Hunter 146 vs Hunter 39
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 39 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 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 39.4 ft12.02 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 | 18,077 lb8,200 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 5,603 lb2,541 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 738 ft²68.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 17.14 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 194 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 25.6 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 1.97 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.9 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 39: the short version
- The Hunter 39 is the larger boat at 39.4 ft12.02 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 39 is heavier, displacing about 5217% 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 17.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 39 rates better for offshore work (1.97 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.