Hughes-Columbia 36 vs Hunter 36
How do the Hughes-Columbia 36 and Hunter 36 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hughes-Columbia 36 | Hughes-Columbia 36 | Hunter 36 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 35.8 ft10.92 m | 35.9 ft10.95 m |
| Waterline length | 28.0 ft8.53 m | 29.5 ft8.99 m |
| Beam | 10.2 ft3.10 m | 11.1 ft3.38 m |
| Draft | 4.0 ft1.22 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 15,000 lb6,804 kg | 13,500 lb6,123 kg |
| Ballast | 6,300 lb2,858 kg | 6,000 lb2,722 kg |
| Sail area | 525 ft²48.8 m² | 604 ft²56.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 13.81 | 17.05 |
| Displacement / Length | 305 | 235 |
| Comfort ratio | 34.8 | 27.0 |
| Capsize screening | 1.65 | 1.86 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | 7.3 |
Hughes-Columbia 36 vs Hunter 36: the short version
- The Hughes-Columbia 36 and Hunter 36 are close in length (35.8 ft10.92 m vs 35.9 ft10.95 m ).
- The Hughes-Columbia 36 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 36 carries the more powerful rig (17.0 vs 13.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hughes-Columbia 36 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hughes-Columbia 36 rates better for offshore work (1.65 vs 1.86).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.