Endeavour 37.5 A plan vs B plan

[Cutter45]

Anyone who has experience with these boats. What would be the better plan for a crushing couple. Ant thing particular to watch for in this model of Endeavour.

[Steadman Uhlich]

Howdy and Welcome Aboard the Forum!

I see you just joined the forum and this is your first post here.

I will post some of my favorite tips for new members below. They may not be what you expect, but I believe they will help you in the near term and in the long run if you intend to spend much time here on this forum and if you wish to gain the most from the knowledge available and shared here etc.

The Endeavour boats have been discussed several times over the last years and there are many comments from many sailors. To find those I suggest:
______________

Looking for Quick Answers?

This is the best and fastest method I have found to the answers I seek here.
Since you are relatively new to the forum, here is my favorite friendly forum search tip: Look at the green menu bar on the forum pages for the drop down "Search" menu. Click on that to drop down a list of search functions. From that drop down menu select the GOOGLE CUSTOM search feature (the second box down) and then enter several different descriptive terms for your topic of interest. That will do a Custom google search of ONLY this site and it is likely to find answers to your questions or results for you. Note: this is different from using the regular forum search box or field.
_________________

Now for some specific answers to your question:

In one of those threads you find via the Google Custom Search you will find some comments by me from an earlier discussion.

I sailed about 2500 miles on one Pacific voyage from Hawaii to San Francisco on an Endeavour 37 (A Plan) and enjoyed the trip and boat.

The boat had recently sailed from California to Hawaii and I cruised on it around the islands for a couple of weeks too. So, after my passage, it had just completed about 5,000 miles of "blue water sailing" and passage making with no damage. We survived a true Strong Gale (the fringe of a Tropical Storm) without any damage and I found the boat to be comfortable. I did not feel unsafe or unease because of the boat. It has a very nice large cockpit. I prefer the A plan over the B plan, and I think that is because of the private SR aft (master's cabin). Depending upon your plans for sailing or cruising or live aboard, I think in general it is a nice boat from that vintage or era and they are inexpensive now (about $25K to $35K). As I recall it was "roomier" than many other boats about that size. It is not the fanciest or fastest. It did have a nice wood interior and parquet wood sole. It does have many opening portlights, which is good for ventilation. High cockpit coamings. I would add a swim platform (with ladder) and/ or Monitor (if you intend to do passages). The cockpit is large, so a full bimini, or one with a solar/davits at the stern would probably work well.

Would I buy one today?
If my budget was limited (asking price up to $30K) then, yes, I would consider one if I found one in good condition and my goal was a coastal cruiser or live aboard. However, I think at that price point and age, it is more about the present condition of any boat rather than the name, brand, model, or gadgets it might have.

Good luck on your sailing adventures and have fun!

Steady

[wunderluster]

The layout is personal preference, however for cruising you may find the A plan more desirable. Sleeping in the aft cab will be more comfortable providing there is adequate ventilation.

The items to look out for are the fuel tanks and the mast step. If those items have already been addressed you should be OK.

David

[denverd0n]

As mentioned, it really is just personal preference. My suggestion would be to charter on a boat that has both a V-berth forward, and another aft. Then compare the two.

When at anchor, my wife and I prefer a V-berth forward. Usually has a hatch that provides a lot of nice ventilation when facing into the breeze (even if it is only a very little bit of breeze). In a marina, where you aren't facing into the breeze anyway, and you can (if you have one) run an air conditioner, then the aft cabin is often more comfortable.

For me, I would prefer the B-plan. But, again, that's a personal preference. Only you can decide what you would prefer.

Good luck.

[jwcolby54]

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

I sailed about 2500 miles on one Pacific voyage from Hawaii to San Francisco on an Endeavour 37 (A Plan) and enjoyed the trip and boat.

The boat had recently sailed from California to Hawaii and I cruised on it around the islands for a couple of weeks too. So, after my passage, it had just completed about 5,000 miles of "blue water sailing" and passage making with no damage. We survived a true Strong Gale (the fringe of a Tropical Storm) without any damage and I found the boat to be comfortable. I did not feel unsafe or unease because of the boat. It has a very nice large cockpit. I prefer the A plan over the B plan, and I think that is because of the private SR aft (master's cabin).

Would I buy one today?
If my budget was limited (asking price up to $30K) then, yes, I would consider one if I found one in good condition and my goal was a coastal cruiser or live aboard.
Steady

Steady,

I love this reply that you give to us nubes. I find it truly useful in general.

I would like to point out that in your reply this time, specific to the Endeaver, you mention sailing to Hawaii and then qualify your support with 'as a coastal cruiser'. Hawaii is rather far off shore no?

[Stu Jackson]

This gentleman has one:

Endeavour Sailboat 37 Index

[Craig Cape Town]

Take a look at the blog lahowind.com to get a better idea of the plan B.

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by jwcolby54

Steady,

I love this reply that you give to us nubes. I find it truly useful in general.

I would like to point out that in your reply this time, specific to the Endeaver, you mention sailing to Hawaii and then qualify your support with 'as a coastal cruiser'. Hawaii is rather far off shore no?

I am glad you found my view helpful.

And I take good humor whenever I can find it.

I suppose one could call the fact that a boat traveled 5,000 "blue water" or open ocean miles as proof that it was capable of "crossing an ocean." It did that safely, despite a mix of conditions.

Would I sail that same route in a similar (boat condition is critical) boat? Yes, I would. IF that boat was well prepared, in seaworthy and very good condition (remember this is a 35 year old boat), with a sensible, skilled, skipper.

But, I do not consider that a "Blue Water Boat." I think it is more proper to call it a "Coastal Cruiser" that has been taken long distances off shore.

