Hunter 146 vs Hunter 27-3
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 27-3 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 27-3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 27.3 ft8.33 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 23.6 ft7.18 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 9.9 ft3.02 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 3.4 ft1.05 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 7,663 lb3,476 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,400 lb1,542 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 297 ft²27.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 12.23 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 262 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 22.6 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.01 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.5 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 27-3: the short version
- The Hunter 27-3 is the larger boat at 27.3 ft8.33 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 27-3 is heavier, displacing about 2154% 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 12.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 27-3 rates better for offshore work (2.01 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.