Hunter 146 vs Hunter 33
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 33 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 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 32.7 ft9.96 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 27.1 ft8.25 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 10.2 ft3.10 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.3 ft1.60 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 10,600 lb4,808 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,100 lb1,860 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 497 ft²46.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 16.48 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 238 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 25.9 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 1.85 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.0 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 33: the short version
- The Hunter 33 is the larger boat at 32.7 ft9.96 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 33 is heavier, displacing about 3018% 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 16.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 33 rates better for offshore work (1.85 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.