Hunter 140 vs Hunter 49
How do the Hunter 140 and Hunter 49 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 49 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 49.9 ft15.22 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 43.8 ft13.36 m |
| Beam | 5.8 ft1.78 m | 14.8 ft4.50 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 225 lb102 kg | 32,813 lb14,884 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 12,544 lb5,690 kg |
| Sail area | 102 ft²9.5 m² | 1,013 ft²94.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 44.12 | 15.81 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 174 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 30.8 |
| Capsize screening | 3.83 | 1.84 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 8.9 |
Hunter 140 vs Hunter 49: the short version
- The Hunter 49 is the larger boat at 49.9 ft15.22 m LOA versus 14.0 ft4.27 m for the Hunter 140.
- The Hunter 49 is heavier, displacing about 14484% 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 15.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 49 rates better for offshore work (1.84 vs 3.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.