Aloha 32 vs Marlow-Hunter 31
How do the Aloha 32 and Marlow-Hunter 31 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Aloha 32 | Aloha 32 | Marlow-Hunter 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.4 ft9.88 m | 32.4 ft9.86 m |
| Waterline length | 25.0 ft7.62 m | 29.7 ft9.04 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.30 m | 11.8 ft3.61 m |
| Draft | 4.8 ft1.45 m | 5.4 ft1.65 m |
| Displacement | 9,800 lb4,445 kg | 11,854 lb5,377 kg |
| Ballast | 4,018 lb1,823 kg | 3,380 lb1,533 kg |
| Sail area | 524 ft²48.7 m² | 581 ft²54.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.31 | 17.88 |
| Displacement / Length | 280 | 203 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.3 | 22.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.02 | 2.08 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.7 | 7.3 |
Aloha 32 vs Marlow-Hunter 31: the short version
- The Aloha 32 and Marlow-Hunter 31 are close in length (32.4 ft9.88 m vs 32.4 ft9.86 m ).
- The Marlow-Hunter 31 is heavier, displacing about 21% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Aloha 32 carries the more powerful rig (18.3 vs 17.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Aloha 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Aloha 32 rates better for offshore work (2.02 vs 2.08).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.