# Evaluating a Hughes Northstar 38



## Jim H

If things work out, we're driving north this weekend to evaluate a '72 Hughes Northstar 38 that's for sale. The price is low, but the equipment list doesn't sound bad, and every evaluation is a learning experience for us. We'd consider it if it checked out-- as a possible "two-year restoration" project for a longer cruise with our two kids.

It may be too small. It may be too worn down. It could have structural issues that we don't/can't deal with. However, we have heard that these boats can be used for blue water cruising if maintained and set-up properly. Also, we've heard they can be less expensive than other 38s, even if the design is reported to be a bit dated.

I have an Atomic 4 in our current boat, and I like it for river cruising, but I'd want a diesel for blue water. The Hughes we're looking at probably has an old Atomic 4, but supposedly has a 27 HP Yanmar ("ready for install') which could mean a lot of things. 27 hp for a 38 foot cruiser may or may not be enough.

I know in general what to look for (hull, rigging, electrical, etc.), including the all-important first impressions, but is there anything in particular to consider when reviewing a '72 Hughes Northstar 38? We're expecting a rough interior, but the equipment list suggests that previous owners were taking it in the right direction (stainless propane tanks, wind generator, tiller pilot, etc.). Basically, we could put $40k into the restoration and still be below the opening bid for a Valiant 40 (with blisters) or around the bid for a Morgan 382.

Thanks!

Jim H

p.s. Here's a link to the posting: http://seattle.craigslist.org/oly/boa/188198268.html (but this link may go bad soon.) We'd definitely have a professional survey done if we got serious.


----------



## Jeff_H

As much as I like Hughes Northstars (I owned a Northstar 500 QT) the 35 and 38 were pretty lousey designs and certainly not boats that I would want to pour good earned money into if I was planning to go offshore. You could buy a whole lot of really good boats for what it would take to buy and fix up a worn out one and still have a really poor seaboat. 

Jeff


----------



## PBzeer

Here's a link with a small bit of info, possibly things you already know.
http://sailquest.com/market/models/hugh38.htm


----------



## Johnrb

Jeff and PBeezer:

I think you may be referring to the later Northstar 38's. The boat listing (with the link) is the earlier Hughes 38.


----------



## Jim H

Jeff_H said:


> As much as I like Hughes Northstars (I owned a Northstar 500 QT) the 35 and 38 were pretty lousey designs and certainly not boats that I would want to pour good earned money into if I was planning to go offshore. You could buy a whole lot of really good boats for what it would take to buy and fix up a worn out one and still have a really poor seaboat.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks for your comments. I re-read your post about Hughes 38s in this thread: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/buying-boat/8464-hughes-38-a.html?highlight=Hughes and it appeared that the middle design H38 hulls (1968-1973) that were shared with Hinckley were S&S designed and not poorly done. It seems like this one (1972) would fall into the range you were discussing. You did note that they would not be your first choice for an off-shore boat, however.

According to the history of Hughes boats I've seen (http://www.sailcaddy.com/history.htm) the "Northstar" boats began in 1971 when US Steel owned the company. It wasn't clear if the H38s made in '72 were redesigned, made elsewhere, or reduced in quality compared to the pre-71 Hughes 38s. (This could be the case.)

I've also read the Cruising World articles about _Wild Card_, Goodlander's Hughes 38 which I believe was a Northstar, but I haven't confirmed that yet. Apparently, his was initially inexpensive (storm damaged) but has served him well. If there were significant quality differences between a '70 Hughes 38 and a '72 Hughes Northstar 38, it would be good to know.

Thanks!

Jim H


----------



## lgherb

Jim H,

I recently purchased a 1972 Hughes 38 Mark II. This boat was designed by Sparkman and Stephens and Hughes Boatworks actually produced the hulls for the Hinckley 38 (Hinkley put their own decks on the hulls.) For a time, Hughes also made the hulls for the Tartan 40s.

I personally like this boat. She seems very steady and has good upwind capabilities. I am, however, still getting to know the boat.

A fragmented history of Hughes Boatworks can be found here:

http://www.sailcaddy.com/history.htm

Fatty Goodlander's 'Wild Card' I believe is also of the same vintage. I believe Cap'n Fatty has circumnavigated more than once on 'Wild Card'.










Please let us know your thoughts once you have had a chance to evaluate her.


----------



## Jeff_H

Wild card appears to be the second Hughes 38, which shared its hull and deck with the Hinckley Competition 38 and was an S&S design. That is an extremely different boat than the Northstar 38 which was also designed by Sparkman and Stevens which was designed as an IOR racer-cruiser. By 1972 you are probably looking at a Northstar 38 rather than the earlier Hughes 38. From what I gather, the Hughes 38 went out of production in 1971, but that a single last Hughes 38 was built in 1973 as a custom boat,on a hull and deck molded for Hinckley but never delivered. 

The link provided by PBeezer was for the later Hughes Northstar 38. The Northstar History is not terribly accurate. For example, it does not mention the three boats that Hughes produced from molds purchased from Seafarer (Which is how the reflected sailboat logo gets added to the Hughes former logos). 

Jeff


----------



## lgherb

Here's a pic of the Hughes 38 I recently purchased. This was taken just before I purchased the boat anchored in her slip in a marina in the Potomac. The Craigslist link that Jim posted expired, but the photo in it appeared to have the exact same deck, cabin, and hull lines.

Jeff, can you tell from the lines which version of the Hughes 38 this is? According to an old survey from the previous owner, this is listed as a "Hughes 38 Mark II." My boat was constructed prior to HIN's being required, but my hull number is (I think) 82.

It is unfortunate that there is such scant info on these boats available, but understandable considering the tribulations the company went through. I was under the possible misunderstanding that Hughes made both a "Hughes 38" and a "Northstar 38" that were different products.


----------



## Jim H

lgherb said:


> Here's a pic of the Hughes 38 I recently purchased. This was taken just before I purchased the boat anchored in her slip in a marina in the Potomac.


