and 680 on the 383/4. The later boats are a bit better to windward and have a base PHRF rating about 8 seconds/mile lower to reflect that (about 135 vs. 143)

 

[buckfd1aolcom]

I also looked at the Tartan 37. I chose the Morgan for several reasons.
Bullworks, anchor locker, interior etc. My wife and I toured the Morgan
factory in 1983 to look at 38s under construction. The two piece hull
is necessary for both the reverse transom and the internal hull to deck
joint. Two piece hull molds are also used by builders such as Hinckley,
Swan and many other high end builders for the same reasons.