ETAP 28 vs Hunter 280
How do the ETAP 28 and Hunter 280 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
ETAP 28 | ETAP 28 | Hunter 280 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 27.6 ft8.42 m | 27.8 ft8.46 m |
| Waterline length | 22.7 ft6.91 m | 23.6 ft7.19 m |
| Beam | 10.0 ft3.05 m | 9.6 ft2.94 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 6,610 lb2,998 kg | 6,500 lb2,948 kg |
| Ballast | 2,557 lb1,160 kg | 2,100 lb953 kg |
| Sail area | 319 ft²29.6 m² | 338 ft²31.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.49 | 15.53 |
| Displacement / Length | 253 | 221 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.7 | 19.8 |
| Capsize screening | 2.13 | 2.06 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.4 | 6.5 |
ETAP 28 vs Hunter 280: the short version
- The ETAP 28 and Hunter 280 are close in length (27.6 ft8.42 m vs 27.8 ft8.46 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 280 carries the more powerful rig (15.5 vs 14.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 280 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 280 rates better for offshore work (2.06 vs 2.13).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.