Morgan 416 Bluewater capable boat? - SailNet Community
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 9 Old 01-14-2009 Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: VA
Posts: 75
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
 
Question 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

Brett
S/V Liberty
1980 Morgan 461
tausap is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 Old 01-14-2009
moderate?
 
camaraderie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Coast
Posts: 13,877
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 16
     
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.

No longer posting. Reach me by PM!
camaraderie is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #3 of 9 Old 01-14-2009
Moderator
 
Jeff_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,957
Thanks: 5
Thanked 163 Times in 133 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
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
Jeff_H is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #4 of 9 Old 01-14-2009
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Cruisingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,917
Thanks: 3
Thanked 124 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
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

Sailnet Moderator



1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Cruisingdad is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #5 of 9 Old 01-14-2009 Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: VA
Posts: 75
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
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

Brett
S/V Liberty
1980 Morgan 461
tausap is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #6 of 9 Old 01-14-2009
Best Looking MALE Mod
 
Cruisingdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,917
Thanks: 3
Thanked 124 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Quote:
Originally Posted by tausap View Post
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

Sailnet Moderator



1987 Tayana Vancouver 42, Credendo Vides, (Mom and Pops boat, F/T Mobile Live Aboards in Puget Sound)

My Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow My Blog at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Follow me on Facebook:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Cruisingdad is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #7 of 9 Old 01-15-2009
Senior Member
 
CaptainForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: living aboard since 1972
Posts: 1,715
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Rep Power: 10
 
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
CaptainForce is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #8 of 9 Old 01-16-2009 Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: VA
Posts: 75
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainForce View Post
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.

Brett
S/V Liberty
1980 Morgan 461
tausap is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #9 of 9 Old 01-16-2009
moderate?
 
camaraderie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Coast
Posts: 13,877
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 16
     
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.

No longer posting. Reach me by PM!
camaraderie is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.


User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
C & C 121 Customer Response to Manufacturers Post camaraderie Tartan 2 09-12-2012 03:54 PM
Confessions of a bottom feeder PracticalSailor Gear and Maintenance Articles 9 06-18-2008 04:33 PM
The Name Change Jinx (or not) STARWINDY General Discussion (sailing related) 39 07-17-2007 07:04 PM
The New Racing Rules Dobbs Davis Racing Articles 0 04-04-2001 08:00 PM
How to Choose the Right Boat Don Casey Cruising Articles 0 04-20-1999 08:00 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome