Looking at a 1971 39 flush deck.

Several issues. The hull to deck connection appears to simply be tabbed glass at the joint on the inside, without fasteners. Is this correct?
The rub rails were screwed into the edge of the deck ply, inducing minor de lamination. A lot of crazing exists above the rub rail (picture). I'm wondering if this is joint stress induced. I would be tempted to eliminate the rub rail and glass over the ply deck edge to provide additional joint strength. What I can see of the metal grid under the cabin sole looks very corroded (picture). Is this a major issue? The rear shrouds were moved forward about 39 inches (picture), apparently to tie in with the metal bulkhead below. The traveler (not currently mounted) hardware looks small for a boat this size. The owner thought it was basically "useless", and thought it should be moved aft. The mast is pitted below deck, and I wonder why. Thoughts?

Aluminum pits from long term sea water exposure. Common for boats that have keel stepped masts that go far down into the bilge. My Pearson 28 was like this. I built up a 4 inch riser and cut 4 inches off the bottom of the mast. I would suppose that all that corrosion in the bilges indicates a boat that was not well maintained. Engineering changes are kind of scarey too. I would be very leary of this boat. I hope the price is way low as you will find much more that needs attention.

L124C said:

Several issues. The hull to deck connection appears to simply be tabbed glass at the joint on the inside, without fasteners. Is this correct?
The rub rails were screwed into the edge of the deck ply, inducing minor de lamination. A lot of crazing exists above the rub rail (picture). I'm wondering if this is joint stress induced. I would be tempted to eliminate the rub rail and glass over the ply deck edge to provide additional joint strength. What I can see of the metal grid under the cabin sole looks very corroded (picture). Is this a major issue? The rear shrouds were moved forward about 39 inches (picture), apparently to tie in with the metal bulkhead below. The traveler (not currently mounted) hardware looks small for a boat this size. The owner thought it was basically "useless", and thought it should be moved aft. The mast is pitted below deck, and I wonder why. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

You may recognize my name.

Those fissures are worrisome; they indicate a possible shifting or stressing on that area of the deck or hull. The relocation of the aft shrouds is likely related to that issue in some way.

The corrosion in the bilge is also troublesome - indicating long term salt water intrusion.

Regarding the traveler: the helm on the E39 is located just aft of the companion way. As far as I know, there isn't a better place to locate the traveler, but a system with better purchase and controls could be installed.
However, given the apparent condition of the rest of the vessel, that's the least of your worries.

If the price is low, and you've got the time and money, perhaps this boat could be made good again. But whatever you do - you REALLY need a thorough survey before even thinking of making an offer, in my opinion.

Capt Dan G>E35II "Kunu"

Take a pass

Unless you are handy with tools and have more time than sense, look for another. This boat definitely has some issues.

Having said that, the construction design is sound-these boats have proven themselves all over the world in the worst of conditions.

Neglect and abuse are the usual reasons for what you are seeing.

The 39 is a great value if you find a nice one-they are fast, roomy and seakindly at a bargain price.

Happy hunting!

S

She's a project alright!

I realize this is a major project boat, and I am handy. The good news is that she has a Yanmar with about 50 hours on it. Of course, there is a LOT of bad news! What really concerns me is that rusty beam in the bilge. Based on it's size, it must be an important part of the structure. I assume this boat is much too early to have a grid system. Why would Ericson put an iron beam in an inaccessible, wet place? Aren't they all corroded after 35 years?

I have a sistership

Ahoy L124C,
I have a 1971 E39, on which I've done a lot of refit work, so I thought I would throw in my $0.02.

Regarding the steel frame that lives between the water tanks under the sole; I cut mine out and built a semi-removable replacement out of G10. I plan to replace the one up forward as well, but have not got to it yet.

Regarding the aft lowers; I may be misjudging because of the picture, but it looks like it is in the stock position to me. My aft lowers tie in to a steel frame that is glassed in to the hull and deck about 20" aft of the cap shroud chainplate.

