Hunter 146 vs Hunter 40
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 40 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 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 39.6 ft12.06 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 32.5 ft9.91 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 13.4 ft4.09 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 17,400 lb7,893 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,900 lb3,583 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 787 ft²73.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 18.75 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 226 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 24.5 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.6 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 40: the short version
- The Hunter 40 is the larger boat at 39.6 ft12.06 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 40 is heavier, displacing about 5018% 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 18.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 40 rates better for offshore work (2.07 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.