SailNet Community

SailNet Community (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/)
-   Boat Review and Purchase Forum (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/)
-   -   Morgan 416 Bluewater capable boat? (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/50490-morgan-416-bluewater-capable-boat.html)

tausap 01-14-2009 12:24 PM

Morgan 416 Bluewater capable boat?
 
Hi all,

I am looking for some informed opinions about whether or not my boat would be capable of a safe circumnavigation. I currently own a 1982 Morgan 416 O/I Ketch which is in bristol condition which I sail on the Chesapeake. I had figured I would trader her for a more bluewater capable boat in the future for a tropical circumnavigation. Lately, in the vein of love the one you are with, I find myself wondering if she would really be unsuited to a circumnavigation. Obviously a refit to make her more bluewater safe would be needed, but do you think the basic design would be unsafe? She is heavy, 27,000 lbs, beamy, at 13'10", and has a modified full-keel with a 4'3" draft and almost 10,000 lbs ballast.

I am looking for hard facts as to why or why not she would be able to do a circumnavigation, assuming all other things are equal, i.e. crew capability, weather, etc.

Thanks,
Brett

camaraderie 01-14-2009 01:18 PM

Some of the other Morgans I would consider...but not an OI. Designed as a modestly built (though heavy) charter boat for tradewind sailing and LOTS of room. Sails poorly to windward, not a sea-kindly motion and construction that will result in leaks and hull flex on long sea passages.
Can it be done? Sure...with a good captain some luck. Would not be my choice.

Jeff_H 01-14-2009 01:22 PM

This is the kind of question that is bound to result in a lot of discussion and strong disagreement. As I see it this is the kind of discussion where almost any opinion is bound to have truth in it and to one be degree or another be misleading as well. The reason that I say this is that the reality seems to be that almost any boat in the right highly skillfull hands, with a lot of luck, and with a bit of care can sail around the world. But very few production boats are ideal or even reasonably well suited for a circumnavigation, almost no matter what you do to the boat.

So, as soon as someone says, this model is ill-suited to a circumnavigation, there is bound to be someone else will give an example of a sistership that did one.

In my mind when you ask about the suitability of a boat to make a circumnavigation, it is about managing risks, having a boat that is adequately robust to not only withstand extremely harsh conditions but the wear and tear of a vast amount of time under sail. It is about carrying capacities and the ability to sail well in an extreme range of conditions. It is about an interior and deck layout that is comfortable and safe at sea, while being comfortable at anchor or dock in all kinds of weather. It is about the kinds of storage, ground tackle, and deck gear that lends itself to safely handle whatever you encounter. And that brings us back to your question.

Morgan Out Island 41's varied quite widely thoughout their production run in terms of fit out, and construction standards. In a general sense these boats were intended for the charter trade, and so were built cheaply, moderately robust for the short haul, were optimized for the wind range they were likely to be sailed in 10-20 knots and were equipped and rigged with gear that was anything but optimized for the wide range of conditions that one would expect offshore.

When you think of a circumnavigation as compared to a typical coastal cruiser or even a charter boat, they are exposed to enormous use. A heavily used coastal cruiser might sail 500 to a 1000 miles in a season. A charter boat that was used hard might sail 1500-2000 miles in a year. But a circumnavigation is well over 40,000 miles. In other words, you are talking about doing the equivillent of 40 years of coastal cruising on a boat that is already 25 years old. If nothing else that should give you pause.

But when you look at the specifics of your boat the equation gets a little worse. The Morgan 416's were constructed with minimal internal framing, pretty widely spaced bulkheads, and a turned out flange hull-to-deck joint adherred with 3M 5200 and widely spaced bolts (depending on the year and order option). At least on the one that I knew, the bulkheads were skip tabbed to the hull and were not attached to the over head. These boats are known for the way that the flex when they are in heavy going. With their comparatively heavy hulls on these boats, that may still be adequate for coastal use or even the 5 to 7 years of charter that these boats were designed for. Given the sheer amount of wear and tear of a circumnavigation, the flexing will take a toll on the strength of the boat, potentially weakening the hull and the H to D joint.

Then there is the hull form, and draft. These boats have a miserable motion in a blow; Real rollers with a sharpish snap at the end of the roll. Again, it is possible to circimnavigate no matter how poor the motion that the boat may have, but if you ask me if any boat is suitable for a circumnav, then I would want to know that its motion comfort is well above average. No one who has spent much time on these boats and has also spent time on other boats that actually do have a good motion would ever say these boats have an above average motion.

But beyond all of that, even if the boat was robust enough, and had adequate sail and anchor handling gear, and had a great motion, the interior layout is ill suited for prolonged offshore work.