Lgherb, thanks for posting a pic of your boat. I'm a sucker for dark hulls.

I was going to PM you and ask if you knew the difference between a Mark I and a Mark II. On Yachtworld at the moment, for example, there's both a '70 and a '73 that are listed as Mark Is, but there are no Mark IIs noted (even the later 1980s ones).

I did notice that one of the older ones had dual quarterberths in back, unlike the single quarterberth shown in most drawings. I've also heard that there were two interior arrangements, with a recommendation that the galley in back was preferable. I've also noticed that some have dinettes, while others (like Wild Card) have a fold down table in the main cabin (my preference). I've also ready that both settees in the main cabin can slide out to be doubles.

If I'm reading Jeff's posts correctly (the old and new ones), there may be four main versions of the boat. An early to mid sixties version, which didn't sound good. A late sixties/early 70s model, that sounded decent. A mid seventies Northstar 38 version, that was more race-oriented. A late seventies/early eighties version, that was more like a Catalina 38 coastal cruiser.

I believe his posts on this thread indicate that he thinks the 1972 model I plan to see may be the Northstar version that was IOR racer/cruiser with small tankage, more of a racing machine.

Anyway, if nothing else, I'd like to see the listed boat which appears to be very similar to yours (same number and type of portlights, and reported year). The ad listing said it had 50 gallons fuel, and 100 water, which doesn't sound like a racer unless it's really been hacked.

A broker once told me you really can't believe anything about a sailboat listing. If a water-maker is listed, that may mean there's a perfect one in the boat, or a used one in the owner's garage, or no such thing at all. I normally don't know anything aobut a boat until I climb through it, find the hull number, take pictures, and do research afterwards.

Thanks for posting the pictures of your boat.

Jim H


----------



## garymcg

*Hughes 38 info*

Everyone

I was looking at a Hughes 38 in Toronto a couple of weeks ago. I just got off the phone with Pat Sturgeon of Pat Sturgeon Yachts, he used to work for Hughes Boat Works and in fact commissioned a number of Hughes 38s.

Pat said that contrary to popular belief there are only slight changes to all of the Hughes 38s. The boat is an S&S design, all later changes (you'll notice a late 70's boat has different port lights than an early 70's model) were in the interior and other cosmetics only. The hulls and decks are all out of the same mold, not just to the S & S design but to the S&S glass layup schedule and all other specifications as well. He said you'll see later 70's models listed as Hughes 38 or Northstar 38, it's the same boat.

Pat even offered to give me Howard Hughes' phone number, he was just in Pat's office a couple of weeks ago.

Hope this helps.

Gary


----------



## Jeff_H

Gary MCG: 

With all due respect, Pat Sturgeon may have worked for Hughes but he is dead wrong about the three 38 footers built by Hughes being the same boat. They each have very different waterline lengths, beams and displacement. The original Hughes 38 was designed by Howard Hughes. The later boats were designed by S&S. The deck plans and deck houses were very different as well. That said He is correct that except for one or two boats that were finished in 1972 and 73, all of the boats built after 1971 were the same IOR era hull and deck plan with minor interior changes and several layout options. 

JimH:
There were only three 38 footers built by Hughes. The IOR era Hughes Northstar 38 that I mentioned was very similar to the S&S designed Catalina 38 (which began life as the Yankee 38). These were very much intended as full blown IOR race boats and coastal cruisers and like the Hughes Northstar 38 make really crummy offshore cruisers. 

Jeff


----------



## garymcg

Jeff

Sorry, I misstated what Pat told me. He speaks fast and it was hard to take notes. The early boats from the late 60's to early 70's were built by "(illegible note) Metals" and are not very good boats. All of the boats built after about '73 are the S&S boats.

I liked the boat I looked at, a 1980 model, but I'm not sure about having an underpowered (15 hp) engine in the bilge. It seems like it would fail just when you really, really need it.

Gary


----------



## Jeff_H

Actually the 38 that was built after 1969 were an S&S design and boats of this design had the best build quality and all around sailing capabilities. The Northstar 38 which was the last design was not very good design and was built during a time when quality was beginning to slide. By the late 1980's these were really a lot more cheesy boats build quality and design wise. The engine in the bilge was just one of the many race boat influenced not so great design decisions. Northstar was a divsion of US Steel, the "something metals" you refer to, but they did not buy the company until around 1973.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## dustdevil38

*Advice on Hughes 38*

Jim-

I own a Hughes 38 like the one you are considering and have a few comments for you to consider. The original AT-4 is a very compact item. I have seen three diesel retrofits in this model boat. A raw water cooled 3GMD (like mine) will just fit under the floor boards. Taller engines may require that you to raise the height of the floor hatch. This looks bad and is a toe hazard. You might be able to fit the diesel offered with the boat (I assume this is a fresh water cooled 3GM30?) without altering the hatch if you relocate the heat exchanger. If your boat has the original AT-4, it probably has the original jacketed exhaust system. This will have to go. This will all at cost, of course. Another potential hazard is the shore-power system. You may find that the power cable is run through some interesting places, like the sum under your head! I could go on and on, but will wait for your response.

sam in texas


----------



## rob8888

*More on the Hughes 38*



Jeff_H said:


> Gary MCG:
> 
> With all due respect, Pat Sturgeon may have worked for Hughes but he is dead wrong about the three 38 footers built by Hughes being the same boat. They each have very different waterline lengths, beams and displacement. The original Hughes 38 was designed by Howard Hughes. The later boats were designed by S&S. The deck plans and deck houses were very different as well. That said He is correct that except for one or two boats that were finished in 1972 and 73, all of the boats built after 1971 were the same IOR era hull and deck plan with minor interior changes and several layout options.
> 
> JimH:
> There were only three 38 footers built by Hughes. The IOR era Hughes Northstar 38 that I mentioned was very similar to the S&S designed Catalina 38 (which began life as the Yankee 38). These were very much intended as full blown IOR race boats and coastal cruisers and like the Hughes Northstar 38 make really crummy offshore cruisers.
> 
> Jeff





