H37C chainplate size.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 2, 2004
5,802
Hunter 37-cutter, '79 41 23' 30"N 82 33' 20"W--------Huron, OH
Hey guys, who has exact chainplate dimensions? I should have but can't find them. Our friend Angus found a bad chainplate on #075. I'm 074 so it is important that he rescue this boat. I remember that one or two of you had them made from 316 stainless. I also know that someone made the entire thing the thickness of the raised portion at the hole for the pin. That would make it 3/8" thickness instead of 1/4". But I do not remember the length and width. Pretty sure the bolts are 3/8". He is on one coast, the boat on the other.
 

Johnb

.
Jan 22, 2008
1,459
Hunter 37-cutter Richmond CA
Ed,

Width 1 1/2 inches
Thickness 1/4 inch
Bolts, 2 1/2 inches apart, each 3/8 inch
13 1/4 inches below the deck
1 1/2 inches above the deck

All material is the same thickness. Each of the six has a backing plate of the same thickness and width.
 
Jun 2, 2004
5,802
Hunter 37-cutter, '79 41 23' 30"N 82 33' 20"W--------Huron, OH
Perfect! Thanks John. I'll add that to the rigging detail in "Owner's Mods". Then I will try to remember that it is there.
 

Johnb

.
Jan 22, 2008
1,459
Hunter 37-cutter Richmond CA
Ed (and any one who would care to comment) - I guess you could disconnect the lowers any time. The uppers could be disconnected if the running backstays were tensioned, and the fore and aft stays could be released if halyards were used to provide support. This would allow the chain plates to be removed for inspection.
 
Jun 2, 2004
5,802
Hunter 37-cutter, '79 41 23' 30"N 82 33' 20"W--------Huron, OH
I disconnect mine every year or two to recaulk. I do two at a time, one port, one starboard, and a few turns at a time. Maybe before I step the mast with the new rigging I should pull the chainplates? What might I find that I cannot see where they are?
 

Johnb

.
Jan 22, 2008
1,459
Hunter 37-cutter Richmond CA
Ed, do you take any special precautions before disconnecting the uppers?
 
Jun 2, 2004
5,802
Hunter 37-cutter, '79 41 23' 30"N 82 33' 20"W--------Huron, OH
Never have John. Nothing more than a few turns, then over to other side for a few, counting all the way. What didn't I worry about that I should have? :)
 

Johnb

.
Jan 22, 2008
1,459
Hunter 37-cutter Richmond CA
Ed - I don't really know, I am just trying to find out/guess what one would have to do before disconnecting and removing the chain plates on the uppers for inspection. If it turns out that they can be safely disconnected by supporting the mast with running backstay or lowers are enough or tie off halyard to one side, then I am giving serious thought to doing that.

It appears that on my boat the uppers have been replaced at some time, the bottom of the chain plate is square, but the lowers are a different shape, semicircular, on my boat. One way or another they have not been removed for inspection for 10 years. At every haul out I have requested inspection of chain plates, keel bolts, steering and through hulls and we had all new rigging in 2002, when the mast was also removed for painting. I was a relatively new owner at that time and didn’t know to ask for a complete chain plate inspection.
 

Blaise

.
Jan 22, 2008
359
Hunter 37-cutter Bradenton
I don't want you guys to think I'm nuts, but I have taken everything off. The mast stays up fine. This obviously won't work on deck stepped rigs.
 

Johnb

.
Jan 22, 2008
1,459
Hunter 37-cutter Richmond CA
I don't want you guys to think I'm nuts, but I have taken everything off. The mast stays up fine. This obviously won't work on deck stepped rigs.
Wow, I guess that answers my question about whether the lowers would be enough. I am terminally/chronically chicken, and would worry about wakes and gusts. Appreciate your comment.
 

Ed A

.
Sep 27, 2008
333
Hunter 37c Tampa
Wow, I guess that answers my question about whether the lowers would be enough. I am terminally/chronically chicken, and would worry about wakes and gusts. Appreciate your comment.

If it were me i would take the old one to measure the new one. but thats just me.

JTR rigging in St. Petersburg Fl. made mine for a great price.

I had problems with the both aft plates. With a hunter engineers approval i moved the aft plates to and angle to match the angle of the aft lower.

I just moved the bottom of the plate outboard to and redrilled then patched to old holes. both of my aft lowers split at the bolt holes.

Oh if they are 10 to15 years old and stainless replace them. jtr had stacks of old broken chainplates that were 1o to 15 yrs old.

It is a pretty easy and cheap fix. and insurance companys look at the age of the chainplates if they are old then its lack of maintanance and you get to buy the new rig.

These plates are straight bars, not to expensive to make new ones. I did upgrade the thickness also.
 
Dec 2, 1999
15,184
Hunter Vision-36 Rio Vista, CA.
John:

My Hunter Vision is keel stepped and there is nothing that holds the mast up (even when sailing) <g>!
 
Jun 2, 2004
5,802
Hunter 37-cutter, '79 41 23' 30"N 82 33' 20"W--------Huron, OH
You can tell when a guy is married to a sailor. He's allowed to bring boat junk into the house. :) You're a lucky guy Bill.
 
