Hunter 146 vs Hunter 240
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 240 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 146 | Hunter 146 | Hunter 240 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 24.1 ft7.34 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 22.1 ft6.73 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 8.3 ft2.51 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 3,600 lb1,633 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 1,300 lb590 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 236 ft²21.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 16.08 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 149 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 14.8 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.15 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.3 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 240: the short version
- The Hunter 240 is the larger boat at 24.1 ft7.34 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 240 is heavier, displacing about 959% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 146 carries the more powerful rig (30.2 vs 16.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 240 rates better for offshore work (2.15 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.