Hunter 146 vs Hunter 270
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 270 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 270 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 23.3 ft7.09 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 8.9 ft2.73 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 3.5 ft1.07 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 5,000 lb2,268 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 284 ft²26.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 15.54 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 178 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 17.3 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.09 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.5 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 270: the short version
- The Hunter 270 is the larger boat at 26.3 ft8.00 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 270 is heavier, displacing about 1371% 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 15.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 270 rates better for offshore work (2.09 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.