DSK wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that's becase the SS arches are easier & cheaper
to make, and easier to mount, and present less of a QA challenge.

I doubt this. I'm sure fiberglass or even more expensive composites like carbon
would be cheaper. SS is probably used for appearance's sake. Even fancy boats
have stainless steel structures like this, so to most people's eyes they don't
look weird or downmarket. A big fiberglass arch would probably put more people
off.

The overhead traveler is a cool idea. It gets the traveler up where it
has the most effective length, out from underfoot, takes the main
sheet out of the way of sweeping the cockpit in gybes, provides a
potential boom gallows, the arch provides a good place to anchor a
bimini and/or cockpit enclosure. However I don't like Hunter's
implementation of the concept either in SS or fiberglass.

I agree. I actually like the idea a lot. It could be well done both
structurally and aesthetically. Whether it is or not in this case is up for
debate. Aesthetically I'm not wild about Hunters either, but that's highly
subjective.

Matt O.