opinions wanted: rig change 382/ 383-384

[capnrichard]

I know that a change in the rig (and rudder) was made on the 383
and 384 from the well known & respected Ted Brewer designed 382.
I'm curious of what exact change was made and what opinions were
out there on the pro's & con's of those changes. What would Ted
Brewer think of them? If any one has some info on the subject I
would love to hear from you. Also in many of the evaluations
done as in the Cruising World article what effect would the
above mentioned changes have?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Rod Pervier ( I have a '83 M384 )

 

[barefoot]

<div>Rod -- I chatted with Pete Brown about these modifications a year ago. Pete was the production manager at Morgan, and he worked on the team that made the changes. (If you want the FULL story, call Pete. His number is in the membership directory.) As I recall, he told me that the main impetus for the rig change was to get the mainsheet out of the cockpit and onto the bridgedeck--which had become common by the early '80s on other boats of the same size and type. Morgan believed they had to do the same to stay competitive. So they shortened the boom and raised the mast to compensate. (Sail area increased just slightly: from 668 sq.ft. to 680.) With a new rig in place they went sailing'and discovered that the rudder was inadequate to keep the boat from rounding up when it was hard on the wind in heavy conditions. So...bigger rudder. Adding the filler between the top of the old rudder and the hull'created an "end-plate" effect when the boat was moving fast and the stern sunk into the bow wave. This gave them the control they needed in heaving going. I do not believe that Ted Brewer was consulted on these changes, but Pete would know for sure.In regard to effects these changes would have on the calculations that went into the "Cruising World" article -- the only change that would figure into the calculations is the sail area, and the difference is so small that it's hard to think it would have much effect.'(But there's no way to be certain without knowing the exact ranges used in the calculations, which are not given.)Hope this answers your question. But again, if you want the full story, call Pete -- he loves to talk about Morgans.
</div>

 

[budfet]

<div>The lower aspect rig of the early boats probably make little difference in the performance. However, keel depth and rudder surface area are more important. I believe that the rudder that was designed for the 382 was design for a 5 foot draught boat. If you add a 3 bladed prop to the design, you lose the effectiveness of the upper portion of the rudder do to turbulance. To gain a more effective rudder you must increase surface area, and the easiest way is to increase the depth. I have designed a rudder and it is on a 382 in SF Bay and the owner loves it. I now have scanned photos if anyone is interested.I also think the best place for the traveler and main sheet is in the cockpit. I have upgraded the system to a Harken and it performs extremely well in all conditions.
</div>

 

[cavale]

<div>JimHow does the extension of the rudder effect it ability to shed lobster pot lines? With a 3 blade prop I would enjoy better rudder effectiveness but in Long Island Sound I would hate to give up the non-snagging attributes of the skeg hung rudder. If possible, please send a copy of the photos.Thanks.Jim

</div>

 

[capnrichard]

Lenny,
Thanks for the info. I may give Pete a call. It has always seemed like mast height and weight aloft are factors seldom figured into safty at sea although it seems like it would have its affect. I noticed that the program used in the CW article can be downloaded from off the web. (website given at the end of the article.)
Thanks again for the info. It's clearer to me now what was done.

 

[budfet]

The added depth to my design will not attract anymore than the existing rudder. The primary culprit is the prop.