Farr 38 vs Hunter 386
How do the Farr 38 and Hunter 386 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Farr 38 
Hunter 386 | Farr 38 | Hunter 386 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 38.3 ft11.66 m | 38.3 ft11.66 m |
| Waterline length | 31.2 ft9.50 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 12.6 ft3.83 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 10,600 lb4,808 kg | 16,000 lb7,257 kg |
| Ballast | 4,100 lb1,860 kg | 5,900 lb2,676 kg |
| Sail area | 689 ft²64.0 m² | 740 ft²68.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.85 | 18.65 |
| Displacement / Length | 156 | 218 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.0 | 25.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.19 | 2.00 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 7.6 |
Farr 38 vs Hunter 386: the short version
- The Farr 38 and Hunter 386 are close in length (38.3 ft11.66 m vs 38.3 ft11.66 m ).
- The Hunter 386 is heavier, displacing about 51% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Farr 38 carries the more powerful rig (22.8 vs 18.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 386 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 386 rates better for offshore work (2.00 vs 2.19).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.