Jeff_H said:


> Gary MCG:
> 
> With all due respect, Pat Sturgeon may have worked for Hughes but he is dead wrong about the three 38 footers built by Hughes being the same boat. They each have very different waterline lengths, beams and displacement. The original Hughes 38 was designed by Howard Hughes. The later boats were designed by S&S. The deck plans and deck houses were very different as well. That said He is correct that except for one or two boats that were finished in 1972 and 73, all of the boats built after 1971 were the same IOR era hull and deck plan with minor interior changes and several layout options.
> 
> JimH:
> There were only three 38 footers built by Hughes. The IOR era Hughes Northstar 38 that I mentioned was very similar to the S&S designed Catalina 38 (which began life as the Yankee 38). These were very much intended as full blown IOR race boats and coastal cruisers and like the Hughes Northstar 38 make really crummy offshore cruisers.
> 
> Jeff


********
Also with respect... I think you may be mistaken about a few points.

Everything I've been able to find out about the Hughes 38 suggests the following:

Hughes commissioned Sparkman & Stevens to design a 38' sloop in 1966. It was Sparkman & Stevens design #1903, and was used as the basis for all Hughes and Northstar 38s built from 1967 to 1980. There are different versions, but all use the same S&S design... the Mark I, the Mark II, the Mark III, and a tallmast version which seems to have only offerred in the Mark II version (it had a mast 4' taller than the standard mast). The Northstar 38 built from 1970 to 1974 while US Steel owned the company was probably the same as a Hughes Mark II.

Aside from interior configuration, the Hughes 38 specifications are consistent for all marks, except for:
1. the tall-mast model
2. some early models were fitted with end-boom sheeting with the traveller in the cockpit (that model seems to have been incorrectly used as the drawing on the cover of most of the Hughes 38 Owner's Manuals even though they had mid-boom sheeting with the traveller on the coach roof)
3. sometimes the printed specifications give the displacement as 12,500 lb instead of the more common 14,000 lb.

It seems to me that having the engine in the keel below the cabin sole is a good design feature. It keeps about 400 lb as low down as possible, and allows for the propeller shaft to be straight (actually it is at an angle of about 3 degrees) instead of being sharply angled down which is necessary in boats with the engine mounted under the cockpit. I replaced the Atomic Four in mine with a Universal M35B, and it just fits without raising the sole. Mounted like that it is very easy to work on after the 2 large floor boards are lifted up.

I don't agree that the Hughes 38 is a poor sea boat... I believe many of them have been used offshore, just like Cruising World writer Capt'n Fatty did when he circumnavigated on his "Wild Card". When I orderd my windvane for my Hughes 38 the company rep told me they had the measurements for the Hughes 38 because they'd sold quite a few windvanes to people going offshore, mostly Atlantic crossings. To me they look pretty similar to the Ohlson 38, which is apparently considered a very good offshore cruiser (maybe somebody can explain the difference to me). If you look at the design numbers they seem to be OK, since nearly all the numbers are in the generally accepted cruising optimum range (no doubt there are different opinions on that!) , as shown below:

IMS Limit Positive Stability: 118 degrees
SA/D: 16.11 (cruising optimum 16 - 18)
D/L ratio: 318 (cruising optimum 313)
Ted Brewer Comfort Factor ratio: 33 (cruising optimum 37)
Capsize Risk Ratio: 1.63 (cruising optimum 1.64)
Velocity Ratio: 1.08 (curising optimum 1.06)
LOA/Beam ratio: 3.73 (cruising optimum 3.43)
LWL/Beam WL ratio: 3.24 (cruising optimum 3.4)
ballast/displacement ratio: .46 (cruising optimum .40)
Fineness coefficient: .67 (cruising optimum .65 - .68)
Calculated speed/length ratio: 1.34 (cruising optimum .9 - 1.3)
Sail area/Wetted Surface area ratio: 2.34 (cruising optimum 2.2 - 2.4)


----------



## Valiente

garymcg said:


> Jeff
> 
> Sorry, I misstated what Pat told me. He speaks fast and it was hard to take notes. The early boats from the late 60's to early 70's were built by "(illegible note) Metals" and are not very good boats.


Old dead thread, but that might be "Huromic Metals".


----------



## blt2ski

And considering Jim has found his way to London for couple of yrs vs sailing out of portland Or! not sure that this boat is going to work for him! Not sure this thread really needed bringing up. 

Which comes to the , why are threads not automaticilly locked after X months, ie maybe 6-12?

marty


----------



## rob8888

blt2ski said:


> And considering Jim has found his way to London for couple of yrs vs sailing out of portland Or! not sure that this boat is going to work for him! Not sure this thread really needed bringing up.
> 
> Which comes to the , why are threads not automaticilly locked after X months, ie maybe 6-12?
> 
> marty


Sorry if your friend Jim (whoever he is!) is in England and you're not interested in this thread any more... I just saw it for the first time. You could always just have skipped it if you're not interested; what difference does it make to you if other members take the time to post a correction or a comment in case it might help somebody actually interested in Hughes/Northstar 38 boats?


----------



## Tartan34C

Rob8888 said,
“It seems to me that having the engine in the keel below the cabin sole is a good design feature. It keeps about 400 lb as low down as possible, and allows for the propeller shaft to be straight (actually it is at an angle of about 3 degrees) instead of being sharply angled down which is necessary in boats with the engine mounted under the cockpit. I replaced the Atomic Four in mine with a Universal M35B, and it just fits without raising the sole. Mounted like that it is very easy to work on after the 2 large floor boards are lifted up.”

It’s six of one and a half dozen of another but I don’t consider this to be a good feature for any boat offshore or daysailor. It’s not that uncommon to have lots of water in the bilge so the engine is at risk because of corrosion and certainly at risk of being submerged early in the game if anything goes wrong. There is a trade off between stability and utility but the higher the engine the safer the installation. At least that’s my take on it.