So before someone jumps all over me for saying the Morgan OI 416 is ill suited as a circumnavigator, because sister ships have circumnavigated, I will admit that I have heard it said that people have taken them around the world and therefore at least in some one's mind (just not mine) this proves that they are suitable circumnavigators.

Respectfully,
Jeff

Cruisingdad 01-14-2009 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff_H (Post 431926)
This is the kind of question that is bound to result in a lot of discussion and strong disagreement. As I see it this is the kind of discussion where almost any opinion is bound to have truth in it and to one be degree or another be misleading as well. The reason that I say this is that the reality seems to be that almost any boat in the right highly skillfull hands, with a lot of luck, and with a bit of care can sail around the world. But very few production boats are ideal or even reasonably well suited for a circumnavigation, almost no matter what you do to the boat.

So, as soon as someone says, this model is ill-suited to a circumnavigation, there is bound to be someone else will give an example of a sistership that did one.

In my mind when you ask about the suitability of a boat to make a circumnavigation, it is about managing risks, having a boat that is adequately robust to not only withstand extremely harsh conditions but the wear and tear of a vast amount of time under sail. It is about carrying capacities and the ability to sail well in an extreme range of conditions. It is about an interior and deck layout that is comfortable and safe at sea, while being comfortable at anchor or dock in all kinds of weather. It is about the kinds of storage, ground tackle, and deck gear that lends itself to safely handle whatever you encounter. And that brings us back to your question.

Morgan Out Island 41's varied quite widely thoughout their production run in terms of fit out, and construction standards. In a general sense these boats were intended for the charter trade, and so were built cheaply, moderately robust for the short haul, were optimized for the wind range they were likely to be sailed in 10-20 knots and were equipped and rigged with gear that was anything but optimized for the wide range of conditions that one would expect offshore.

When you think of a circumnavigation as compared to a typical coastal cruiser or even a charter boat, they are exposed to enormous use. A heavily used coastal cruiser might sail 500 to a 1000 miles in a season. A charter boat that was used hard might sail 1500-2000 miles in a year. But a circumnavigation is well over 40,000 miles. In other words, you are talking about doing the equivillent of 40 years of coastal cruising on a boat that is already 25 years old. If nothing else that should give you pause.

But when you look at the specifics of your boat the equation gets a little worse. The Morgan 416's were constructed with minimal internal framing, pretty widely spaced bulkheads, and a turned out flange hull-to-deck joint adherred with 3M 5200 and widely spaced bolts (depending on the year and order option). At least on the one that I knew, the bulkheads were skip tabbed to the hull and were not attached to the over head. These boats are known for the way that the flex when they are in heavy going. With their comparatively heavy hulls on these boats, that may still be adequate for coastal use or even the 5 to 7 years of charter that these boats were designed for. Given the sheer amount of wear and tear of a circumnavigation, the flexing will take a toll on the strength of the boat, potentially weakening the hull and the H to D joint.

Then there is the hull form, and draft. These boats have a miserable motion in a blow; Real rollers with a sharpish snap at the end of the roll. Again, it is possible to circimnavigate no matter how poor the motion that the boat may have, but if you ask me if any boat is suitable for a circumnav, then I would want to know that its motion comfort is well above average. No one who has spent much time on these boats and has also spent time on other boats that actually do have a good motion would ever say these boats have an above average motion.

But beyond all of that, even if the boat was robust enough, and had adequate sail and anchor handling gear, and had a great motion, the interior layout is ill suited for prolonged offshore work.

So before someone jumps all over me for saying the Morgan OI 416 is ill suited as a circumnavigator, because sister ships have circumnavigated, I will admit that I have heard it said that people have taken them around the world and therefore at least in some one's mind (just not mine) this proves that they are suitable circumnavigators.

Respectfully,
Jeff

Yeah, what he said.

- CD

tausap 01-14-2009 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff_H (Post 431926)
This is the kind of question that is bound to result in a lot of discussion and strong disagreement. As I see it this is the kind of discussion where almost any opinion is bound to have truth in it and to one be degree or another be misleading as well. The reason that I say this is that the reality seems to be that almost any boat in the right highly skillfull hands, with a lot of luck, and with a bit of care can sail around the world. But very few production boats are ideal or even reasonably well suited for a circumnavigation, almost no matter what you do to the boat.

So, as soon as someone says, this model is ill-suited to a circumnavigation, there is bound to be someone else will give an example of a sistership that did one.

In my mind when you ask about the suitability of a boat to make a circumnavigation, it is about managing risks, having a boat that is adequately robust to not only withstand extremely harsh conditions but the wear and tear of a vast amount of time under sail. It is about carrying capacities and the ability to sail well in an extreme range of conditions. It is about an interior and deck layout that is comfortable and safe at sea, while being comfortable at anchor or dock in all kinds of weather. It is about the kinds of storage, ground tackle, and deck gear that lends itself to safely handle whatever you encounter. And that brings us back to your question.

