Ericson 350 Pacific Seacraft Hull Cored?

[jboenig]

I recently had an Ericson 350 built by Pacific Seacraft (same as Ericson 34) under contract and had it surveyed. The surveyor found a small (8"x8") area below the waterline with high moisture readings and delamination. There are 2 thru-hulls in this area. He also noticed several areas inside the hull where the thickness varied, which he pointed out is a sign of a cored hull. I actually spoke with a guy that worked for both Ericson and Pacific Seacraft and he says the hull is not cored.

In short, I'm confused. Is it possible that the variations in hull thickness are just stiffeners that the builder added and not an entirely cored hull? Is it possible that the area of delamination and high moisture readings is just a void in the layup?

Or should I just assume that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a cored hull?

Any insight or comments would be greatly appreciated!!!

 

[Loren Beach]

Interesting question

All I am sure of is that the Ericson hulls in the 1980's were solid layups, i.e. no coring.
Given the higher labor and material costs for cored construction, it's hard to believe that PSC started coring those Ericsons that they kept in production (32-200, 34, and 38-200).
Loren

 

[Alan Gomes]

I recently had an Ericson 350 built by Pacific Seacraft (same as Ericson 34) under contract and had it surveyed. The surveyor found a small (8"x8") area below the waterline with high moisture readings and delamination. There are 2 thru-hulls in this area. He also noticed several areas inside the hull where the thickness varied, which he pointed out is a sign of a cored hull. I actually spoke with a guy that worked for both Ericson and Pacific Seacraft and he says the hull is not cored.

In short, I'm confused. Is it possible that the variations in hull thickness are just stiffeners that the builder added and not an entirely cored hull? Is it possible that the area of delamination and high moisture readings is just a void in the layup?

Or should I just assume that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a cored hull?

Any insight or comments would be greatly appreciated!!!

I have a 1984 E26-2, which is a very different (and much smaller) boat than yours. Although the hull is a solid layup and not cored generally, Ericson did use what appears to be balsa coring specifically in the area of the engine stringers, most probably for stiffening this section. There are two thru hulls right adjacent to the forward port engine stringer for the raw water intake and the sink drain. Here the core has been removed and there is a noticeable "step down" such that the thru hulls are in solid glass. So while the hull is definitely not cored (and we know this for certain because we have replaced some of the other thru hulls), in this one area it looks as though balsa was added.

Just where did you observe the presence of the balsa coring?

 

[jboenig]

Thanks a lot for info! One area we found coring or a step-down in hull thickness was about midship above the waterline and behind the settee. We had to pull a couple of teak panels off to see the chain plate knees and it was right around that area. I believe the surveyor found another such area when he was in the cockpit locker, but I don't recall exactly where.

I would have expected what you mentioned, which is a step-down in areas where there are thru-hulls so that they are bedded in solid glass. But the delamination and high moisture readings right around the two thru-hulls made me wonder exactly how they constructed this hull. Trying to figure out exactly how they built some of these out-of-production boats can be like piecing together a puzzle.

Thanks again for feedback!