As far as the boat being suitable for offshore work the only examples I have seen were lightly built and would not be a candidate for trans-ocean work in my opinion. The fact they have windvanes doesn’t mean they are a good choice it just means other people don’t have my opinion of the boat. The fact that someone may have made a crossing also doesn’t make the boat suitable it just makes the person lucky and also proves he is willing to take more of a risk then I am. 

You ask about the difference between the Olson 38 and the Hughes 38. Simply put the Olson is a stronger built boat. Not my style for offshore but still a better choice then the Hughes. But that’s also largely an opinion so you have lots of room for discussion.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## Pub911

*Serena*

Hi all,

I too own a '72 NorthStar 38 - "SERENA" She's the only boat I've ever owned so I don't have a lot to compair her to, but this boat is solid, balanced, tracks well and can take a beating on when sailing close to weather. My crew has failed well before the boat has any time she's ever been pushed. And while most of my cruising is in Long Island Sound, off New Haven, the Sound can dish it out when the tide's running opposite a 25knt breeze - I've seen 'em stack up 6'+ and very close together. 
I've had a few email exchanges w/Cap'n Fatty on the topic of seaworthiness and 'blue-water' confidence - all of which he emphatically supports. Now he's got some special circumstances in that Wild Card was holed, then repaired and stiffened with additional structure forward of the settee which ties the chainplate tabs from either side together in an integrated support system.
My boat has had a number of upgrades (Westerbeke M4-30, new exhaust, new rig, awlgrip in dark blue, holding tank, hot water tank, refridgeration, and all the typical wear items), but none of this was the result of poor design or construction. The only exception to this is the location of the traveler - I moved mine to a bridge system on the coachtop. The traveler in the cockpit was a bit hazardous.

I would be happy to share additional details to anyone with questions about my experiences. In exchange, does anyone have access to a spec-sheet that shows length overall as measured from the trailing edge of the reverse-transome to the leading edge of the bow-rail? (My winter storage marina is adamant about charging me at 39x $40.00 for my 38 foot boat!!!) 

Fair winds.


----------



## blt2ski

Once your boat is on the hard, run plumb line down from the fartehest point forward, and aft, then measure. That is usually the easiest way. I would also NOT be suprised if your boat is about a foot longer than speced, being as marina's charge by the longest part. Along with my marina, goes from 37'3" to 38'3" is a 38' boat, so if you are 38'4" you're a 39' boat to them!

marty


----------



## TSOJOURNER

> Hughes commissioned Sparkman & Stevens to design a 38' sloop in 1966. It was Sparkman & Stevens design #1903, and was used as the basis for all Hughes and Northstar 38s built from 1967 to 1980. There are different versions, but all use the same S&S design... the Mark I, the Mark II, the Mark III, and a tallmast version which seems to have only offerred in the Mark II version (it had a mast 4' taller than the standard mast). The Northstar 38 built from 1970 to 1974 while US Steel owned the company was probably the same as a Hughes Mark II.


I don't know about 3 models, but I'll guarantee you that there are at least two very different hull shapes that were built and sold as Hughes 38. The older one is a more classic design and is the one with the dark hull pictured earlier in this post. The newer one is a fatter boat with a very pinched stern.

I looked at both versions last year.


----------



## Pub911

Do you have the beam dimensions for each?


----------



## jheldatksuedu

I have lots of pictures of a 1968 Hughes 38 on my website.I think it is a good, strong, well designed bluewater boat. I bought it to circumnavigate. I wanted something larger and steel but didn't think I would find one affordable, I was wrong. Concerning the engine in the bilge, if you've got enough water in the the bilge to cause problems with a diesel, the engine in the bilge is not something you need to worry about. My opinion a gas engine has no business being anywhere near salt water for many reasons. Jon


----------



## alomper

Dear All,
I read (and re-read) your discussion concerning the hughes 38. I'm a bit confused since Hughes 38 doesn't seem to refer to one boat, but three. ;-) What do you think about the version I'm interested in? Here is a picture of the hull:
1969 Anthony Hughes 38 - 38' Cruiser Sailboat for Sale in Clear Lake Shores, Texas

I currently own a Hallberg P28 - kind of a big folkeboat. The length is 30ft. It's a full-keel design, and I've mounted an Aries windvane in order to sail single-handed. The boat doesn't tack below an angle of 105 degrees, but that's about the only negative in terms of sailing performance (as I see it). The Aires can steer the boat on any course.

So, why am I looking for a new boat? Well, I'd need a bit more space down below. And, I'd like to have a boat with a bridge deck. I would like to continue using my Aries since I'd mostly sail single-handed. It is essential to me that I can trust the Aries to keep the boat under control on any course. I'm not too crazy about speed, but I wouldn't want a slow boat.

Do you think that a Hughes 38 like the one above would fit me?
Best regards,
Alex


----------



## Jeff_H

This appears to be the middle period Hughes 38 a Sparkman and Stephens designed Hughes Northstar 38 that shares the same hull with the Hinckley 38 of that same era. 

A friend of mine did a lot of distance cruising with the Hinckley version of this boat and he had an Aries style vane on his. The boat in question appears to have the trim tab on the aft face of the keel that was standard on the Competition version of the Hinckley and an option on the Hughes. The trim tab is helpful in balancing the helm. 

These were reasonably fast boats for their day upwind, but a bit squirely downwind. They also have a sailplan that depended on huge jibs and a very small mainsail making them less than ideal for single-handing and difficult to shift gears with changing conditions. 

Jeff


----------



## JohnRPollard

I'd also note that the photos of the boat are more than 5 1/2 years old. A lot can change in that much time, so hopefully you have some more recent information.

P.S. Jeff, that trim tab is certainly a curiosity. How was it manipulated?


