lower stay attachments

[Tim22]

I recently removed the fittings that secure the lower stays to the deck of my Hunter 310. The fitting goes through the deck and is secured by a backing plate and bolt on thr inside. A photo of the exterior and interior are attached.

When I removed the fitting I noticed that the fiberglass tube shown in the attached drawing (provided by Hunter) was missing. You can see this in the photo taken looking up the thru deck hole. I now have a fiberglass tube matching the Hunter spec but am wondering if it should be permanently glued in (3M 5200) or should be allowed to float (unglued). As this attachment supports the full load of the inner stays I would be grateful of suggestions as to which is best.

Thanks
Tim

 

[ggrizzard]

Don't know your boat, but if I understand the set up: The lower shrouds meet at a deck fitting (pictured) which attaches to a rod (?) that goes through a hole (pictured) that is lined by a tube (?). The rod attaches to a nut and washer assembly (pictured) on the interior of the boat.

I think the "tube" may have been jarred loose as the deck flexed underway and fell out on inspection. It was probably not replaced due to lack of knowledge or access to the part by the PO. I can't think why it would be built to 'float'.
You might call Hunter and ask how it was attached.

 

[Tim22]

Hi Ggrrizard
Your summation is correct. The only thing I’m not sure about is whether the tube should have been glassed in but was never installed by Hunter, or, as you suggest, was loose and was lost at some point. I tend to think it was never installed so am wondering whether or not to glue it in place.

Thanks
Tim

 

[ggrizzard]

Yeah, I just noticed in the "Hole" pic that there is a dimple of resin(?) sitting on the wall of the hole that would have caused the "tube installer" at the factory some problems on a Friday at 4:00 P.M. : "Oh well, maybe they'll never notice"!

I'd knock that dimple off and 5200 the tube in.

 

[Ed Caldwell]

Tim, I have a similar chainplate deck fitting on my H340, and I have never removed it. I have several questions: 1) Why did you decide to pull yours apart? 2) Where did you get the cross section diagram? 3) Where did you get the new tube? and 4) Have you looked at removing/inspecting your hull chainplates?

It looks like the tube is there to maintain the separation distance between the deck and the ceiling liner to increase structural stiffness, in combination with that "putty" shown on the diagram. Without it, it might be too easy to overtorque the nut inside the cabin and crush the putty.

 

[Joe]

Would it be like a compression fitting...

 

[Hunter Ad Bot]

And now a word from the sponsor...

Hunter prop struts and shafts

Props, keys, shafts, struts, cutless bearings and shaft logs. We guarantee fit!
See the product

 

[ggrizzard]

Ed and Joe, I think you're both spot on. And a good reason to install the tube with adhesive.

 

[Tim22]

Hi Ed

I removed the fittings as I noticed some crazing around the fitting. Because of the inherent stress in the area I had it inspected by a marine engineer and pulling the fitting was part of the inspection. The result was that the crazing was determined not structural and we discovered the missing tube.

The cross section diagram was given to me by Marlow Hunter who were most helpful in providing it. The new tube came from Competition Composites, a local Ottawa company who were very helpful in filling such a small order. I haven’t looked at the chainplate except to inspect them through the interior inspection ports.

I think the purpose of the tube is as a compression post so maybe it doesn’t matter if it is glued in so long as it keeps the correct spacing.

Thanks
Tim

 

[Ed Caldwell]

Thanks Tim. As these boats are at or approaching 20 years old, we have to keep an eye on these critical structural elements.