As I see it, that boat (Endeavour 37 and others in its line) was designed for the typical American middle class man who wanted a roomy, comfortable, moderately priced (when new), boat to coastal cruise around Florida or similar areas. That is what it is, just like many other boats of that type.

And I think that kind of "Coastal Cruiser" can be sufficient for short hop voyages like one might find in the Caribbean, for example.

But, to me, that is not how I characterize a "Blue Water Boat" in my personal view or standards.
__________

For example, another recent thread (I started) mentions that a generally recognized, unskilled sailor, who persists in taking a small "lake sailor type" boat on an attempt to "set a world record" has recently given up after drifting for about 121 days across the Pacific.

Those 5,000+ miles do not prove to me that he is a skilled or capable sailor and do not prove to me that his boat is a "Blue Water Boat" either. It simply shows that some things float on water and they can float a long distance. Some people are happy to float along with that stuff and that is OK for them, but does not make them admirable "sailors" in my view.

What about Thor Hyerdahl? He floated on a balsa wood raft (it did have a sail) KON-TIKI on a long voyage.

Thor Hyerdahl was an adventurer and Rimas is an adventurer. Same? I don't think so. They both DID float across some portion of the Pacific Ocean. But, I do NOT see them as the same, nor do I think they deserve the same level of respect (my personal respect) or recognition .

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

But, I do not consider that a "Blue Water Boat." I think it is more proper to call it a "Coastal Cruiser" that has been taken long distances off shore.

Good point. Important distinction. This is why the definition of a "bluewater boat" has not been, and cannot be, universally agreed upon.

People have sailed across oceans in small, open boats. Does that mean that such small, open boats are appropriate "bluewater boats" for anyone and everyone? Not in my opinion! On the other hand, at the very least, those who voluntarily took them on a bluewater passage probably considered them appropriately "bluewater" for that particular passage.

What any particular sailor can safely take across an ocean has a lot more to do with that particular sailor's skills and preparation than it has to do with the boat itself. What any particular sailor considers comfortable is entirely and exclusively a matter of personal opinion.

To me, a "bluewater boat" is one that I feel confident I could cross an ocean in safely and comfortably. But what is "safe" for me, and what is "comfortable" for me are entirely personal things. Hence, my definition of a "bluewater boat" is only MY definition. It is not necessarily what I would recommend to anyone else. I certainly would not suggest that MY definition of a "bluewater boat" is appropriate for everyone! It works for me, but anyone else's definition would be different--even if only by a little bit.

[Paul Mazza]

We've owned our Endeavour 37 A-Plan for about 2 years. We haven't cruised her yet, but are preparing her for a 3 year cruise. But I can offer the following input. Re: the A , B, or rare C plan boats. The A plan worked for my wife and I mainly because we plan to cruise with just us two. We'll leave the forward dinette down, and leave it as a huge queen size bunk. The private aft master cabin will be reserved for visiting friends. We chose this option, because my wife hates the limited head room V-berths and the aft stateroom provide. By the way, we cruised an old Columbia 33 (v-berth)for about 15,000 miles, including a Hawaii round trip, so we have some v-berth experience. We've also added a cockpit filler, to make the cockpit a bed, and enclosed the dodger/ bimini with screens for outside tropic sleeping.
Regarding the Endeavour 37 construction. The boat is generally well constructed, but there are some issues that should be addressed.
1. There were almost 500 of these boats built, but on most of the early ones ,mine is No. 256, the water that drains down the mast (main sail track) leaks into the bilge. Unfortunately due to a design/construction flaw, this water was trapped between the subfloor and bilge, and resulted in a rotted out below deck bulkhead aft of the mast. This can be repaired, but it's a labor intensive difficult job. I just completed mine.
2. The hulls are well constructed, with substantial fiberglass laminate in the hull, and (in my boats case (( built in 1979)) little blistering of the below waterline jell coat. There are adequate SS fasteners on the hull/deck bond.
3. There are a lot of unfortunate cheap construction shortcuts that effect both the maintenance and appearance of the boat. They used a lot of regular steel nails to temporarily nail floor timbers in place before fiber-glassing, and used steel nails in the corners of all of the teak parquet flooring. This results in the obvious rusty nails below the sub floor, and lots of rusty black nail spots in the beautiful teak floor. Also the interior while very attractive with lots of well built solid teak and mahogany cabinets and panels, suffers from poorly assembled panels and liners. There are lots of steel staples in the headliner and side panels.Worst of all is the head liner that is sandwiched between the bulkheads and cabin top. It can't be removed without tearing the entire thing out. These are most likely common construction methods on boats in this price range. And at 35 years old all the little steel parts are starting to rust up.
4. Regarding it's sailing ability, the basic boat is apparently a streached Creekmore 34. This seems to have resulted in the sloop version suffering from moderate weather helm. Some models were fitted with a bow sprit, that extended the forestay several feet. This takes care of the weather helm problem. Our boat doesn't have this and we compensate for it when sailing. It's something we can live with.
5. The standard rig, is rather small, although very well built. But the stock rig doesn't carry much sail. So she sails very well in heavy air. Over 20 knots, but needs light air jibs to move with the rest of the plastic boats when the winds are lighter.

The A and C plans do open up the interior and the boats seem larger than 37 feet, mainly because they don't have the main bulkhead forward of the dinette and aft of the v-berth. The A plan's partial internal bulkheads and glassed-in cabinetry seem to add the necessary rigidity to compensate for not having this bulkhead, there don't seem to be any reports of
oil canning or flexing of the hull.

Our boat is in the San Francisco Bay Area, and you're welcome to come see it if you are in the area.
I'd also recommend looking at the Endeavour Owner's Forum. You can Google it. There's lots of owners comments about the E-37 there. Good luck, Paul

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, Cutter.