Hunter 146 vs Hunter 38
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 38 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 38 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 38.2 ft11.63 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 34.7 ft10.57 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 12.9 ft3.94 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 18,342 lb8,320 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 6,130 lb2,781 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 702 ft²65.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 16.15 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 196 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 26.3 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 1.96 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.9 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 38: the short version
- The Hunter 38 is the larger boat at 38.2 ft11.63 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 38 is heavier, displacing about 5295% 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 16.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 38 rates better for offshore work (1.96 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.