Morgan Out Island 41's varied quite widely thoughout their production run in terms of fit out, and construction standards. In a general sense these boats were intended for the charter trade, and so were built cheaply, moderately robust for the short haul, were optimized for the wind range they were likely to be sailed in 10-20 knots and were equipped and rigged with gear that was anything but optimized for the wide range of conditions that one would expect offshore.

When you think of a circumnavigation as compared to a typical coastal cruiser or even a charter boat, they are exposed to enormous use. A heavily used coastal cruiser might sail 500 to a 1000 miles in a season. A charter boat that was used hard might sail 1500-2000 miles in a year. But a circumnavigation is well over 40,000 miles. In other words, you are talking about doing the equivillent of 40 years of coastal cruising on a boat that is already 25 years old. If nothing else that should give you pause.

But when you look at the specifics of your boat the equation gets a little worse. The Morgan 416's were constructed with minimal internal framing, pretty widely spaced bulkheads, and a turned out flange hull-to-deck joint adherred with 3M 5200 and widely spaced bolts (depending on the year and order option). At least on the one that I knew, the bulkheads were skip tabbed to the hull and were not attached to the over head. These boats are known for the way that the flex when they are in heavy going. With their comparatively heavy hulls on these boats, that may still be adequate for coastal use or even the 5 to 7 years of charter that these boats were designed for. Given the sheer amount of wear and tear of a circumnavigation, the flexing will take a toll on the strength of the boat, potentially weakening the hull and the H to D joint.

Then there is the hull form, and draft. These boats have a miserable motion in a blow; Real rollers with a sharpish snap at the end of the roll. Again, it is possible to circimnavigate no matter how poor the motion that the boat may have, but if you ask me if any boat is suitable for a circumnav, then I would want to know that its motion comfort is well above average. No one who has spent much time on these boats and has also spent time on other boats that actually do have a good motion would ever say these boats have an above average motion.

But beyond all of that, even if the boat was robust enough, and had adequate sail and anchor handling gear, and had a great motion, the interior layout is ill suited for prolonged offshore work.

So before someone jumps all over me for saying the Morgan OI 416 is ill suited as a circumnavigator, because sister ships have circumnavigated, I will admit that I have heard it said that people have taken them around the world and therefore at least in some one's mind (just not mine) this proves that they are suitable circumnavigators.

Respectfully,
Jeff

That is exactly the type of opinion I am looking for! It is all food for thought and helps with my ultimate decision of whether or not to keep her or look for something else down the road.

Thanks,
Brett

Cruisingdad 01-14-2009 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tausap (Post 431966)
That is exactly the type of opinion I am looking for! It is all food for thought and helps with my ultimate decision of whether or not to keep her or look for something else down the road.

Thanks,
Brett

Why not take a run to Bermuda or take her cruising in this hemisphere for a while? If she does not meet your needs, move on. You already own her - and the only thing harder than getting rid of a boat right now is getting financing for a new one.

Just thoughts.

- CD

CaptainForce 01-15-2009 03:32 PM

I have lived aboard my Morgan OI's since 1973 and cruised the North Florida - Bahamas route frequntly sine 1975. I have been fulltime cruising from Maine to the Bahamas since 2002. I love my Morgan OI and find it comfortable and reliable for the prudent coastal cruising that I do, but I also agree with the above postings. Sure it has been done and done well, but it would not be my choice for a circumnavigation. 'take care and joy, Aythya crew

tausap 01-16-2009 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainForce (Post 432546)
I have lived aboard my Morgan OI's since 1973 and cruised the North Florida - Bahamas route frequntly sine 1975. I have been fulltime cruising from Maine to the Bahamas since 2002. I love my Morgan OI and find it comfortable and reliable for the prudent coastal cruising that I do, but I also agree with the above postings. Sure it has been done and done well, but it would not be my choice for a circumnavigation. 'take care and joy, Aythya crew

Yep, I am reinforcing my conclusion that my Morgan is a great for the bay and probably FL, but not what I want to take around the world. As now is not the time to sell, I will probably keep her a while and look to trade in a few years.

camaraderie 01-16-2009 02:55 PM

Tauap...you know...starting out coastally on the Morgan and doing the Bahamas & such as a full timer might not be a bad way to start for a year or so. By the end of that time you may have some different perspectives on how you want to cruise, what you need to cruise and where you want to cruise that will allow you to fine tune the "next boat" much more than you can imagine today.
Assuming you are reasonably equipped for the bay today, a raft and an Epirb and maybe a honda generator (all reusable on the next boat) would be all you really need to add to take off.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012