Hunter 146 vs Hunter 280
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 280 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 280 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 27.8 ft8.46 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 23.6 ft7.19 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 9.6 ft2.94 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 6,500 lb2,948 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 2,100 lb953 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 338 ft²31.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 15.53 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 221 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 19.8 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.06 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.5 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 280: the short version
- The Hunter 280 is the larger boat at 27.8 ft8.46 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 280 is heavier, displacing about 1812% 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 280 rates better for offshore work (2.06 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.