Bristol 39 vs Marlow-Hunter 37
How do the Bristol 39 and Marlow-Hunter 37 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bristol 39 | Bristol 39 | Marlow-Hunter 37 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.0 ft11.89 m | 39.1 ft11.91 m |
| Waterline length | 27.5 ft8.39 m | 35.7 ft10.87 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.28 m | 13.1 ft3.99 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 17,580 lb7,974 kg | 18,995 lb8,616 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 5,727 lb2,598 kg |
| Sail area | 648 ft²60.2 m² | 856 ft²79.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.33 | 19.24 |
| Displacement / Length | 376 | 187 |
| Comfort ratio | 37.1 | 26.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.65 | 1.96 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 8.0 |
Bristol 39 vs Marlow-Hunter 37: the short version
- The Bristol 39 and Marlow-Hunter 37 are close in length (39.0 ft11.89 m vs 39.1 ft11.91 m ).
- The Marlow-Hunter 37 is heavier, displacing about 8% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marlow-Hunter 37 carries the more powerful rig (19.2 vs 15.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Bristol 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Bristol 39 rates better for offshore work (1.65 vs 1.96).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.