Dickerson 37 vs Hunter 37
How do the Dickerson 37 and Hunter 37 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Dickerson 37 | Dickerson 37 | Hunter 37 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 37.0 ft11.28 m | 37.0 ft11.28 m |
| Waterline length | 28.8 ft8.79 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 11.8 ft3.61 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.1 ft1.55 m |
| Displacement | 15,950 lb7,235 kg | 17,800 lb8,074 kg |
| Ballast | 5,850 lb2,654 kg | 6,850 lb3,107 kg |
| Sail area | 556 ft²51.7 m² | 649 ft²60.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.04 | 15.23 |
| Displacement / Length | 297 | 294 |
| Comfort ratio | 30.5 | 31.8 |
| Capsize screening | 1.83 | 1.82 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 7.3 |
Dickerson 37 vs Hunter 37: the short version
- The Dickerson 37 and Hunter 37 are close in length (37.0 ft11.28 m vs 37.0 ft11.28 m ).
- The Hunter 37 is heavier, displacing about 12% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 37 carries the more powerful rig (15.2 vs 14.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 37 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 37 rates better for offshore work (1.82 vs 1.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.