Hunter 140 vs Hunter 27
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 27 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 140 
Hunter 27 | Hunter 140 | Hunter 27 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 27.2 ft8.28 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 22.0 ft6.71 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 9.3 ft2.82 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 4.3 ft1.30 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 7,000 lb3,175 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,000 lb1,361 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 343 ft²31.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 15.00 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 293 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 23.7 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 1.93 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.3 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 27: the short version
- The Hunter 27 is the larger boat at 27.2 ft8.28 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 27 is heavier, displacing about 3011% 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 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 27 rates better for offshore work (1.93 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.