In regards to the traveler; I have no idea what is on the boat you are checking out, but the stock setup is beefy enough with the exception of the backing plates. My track and car was decrepit, so I replaced them, and had some welding done on the SS bridge to replace the bolts. I set up the traveler for 6:1 control lines. I have found the mid-boom sheeting to be very usable and effective.

As to the hull to deck joint, these boats were molded with an outward turning flange which was screwed together, then the inside of the joint was heavily filled and glassed, then they cut off the flange outside, along with the screws. I have no concerns about the strength of this construction, and I have never heard of one unzipping. My concerns were more with water intrusion. The crazing in your picture looks different but similar to some areas on mine that were under the rubrail. On my boat this was not stress induced cracking, but due to extra thick gelcoat constantly exposed to water collecting under the rubrail, and heating/cooling effects. Sanding away the gelcoat revealed healthy uncracked fiberglass.

No matter how you look at it, there is an enormous amount of work involved in bringing back one of these boats, but the end result will be one bad-ass yacht.

And there you have my two cents! Good luck to ya.
Gary

E39

Hi Gary:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I assume you replaced the steel frame due to corrosion? Why is it "semi removable"? You must have removed the cabin sole to do it. Did you do anything else while you were in there? It's interesting that you think the aft shrouds are in the original place on the boat I'm looking at. You can clearly see where they used to be 32" back and inboard (at the hook of tape measure in picture). Maybe they moved them aft and then put them back when they came to their senses, strange! Did you do anything to prevent water intrusion at the rail? Would love to check out your E39 sometime. I'm in SF. Give me a call if it's ever convenient for you.
Thanks Again
Bill
415 302 7109

Hullo Bill,
I will give you a call to see if we can set up a time for you to come by and check out my E39, but here are some thoughts regarding your questions:

Corrosion was a factor in my decision to replace the steel frame, but the driving factors were that I needed to access the water tank behind it to make a repair, and the fact that the frame did not seem to fit correctly so it was not transferring the forces from the bulkhead above to the keel below like it should have been. I did not cut the sole, as I wanted to maintain the integrity of that part of the boat aesthetically and structurally. I designed the replacement so that it can be put through the 10" access hole in pieces, and then assembled in place. I designed the thing so that two parts are epoxied in and are not removable, and three parts in the center are removable to allow access to the aft water tank area.

While working on the area under the sole I also have been installing various restrainers so the tanks cannot move around. I don't know about other E39s, but mine had the tanks sitting on the keel, with nothing keeping them from sliding around down there.

As far as the aft lower shroud placement goes, it is hard to be sure what is going on without a clearer pic or seeing the boat in person, but I think you are looking at the spot where the cabin bulkhead inboard corner meets the underside of the deck. On my boat there are SS dealios that look like a chainplate on the inside of the boat, but on the outside all you see is a small flat plate. This is to provide more positive attachment of the bulkhead to the deck, I assume to prevent the tabbing there from unzipping. If what you are seeing is a cut off chainplate and a small flat plate at that spot, then that is a stock item. I have seen the same exact thing on several E39s. If what you have is a slot in the deck where it looks like a chainplate should be, then the hardware is missing. The thing looks like a chainplate that has been cut off at deck level and a flat plate welded on it. If someone tried to put the aft lowers there, the boom travel would be so limited as to prevent sailing anywhere but upwind! Not very gentlemanly.

As for the hull/deck flange, I ground out most of the original bog and screw holes, then filled the thing in with epoxy. The rubrail screws do not penetrate the joint, so water cannot get inside. You had mentioned in a post that you were concerned that the rubrail screws were possibly allowing water intrusion into the balsa core. I cant find any spot on my boat where the balsa come any closer than 3" to the hull/deck joint. Unless the boat you are looking at is different, I don't think that is going to be a problem. There still may be wet core due to water getting in somewhere else though!
Regards,
Gary

Shrouds were not moved

For the record, I have determined that you are correct. The aft shrouds are in the original place. We'll, that's one less thing to worry about! Thanks!

I may have looked at the same boat recently. I'm not interested in it but would be willing to compare notes if you like. Email me: jim_underway@yahoo.com