Hunter 146 vs Hunter 33-2004
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 33-2004 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 146 
Hunter 33-2004 | Hunter 146 | Hunter 33-2004 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 33.5 ft10.21 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 29.4 ft8.97 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 11.5 ft3.51 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 10,410 lb4,722 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,578 lb1,623 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 625 ft²58.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 20.97 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 183 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 20.3 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.11 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.3 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 33-2004: the short version
- The Hunter 33-2004 is the larger boat at 33.5 ft10.21 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 33-2004 is heavier, displacing about 2962% 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 21.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 33-2004 rates better for offshore work (2.11 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.