----------



## Jeff_H

On the Hinckley versions there was a small steering wheel that was mounted on the binacle on the same shaft as the main steering wheel. The trim tab wheel was aft of and concentric with the main steering wheel. You could turn them both at the same time or independently and you could lock off the trim tab where you wanted it and steer with the main wheel. 

I also raced on another boat of that era with a trim tab that had a small throttle quadrant mounted on the deck that you turned one way or the other and it used a throttle cable to rotate a small tiller below the deck.


----------



## alomper

Thanks for your fast replies! My question wasn't really related to the Hughes that's currently for sale. I just posted the above-stated link s.t. we are on page regarding the version of the Hughes 38 that I'm interested in. Can you think of something similar, with a smaller headsail? Or would that be incompatible with the hull shape? To me, the hull shape looked quite attractive. Somewhere between a full and a fin keel, with a skeg-hung rudder.

Best,
Alex


----------



## Kiskadee

*Hughes and Northstars are one and the same...*

The S&S designed Hughes 38 built in 1968 shared the identical hull with the Northstar 38 of the mid 70's and later Hughes 38's through the final hull in 1981. From the toerail down they are all 99% identical. In '69 Hughes sold to US Steel but they didn't change thecompany name to Northstar until '71. In '77 Hughes bought the company back and immediately changed the name back to Hughes. Many of the same workers stayed with them through all owners. 
I have managed marina yards on both coasts and am quite familiar with all three versions. I own a 1980 Mk 3. An aquaintance in NS had a Mk 2 and a friend here in BC has a Mk 1. The Mk 1 & 2 look very similar but the latter saw the lazorette removed and cockpit moved aft to the transom. The saloon moved aft and gave a slightly larger head and V-berth. Only the Mk 1 had the stbd quarter berth. The Mk 1 has a tiller and the Mk 2 & 3 have a wheel. The main change in the Mk 3 is a (the modern) more rounded coach roof design, which unfortunately resulted in narrower side decks.
All were built with an Atomic 4, some UJ and some UJR with the Paragon 2:1 reduction gear. Having the engine below the cabin sole allows excellent access to all components. The aft most 1/3 of the keel is hollow and it would take a lot of water to ever flood the engine. The propellor is deeper and farther forward than most boats, so prop-walk is negligable in reverse and it is less likely to foul on a line that falls over the side. The bevel edged keel frees itself more easily from soft-bottom groundings, building less bottom suction than flat/squared off designs. However the boat will usually not sit flat on a tidal grid without a bow crutch for forward support.
The boat sails well on all points but is a bit cumbersome on a dead run. It will pull hard close hauled to 30 degrees off the wind. The narrow stern IOR design allows the waterline to grow with speed (speed = more speed), but does tend to hobby-horse in short choppy wind-vs-current standing waves. I have sailed her off the coast of Nova Scotia, beating into 30 kts wind and +6' seas, and she handled it like she was on rails. Still, the Hughes 38 is a lighter build than many 38's of the era, and remains a racer-cruiser with decent offshore capability. Capt Goodlander did extensive modifications to his Wild Card, turning her into a heavy open ocean cruiser.
At 10' 2" the Hughes 38's are narrower than most 38 footers, but this has allowed us to fit into guest slips that were too narrow for other shorter boats. Designed to sleep 7, we find it crowded beyond 4 on board. 
Some weak points show with age. Holes for deck fittings were not filled and redrilled, so many boats can suffer wet balsa deck cores when the bedding breaks down. This can be expensive to repair so I recommend re-bedding everything before the leaks start. Most chainplates are hiddden behind woodork and inaccessable to surveyors, so it may be an issue with some insurance companies. The dry exhaust water jacket will freeze and split if not drained when on the hard in northern climates. The aftmost half of the dry exhaust is hose that will dry out eventually and should be checked every season and replaced when dry-cracking. The Mk 3 has an excessive amount of thruhulls. Mine has 10 below the waterline and three under the rear overhang. Original gate valves should be changed to ball valves. Original wiring was not tinned and has become brittle with age. The DC system is adequate but the 115V on my Mk 3 was poorly designed... Truely not suitable for a garden shed, but I don't know if this held true for all years.
The best source of info on the Hughes 38 and it's company history is from Robert Hess at: History of Hughes Boat Works
Sorry about the long post, but over the years the internet has been filling up with mis-information about the Hughes 38's being different boats. Over their build-life, from 1968 through 1981, they were all built from identical hull molds with many of the same craftsmen. Except for the Tall Mast version they all perform the same and all versions carry the same basic handicap rating. The classic design is dated, but so are 57 Chevy Nomads and I still like them too.
Cheers, Dana


----------



## sharedwatch

Great Post Dana!

I've always like the H-38 ...the Hinckley too. A friend of mine used to own the blue one in the pictures. It was a nicely optioned boat but had a really soggy deck and needed some other work as well.

I've always believed that the hulls were all the same shape. ...funny how some people claim things as facts when they are truly not.

I spoke to S&S not too long ago and they looked up the plans for both the Hughes 38 and the Hinckley and told me flat out that they were differnent (albeit very similar) designs. I don't know if this means that Hinckley slightly modified the original design from Hughes or if they are simply altogether different boats. I am pretty sure that Hinckley did modify their '38 a bit from the plansl in that they lowered the engine a tad and put a small bump in the hull for extra clearance. I'd heard (not confirmed) that S&S was not at all happy with Hank Hinckley about this one and that is why they didn't design any more of the Hinckley production boats.

Cheers,
JZ


----------



## Kiskadee

*Hughes / Hinckley*

I'd read somewhere that Hinckley only had Hughes build the bare hulls for their 38's. Hinckley did their own liners and decks. I found a pic of one on yachtworld that shows the bump at the top of the keel. It looks odd but would have allowed a much larger choice of diesels. The Hughes 38 was built with the Atomic 4 in mind and doesn't have room for most wider diesels with their larger crankshafts. The Hinckleys were outfitted to a higher quality and they still hold a higher resale value than their Hughes sisters.
I don't blame S&S for being pissed at Hinckley for changing their design. The Hughes 38 was the first boat designed to the then new IOR Rules. Olin Stevens was one of the key developers of those new rules, so who better to design a boat to meet them... And why mess with any boat designed by the man who designed the rules.
I think that much of the misinformation about different versions of the H38 comes from an era when molds were bought and sold as companies folded. Hughes ended up with some Columbia molds and built them as Hughes-Columbia. One was a 36, which some may erroneously think to be a variant of the H38.

