Hunter 140 vs Hunter 212
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 212 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 140 | Hunter 140 | Hunter 212 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 21.0 ft6.40 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 18.0 ft5.49 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 9.2 ft2.80 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 1,800 lb816 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 140 lb64 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 202 ft²18.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 21.84 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 138 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 7.7 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 3.02 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 5.7 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 212: the short version
- The Hunter 212 is the larger boat at 21.0 ft6.40 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 212 is heavier, displacing about 700% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 140 carries the more powerful rig (44.1 vs 21.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 212 rates better for offshore work (3.02 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.