Hunter 140 vs Hunter 426
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 426 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 426 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 41.8 ft12.75 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 39.2 ft11.94 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 14.2 ft4.32 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 23,600 lb10,705 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,237 lb3,283 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 962 ft²89.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 18.71 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 175 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 26.7 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 1.98 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 8.4 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 426: the short version
- The Hunter 426 is the larger boat at 41.8 ft12.75 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 426 is heavier, displacing about 10389% 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 18.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 426 rates better for offshore work (1.98 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.