Hunter 146 vs Hunter 27
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 27 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 146 
Hunter 27 | Hunter 146 | Hunter 27 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 27.2 ft8.28 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 22.0 ft6.71 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 9.3 ft2.82 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 4.3 ft1.30 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 7,000 lb3,175 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,000 lb1,361 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 343 ft²31.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 15.00 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 293 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 23.7 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 1.93 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.3 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 27: the short version
- The Hunter 27 is the larger boat at 27.2 ft8.28 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 27 is heavier, displacing about 1959% 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 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 27 rates better for offshore work (1.93 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.