Hunter 140 vs Hunter 36
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 36 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 36 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 35.9 ft10.95 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 29.5 ft8.99 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 11.1 ft3.38 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 13,500 lb6,123 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 6,000 lb2,722 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 604 ft²56.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 17.05 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 235 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 27.0 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 1.86 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.3 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 36: the short version
- The Hunter 36 is the larger boat at 35.9 ft10.95 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 36 is heavier, displacing about 5900% 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 17.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 36 rates better for offshore work (1.86 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.