I just thought of one other issue with the H38's. There's very little exposed shaft between the cutlass bearing and the prop. This only leaves room for one donut zinc annode, which may or may not last the year depending on local conditions, etc.

Cheers, Dana


----------



## Jim H

rob8888 said:


> Sorry if your friend Jim (whoever he is!) is in England and you're not interested in this thread any more...


*
Yeah, who the hell is that idiot Jim character? * 

Actually, I'm in favor of old threads like this one coming back from the dead over time. It's not uncommon for the new posts to be of better quality than the original ones...

Not all boats have thick, rich websites devoted to them with every historical question answered and tech spec outlined. This thread is an interesting give-and-take about a boat that may not have a lot of clear documentation elsewhere (at least that I know of).


----------



## smackdaddy

Wow! Great write up kisk. I just saw a very cheap Hughes 38 on YW and was wanting to find out more about the boat. Yet again, Sailnet salts come through!

The boat is in NS. I wonder if it's your friend's boat? Looks nice.


----------



## Kiskadee

*Is the Hughes in NS called Clarity?*

Smackdaddy, If the boat you're looking at in NS is called Clarity then I'd like you to email me: [email protected]


----------



## ahld

Kiskadee has the Hughes 38 history nailed. It's a good old strong boat if you find one in good shape. The posts by Tartan 34C are off base - he's confused it with another boat. Maybe a Hunter! They both have H on the sail!

Like every 30-40 year old boat everything should have been replaced or upgraded by now. I owned a 1972 freshwater 38 that was original in everyway. The A-4 was a low hour gem. Right on about the deck leaks, but not a unique problem to Hughes. Early models/years were more racer than cruiser. Smaller head, spartan accomodations, open under cockpit (no 1/4 berth). These early models are where you'd find the trim tab on the keel. It was the hot set up when Olin was designing America's Cup boats. Later years looked to be mostly "offshore A": V berth, opposed setees pull out to doubles and a 1/4 berth. Joinery/interior is on the low end of OK. 

Since its an S&S design it's "over built" by design & Hughes didn't cheap out on the layup. aaaaaaaaaait's a tough old hull (But you'll need a screw gun to examine chain plates). I think a good one will take you to sea and back like any S&S design. BUT its the "worlds smallest 38 footer". Pinched ends and a 10' beam = no storage. A modern 30 footer has as much/more room. It likes to sail heeled over, but it takes a set & holds. 6000#'s of external lead sees to that. I've grounded her Hard several times - its a brick S house. A slight gouge in the lead - no damage. 

It's a good starter "big boat". But be realistic about condition/ work-upgrades needed. Buy one someone else has done the work on. I owned mine for 7 years, sailed and overnighted for weeks at a time on Ontario. Bought a Morgan 383 and I am in cruising heaven with a 12' beam & 100+ cubbies for storage.


----------



## mhbarnhart

Greetings
I am looking to sail in the great lakes and will be based in Parry Sound. Currently have a 21 Sirius and am looking for a 35 to 40 project boat. I have a chance to get a Hughes 38 mark 3, 1980 vintage that has never seen water yet. It's a complete hull and deck. No hardware or interior. Cost is almost nothing, just have to move it and ruin part of our homes scenic view!!!!

What's your thoughts on bringing this one to life? Ballpark cost to complete if one is frugal?

I love the site and look forward to hearing back from some of you.

Regards. ...
Mike B

p.s. my wife doesn't know about this "new" project yet....


----------



## SloopJonB

WAY more than buying a decent one and refitting it to taste - WAAAYYY more.

Don't even think about building a boat unless you WANT to build a boat. It is a very poor way to acquire a boat if you want to go sailing - almost certainly the most expensive way in both $$ and time. A Hughes 38 hull & deck will take years of full time work to complete and probably cost very near or even into 6 figures.

P.S. after reading back in this thread, there is a piece of rather significant misinformation repeated a few times - ALL the Hughes/Northstar 38's were the same S&S designed hull - the deck was changed along with other things but the hull was common to all of them - S&S design #1903.


----------



## killarney_sailor

I agree. Unless you really (really) want the experience of finishing this boat you are much better off looking for a completed boat.


----------



## mhbarnhart

Greetings,

Thank you for the sage advice. Me thinks I will keep looking for a sailboat with less work, less cost and more enjoyment.

In the meantime I wish we'd get some wind up in central Ontario. Its been a quiet summer so far and my Sirius 21 has barely gotten wet yet. It was quite a bit of work. It was abandoned for 8 years and looked like a bad aquarium inside. Moss was growing on the decks. Many, many hours later she's a fine sailing boat just waiting for me to recover the the cushions.

Thanks...