Nov 6, 2009
353
Hunter 37 FL
It wouldn't have stayed there long. The guy who is going to fix it took it with him. I knew it was temporary. What's annoying, when we bought the boat, chainplates leaked (which I fixed/caulked), but the surveyor at the time we bought the boat made a big deal about the leaky area, and it was only a thin piece of veneer that was wet. Well, we are going to fix that and it will look as good as new.
 
Jun 5, 2010
1,123
Hunter 25 Burlington NJ
Not 316

... remember that one or two of you had them made from 316 stainless.
This is for Ed but if it seems like 'duhhh' to you, Ed, it can be for people who don't know as well.

Chainplates should always be of type-304, not type-316. Type 316 is more corrosion-resistant, but also more brittle. It will not withstand the often sudden loads of rigging that may be slightly out of tune or in conditions that may lead to shocking the rig (such as what might flex the hull) as well as will 304. That said, consider:

You are changing out type-304 chainplates on a 30-odd-year-old boat. So don't worry about needing 316 for corrosion resistance if 304 lasted this long!

Type-316 is more expensive and typically less common in most welding/SS-fab/sheet-metal shops.

The clevis pins are Type 316. Avoid galling.

Provided the rest of the fittings, from the mounting bolts to the top clevis pin, are all sized, tensioned and maintained properly, it will all work as one cohesive system as designed; so let that be your primary consideration. I have seen only one fail in all my days, on the mizzen of Cherubini 44 #6 (1977; it was 28 years old at the time) and the rest of the rig held up the spar till we got it apart and replaced them all.

Do NOT use threaded bolts that are too short. Threads should never be employed as a bearing surface. For definition: 'bolt' = pin with no threads. 'Screw' = has threads. For convenience and cost issues, chainplates are typically put in with machine screws, not 'bolts' -- but for best results use a hex-head cap screw that has enough threadless shank (the 'bolt' part) that ALL of the chainplate and all of the wood ride on the part with no threads. You can use washers on the other side if you have to space out the locknut. (The same goes for rigging tangs hung from the mast.)

Treat all mounting holes in the wooden structure with epoxy and do NOT encapsulate bolts, pins or the chainplates themselves in fiberglass, epoxy or anything like. Chainplates need air. That said, a fillet of 5200 around the deck opening is better than silicone for it keeps out water (an enemy of stainless-steel when there is insufficient oxygen) and allows both sufficient flex and sufficient limits on the flex to enhance strength.

If you've already made them of 316, it's no biggie. You just probably paid a little too much and at the very very worst case (and extremely unlikely scenario) you would, theoretically, need to maintain the rigging tension a little more keenly. But any good yachtsman already does this; so he will most likely never know the difference. :)
 
Jun 2, 2004
5,802
Hunter 37-cutter, '79 41 23' 30"N 82 33' 20"W--------Huron, OH
Thanks JC, that is some good information. I never actually knew which grade of stainless. Just what I found when remembering the fellows who had them made. All nine of mine are still original. Now with this thread and some others I am getting nervous.
 
Jan 22, 2008
1,483
Hunter 37 C sloop Punta Gorda FL
Don't be nervous, Get new chainplates. 30 years is plenty of life even for stainless.
 
Jun 5, 2010
1,123
Hunter 25 Burlington NJ
Cherubini design ethic at Hunter

At Cherubini we went back to the (what was original my) idea of using cheap ski-boat u-bolts for chainplates on C44s. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these (except that some are 316 stainless, and not even the cheapest ones). They wear well and, as experience has shown (and science would have predicted) they last a good 25-30 years. We experimented with very fancy 316 and 304 SS plates, all custom-made and very expensive, and realized there was no benefit to that. Moreover the maintenance cycle was more or less unchanged; so why not go with the cheapest solution from the start?

After redesigning my own H25's rail-mounted SS plates I have decided to use 5/16" Wichard U-bolts instead, for the above reasons. (Why should I of all people reinvent the wheel?)

We Hunterophiles have to bear in mind that the design and engineering parallels amongst Cherubini Yachts, Raider Yacht and the 1970s era of Hunter Yacht should not be ignored or underestimated. Each of the three proved a learning process for the other two (as well as for Essex, to a lesser degree) in a variety of areas. I often cite the really rotten cockpit-seat hatch drains in my gen-1 H25 as an example. The boat was designed in 1972. The C44 cockpit mold was done in 1975, on which we improved these seat-locker hatches dramatically (see Ferenc Mate's book, Best Boats to Build or Buy, for details). When Hunter redid the cockpit/deck mold for the 1978 gen-3 H25, they incorporated the C44-type seat-locker hatches. And you would think the lowly little H25 and the elegant C44 couldn't have had anything in common!

In other places I have written on the eerie similarities between the H25 and the Raider 33; so I'll leave off that here. And of course the racing H54's modified Bergstrom rig appeared on the C48 schooner as well. The astute will also notice that none of the Cherubini-designed Hunter boats had a convertible dinette, which flew in the face of 1970s production-boat interior design-- because it's not seaworthy, efficiently useful or aesthetically pleasant; and none of the C44s or C48s ever had one either for the same reasons.

In short don't underestimate the degree of engineering thought that went into the typical 1970s mass-production Hunter boat. Hunter may never have truly known the mind they had for so little salary; and I will stake against any and all comers that they haven't had the same fundamental yacht-design wisdom since, in spite of all the gimmicks and trickery their boats have today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.