The view of the Hunter's fiberglass or Stainless Steel Traveler Arch is
interesting.
I wonder what would be the merit of having an arch like that on a sailboat.
Could a strong squall damage such an arch? Can the traveler be released in
time to empty the main sail when hit by a strong gust of wind? When
maneuvering through canal locks can the arch rub against the concrete walls
while the boat is rising and swirling? I see that the latest model have a
stainless steel arch instead of fiberglass on previous models.

First of all, I'm not a Hunter fan. With that being said, we have had
friends with the Hunter spaceships. The arch's cracked, some rattled.
Also, some Hunter friends were told they'd need to get their mainsail
reshaped and add a backstay if they were going to do any serious off-shore
sailing.
G
"Denis Marier" wrote in message
...
The view of the Hunter's fiberglass or Stainless Steel Traveler Arch is
interesting.
I wonder what would be the merit of having an arch like that on a
sailboat.
Could a strong squall damage such an arch? Can the traveler be released in
time to empty the main sail when hit by a strong gust of wind? When
maneuvering through canal locks can the arch rub against the concrete
walls
while the boat is rising and swirling? I see that the latest model have a
stainless steel arch instead of fiberglass on previous models.

"Denis Marier" wrote...
The view of the Hunter's fiberglass or Stainless Steel Traveler Arch is
interesting.
I wonder what would be the merit of having an arch like that on a
sailboat.

If you look at a number of tradional & working boats, you'll see a very
similar structures called "gallows frames."

Could a strong squall damage such an arch?

Sure. How strong is the squall, how strong is the arch? A numerical
solution is left for the student.

... Can the traveler be released in
time to empty the main sail when hit by a strong gust of wind?

This is an issue of line lead & cleat placement, the arch itself is
irrelevant.

... When
maneuvering through canal locks can the arch rub against the concrete
walls
while the boat is rising and swirling?

Probably no more risk of that than of catching shrouds & even spreaders
on lock walls.

... I see that the latest model have a
stainless steel arch instead of fiberglass on previous models.



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.

G&G wrote:
First of all, I'm not a Hunter fan.

Really?

... With that being said, we have had
friends with the Hunter spaceships.

Yeah sure, I bet.

...The arch's cracked, some rattled.
Also, some Hunter friends were told they'd need to get their mainsail
reshaped and add a backstay if they were going to do any serious off-shore
sailing.

Who told them that, you? Why add a backstay, to increase compression on
the mast? Or maybe so they'll have an effective place for an SSB
antennae? Why "reshape" the mainsail, to reduce effective area, make the
boat more stodgy under sail, or just kill the effective aspect ratio so
it can point worse?

I owned a Hunter for some years, and they definitely have some issues.
They seem to have poor factory QA. For another thing, the OEM supplied
sails are cheapo crap regardless of "shape," totally unsuited for
offshore sailing in the presence of a backstay or no.

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.

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.

Denis Marier wrote:
The view of the Hunter's fiberglass or Stainless Steel Traveler Arch is
interesting.
I wonder what would be the merit of having an arch like that on a sailboat.
Could a strong squall damage such an arch? Can the traveler be released in
time to empty the main sail when hit by a strong gust of wind? When
maneuvering through canal locks can the arch rub against the concrete walls
while the boat is rising and swirling? I see that the latest model have a
stainless steel arch instead of fiberglass on previous models.



I can't address the Hunter Arch because I've never sailed on a newer
Hunter. As near as I can tell their poor reputation is deserved, but
that doesn't mean that the design concepts are flawed.

My boat has an overhead traveler mounted on a hardtop. Previous
versions had the traveler mounted aft in the cockpit, but this new
arrangement was so superior that it (along with a few other
improvements) led to our purchase of a new boat rather than buying
used. The safety factor alone was huge, but I've found that I have a
lot of control with the overhead traveler.

The implementation apparently was problematical, because the first
version had flexing issues. The hardtop supports were doubled up and
a few pounds of carbon fiber were added for stiffening.