Hunter Arch, Any Comments or Opinions?

[PDixon]

Does anyone have an opinion on the Hunter Arch. Have there been any problems. Any help would be appriciated

[Wega24]

this is going to be an interesting thread

:-)

you are talking about the rollbar , right ?

Thorsten

[Jeff_H]

It is hard to say that there is one right opinion about the Hunter arches. They do have a reasonable basis for existing. From an engineering and performance standpoint, end boom or nearly end boom sheeting makes the most sense. End boom sheeting, almost by necessity, places the traveler in the cockpit. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of many non-performance oriented sailors to have the traveler in the cockpit where someone has to step over it and the mainsheet is more likely to injure someone in an accidental jibe.

The common solution of placing the traveler on the cabin top results in a lot of major compromises. To begin with there is a lot larger loads to be handled as the mechanical advantage of the boom that is normally associated with a mainsheet located at the end of the boom is reversed in the case of mid-boom sheeting. As a result there is higher sheet loads, more purchase required, higher frictional loads to overcome, and much greater bending loads on the boom and sheer loads on the gooseneck.

In fairness to Hunter, arches had begin to appear as places to mount electronic components such as a radar and radio antenas. They even had a new name; ''Radarch''. When Hunter began using the arch they had come up with a way of using end boom sheeting and moving the traveller out of the cockpit. Inherently a better compromise than mounting the traveler on the coachroof.

It is not that there isn''t inherent compromises with the arch. Early Hunter arches reported delamination and attachment failures. A twisted or jambed block meant tottering above the arch to clear it. Leech control was difficult as sails stretched and mainsheets two-blocked or else sails were cut with short leeches reducing sail area and raising the center of effort. Then there was the significant windage of the early glass arches. Lastly there was the whole aesthetic battle.

In the end I have very mixed feelings about the arch. I understand why they exist and consider them a far superior solution than a cabin top mounted traveller, but I also consider them to be more of a compromise than I would ever want on a boat of mine.

Jeff

[PDixon]

Thanks Jeff, I always appreciate your answers. Do you know if the fiberglass arch have any steel renforcement? Would you rather have the steel tube arch? Our use would be as a fair weather coastal cruiser in San Diego were the winds rarly go over 25 knts. Aside from the arch do you have an opinion on the quality of construction for the late 90''s hunters, when did they start to put in the kevlar

[Jeff_H]

I do not believe that the arches were steel reinforced but I do not know for certain. While I am not a big fan of the arch, I do like the stainless steel ones better than the fiberglass ones.

From my conversations with surveyors, Hunter generally does a good job on the installation of systems. There are aspects of Hunter''s construction that I do not like such as the hull to deck joint and glued in bulkheads (although that is becoming standard practice with most production builders these day). In talking with surveyors and from my own experiences, I would say that depending on the model, Hunters are generally a bit better built than Catalinas, are pretty comparable to the Beneteau ''number series'' and not as good a boat as the Beneteau First Series. Any of these are probably suitable for your purposes. I really don''t recall when Hunter started using kevlar but I would guess it was in the past 5 years or so.

Regards
Jeff