Mike B


----------



## longjonsilver

i have been doing a lot of research on this boat. there seems to be contradictions/errors about it circulating on the internet. There are 3 versions of the Hughes 38 - check it out on sailboatdata. They were all S&S design #1903. The first was the original boat built by the Hughes brothers it was the Mk1 and had a tiller and two big windows in the cabin. They then sold to US Steel who changed the name to Northstar. These were the Mk2 and had a T shaped cockpit and 2 large cabin windows. It is my belief that quality suffered during this time and was partly the reason that the Hughes brothers resigned from the company. This is confirmed by looking at the data on sailboatdata. Hinckley purchased hulls from Hughes until soon after US Steel bought the company. Thru my conversation with Fatty Goodlander, i have concluded that US Steel changed the original hand layup schedule to using a chopper gun on the hulls, and Hinckley wanted nothing to do with it. When the Hughes brothers bought the company back, they went back to the hand layup method and these boats are the Hughes Mk3. They have the T shaped cockpit, a smaller bridge deck, longer cabin roof and 3 large windows in the cabin.
Any boat that is this old is likely to suffer from deterioration of the deck. This needs to be checked carefully. The hull/deck joint needs to be redone on many boats. 3M 5200 should do the trick. The chainplates are hidden inside the hull behind the woodwork - at least one boat has them remounted outside the hull. The thru hulls are gate valves and need to be upgraded. The wiring is old and is not tinned. The AC wiring is poor. None of these problems are insurmountable, but one must go into any deal with eyes open  Asking prices as of now are 10,000 - 29,000 with most boats being around 20,000. This is not bad, considering how well this boat sails. Tacking angle has been reported as 60 degrees!!!!!! Even if this is exaggerated and really is 70 degrees, this is exceptional performance to windward. Fatty reports that the boat handles very well on all points of sail and tracks with the monitor windvane.
Anybody interested in the H38 - especially those with first hand experience - please contact me by PM or email.
jon


----------



## SloopJonB

I would question that chopper gun thing. S&S retained the right to approve the construction of their designs back then. Rod Stephens would visit the factories as a sort of audit that they were building them to an acceptable standard. It was actually in a history of Hughes where I learned that tidbit about S&S - they wouldn't let just anyone build their designs.

He sure wouldn't have approved a chopper gun 38' hull.

Many builders would chopper gun the mat layers between the hand laid roving layers. A quality local builder (Markos) did that and his boats never suffered for it. That may be where the chopper gun Hughes hulls story came from.


----------



## longjonsilver

SloopJonB said:


> I would question that chopper gun thing. S&S retained the right to approve the construction of their designs back then... they wouldn't let just anyone build their designs.
> He sure wouldn't have approved a chopper gun 38' hull.


While i am just researching the Hughes 38 on the internet and i haven't personally investigated the hulls from the inside, it certainly is possible that you are right about the chopper guns used just for the mat portion of the layup in between the roving. However evidence points to quality dropping off during the US Steel/Northstar days.

Hinckley quit using the Hughes hulls in 1970, and the company was sold to US Steel in 1969. Therefore the original hulls were good enough for Hinckley but the US Steel ones were not.

Quote from a Hughes owner - "Mine was a 1979, and the glass work was excellent and the wood work in the web cores and mast step was non-water-proof crap ply and wholly **** in every way.

My hull to deck joint was this smashed inner tube... But by carefully rechaulking it prior to each ocean passage, I managed to 80,000 sail miles with only minor leaks.

My hull was hand laid up, not gunited with chopped matt... those were the ones with the water-right-thru-the-hull problems."

Note: Sailboatdata lists the Hughes 38-2 and the Northstar 38 as the same boat, but it says that the Northstar 38 is BASED UPON the S&S design. It is not certain that the change in wording is meaningful or not, but still it is suspicious. It certainly could mean that S&S didnt approve of the construction standards. There is a suspicious data point in the sailboatdata history of Hughes which states that the Northstar boats were built from 1971 to 1974. What happened in 1975 and 1976? Did S&S not approve of the construction standards and production stopped? 

still investigating
jon


----------



## longjonsilver

Tartan34C said:


> Rob8888 said,
> "It seems to me that having the engine in the keel below the cabin sole is a good design feature. It keeps about 400 lb as low down as possible,...."
> 
> It's six of one and a half dozen of another but I don't consider this to be a good feature for any boat offshore or daysailor. It's not that uncommon to have lots of water in the bilge so the engine is at risk because of corrosion and certainly at risk of being submerged early in the game if anything goes wrong. There is a trade off between stability and utility but the higher the engine the safer the installation. At least that's my take on it.


Well, i just finished reading "Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts" by the technical committee of the CCA, including a "Who's Who" of yacht design circa 1987. At the end of the book they have 5 examples of good boats. Of those 5 two (2) have the engine in the bilge - Adele by Ted Hood and Seguin 44 by S&S. Two have the engine under the stern cockpit, and one boat the engine location is undetermined (Wissahickon by McCurdey and Rhodes). That means that a minimum of 40% of the example boats have the engine in the bilge. (by the way, the lines of Wissahickon look ALOT like a Hughes 38).

In addition the writer of the chapter on engines in the aforementioned book, George D Griffith, states "Unfortunately, the logical location for the engine - toward the middle of the boat where the motion is least and the beam, light and general accessibility are greatest - is also the logical location for bunks and other people accommodations. This is a hard compromise to make in any design.... you should give priority to the engine so you can enjoy the comforts of a reliable power plant in a low-maintenance installation."

So, altho you are entitled to your opinion about engine location as in all things nautical, it is not shared by many of the top authorities in the field. ;

jon


----------



## Brent Swain

They have very cramped interiors, far less spacious than a Hughs 31. Much of it is wasted on a super long cockpit and lazarette.


----------



## longjonsilver

a yacht is a very personal thing. the first question is "what do you want to do with it?

yachts are designed to be either raced or sold. that makes most boats either rule beaters (since you race against the rule) or cater to consumer demands. that means that many boats that are popular are either floating hotels (designed from the inside out), party barges with some canvas, imitations of successful ocean racers or combinations of the above.

that means that a boat that is skinny such as the h38 cannot be a party barge, and makes a cramped hotel room. in addition, the h38 cannot be a successful rule beater or everyone would be buying them up and winning silverware with them. 

hence, a boat that is very weatherly like the h38 - points high and cuts thru the chop - is not valued by the market. but that is precisely what i think makes a good sea boat - ability to go to weather and cut thru chop. ill sacrifice initial stability to have greater ultimate stability (skinny design with deep heavy keel). ill sacrifice ability to gunkhole for a deep relatively high aspect ratio keel, because it makes a better SAILING boat. if the design is a little bit twitchy downwind due to the fine stern sections, ill take that and fix it with a good self steering vane, like the cape horn, or with my sail combination (twin staysails). 

with a pedigree (S&S) a good as the H38 has meaning a great probability of being well balanced - and to most accounts it is, why look for a design by someone else, many of which look boxy and awkward. (what do we know about fluid flow over a foil?) personally, ill take an olin stephens design over 90% of the others.

all because i dont need a floating hotel, i dont want a party barge (i passed up a FREE Coronado 35 cc ketch), and i dont need a 38 foot lazer to win silverware for my trophy room. 

yes, the H38 has a large cockpit- altho the series three has a cockpit some 18" shorter with the additional room dedicated to the cabin. however, the H38 is NOT the ideal boat for me or anyone else. but we must live in the real world of compromises and budget restraints. within my budget (20k) for the initial purchase, the H38 is currently the leader of the pack. i am open to suggestions and i check out interesting boats as they become available on the market. (alberg 37 yawl for 6k for instance) any suggestions?

jon


----------



## Pub911

I'm Pub911 from my post on this thread years ago. I'm curious what you decided, Longjonsilver. For what it's worth: I love my NorthStar 38, now in season 17 and counting, for all the reasons you mention above, all those i mentioned in my original post and a bunch more i've learned and enjoyed since.

fair winds.


----------



## longjonsilver

im still looking for a H38. pm me for more.
jon


----------



## longjonsilver

Recently i inquired about a H38 for sale around here. i noticed on one of the pictures what appeared to be a saildrive sticking out the bottom. i have seen another H38 with a saildrive and the motor moved about 8' aft and the boat sat about 2-3" out of level - high in the bow and low in the stern. i guess you could repaint the waterline stripe and make it "look" correct, but would that fix the changes in the sailing balance. it seems to me that it would make it more likely for getting pooped by a following sea. Apparently there is someone on lake Champlain modifying H38's to have saildrives in them with the motor aft of the companionway ladder - the usual spot in most sailboats, because i suspect another H38 for sale has also been modified as it sits low in the stern and high in the bow. Two confirmed and one suspected modified H38s and all come from lake Champlain. Let's think thru this a minute.

To balance the boat, since we moved 400 or so lbs 8' or so aft we moved 3200ftlbs of torque aft of the fulcrum of the boat. That means, to balance the boat we would have to move other weight forward. Lots of chain anyone? But since weight does no good on a boat, how could we balance it with the weight we already have? How about moving the ballast in the keel? Well, lets see, we have 6000 lbs ballast and that would have to move about 6" forward to give us 3000ftlbs of torque to balance the 3200ftlbs aft. Close enuf as we used crude approx with the saildrive weight. How would (or the designer) we do this? We could relocate the keel 6" farther forward OR move the ballast forward within the existing keel. Now, the H38 is reknown by all who have them as very well balanced, as most boats are by Olin Stephens. Moving the keel forward would definately effect the balance and relocating the ballast within the keel would cut down on the righting moment, as the ballast would have to be stacked up rather than laid flat.

These are the problems that all designers face, but how does some guy in a boatyard think that he knows more than Olin Stephens about yacht design???? And we see the results in the water - the water doesn't lie! How most designers solve this problem (or do they solve it?) is beyond me, since most boats have the engine aft of the companionway ladder.

Anyone?

jon


----------



## Faster

longjonsilver said:


> Recently i inquired about a H38 for sale around here. i noticed on one of the pictures what appeared to be a saildrive sticking out the bottom. i have seen another H38 with a saildrive and the motor moved about 8' aft and the boat sat about 2-3" out of level - high in the bow and low in the stern.


Looked at some drawings.. hmmm.... Not only 8 feet aft, but at least 2 or 3 feet higher in the boat, too. Interesting.

I suppose the easiest thing to try would be to add tankage to the old engine space.. maybe not the right corrective moment but at least the weight's going to be nicely down low...

"relocating" the keel seems a non-starter, esp for the way that boat is molded/built.


----------



## longjonsilver

Faster said:


> Looked at some drawings.. hmmm.... Not only 8 feet aft, but at least 2 or 3 feet higher in the boat, too. Interesting.
> 
> "relocating" the keel seems a non-starter, esp for the way that boat is molded/built.


yes, the engine would also be located much higher in the boat. Where Olin Stephens put the engine, it would be like internal ballast. Above the cabin sole would make it just weight.

My comment about "relocating" the keel was about changes at the design stage of the yacht, not retrofitting it!!!!!

Anyway, to continue my thots about the keel position. If the keel were to be designed to be 6" forward than existing, that would mean that the mast would have to be located farther forward as well to keep the CE to CLP in the same % of the LWL. This of course would decrease the fore triangle and increase the size of the main. Not a bad thing according to many in their critiques of the H38!

BUT, it seems to me, that there is an optimum position for the keel on ANY design. Lets assume, just for the sake of discussion, as a thot experiment, that we keep the CE to CLP the same % of the LWL. Now consider the keel well forward in the vessel, like under the bow. The ratio of CE to CLP could be kept consistent with a huge bowsprit. Likewise the keel could be put just forward of the rudder/skeg. The mast would be therefore somewhere in the area of the companionway.

NOW, these ridiculous extremes obviously would NOT make for a well balanced boat! BUT, it emphasizes the point that there is an OPTIMUM position for a fin keel, as well as many ACCEPTABLE positions, and even more unacceptable positions.

Therefore, since most boats have their engines under the companionway, and the odd few (like the H38) have their engines over the fin keel, under the cabin sole, does that mean that the H38 is better balanced than most boats, or does it mean that most boats are better balanced than the H38????????? Anecdotal evidence presented by H38 owners says that the H38 is very well balanced. That raises the question: is it because the engine is directly over the keel?

jon


----------



## longjonsilver

Check out the Hughes 38 website

www.hughes38.com

enjoy
jon


----------

