Hunter 146 vs Hunter 41
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 41 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 41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 40.3 ft12.29 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 35.5 ft10.82 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 13.3 ft4.04 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 19,400 lb8,800 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 6,506 lb2,951 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 779 ft²72.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 17.26 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 194 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 26.0 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 1.97 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 8.0 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 41: the short version
- The Hunter 41 is the larger boat at 40.3 ft12.29 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 41 is heavier, displacing about 5606% 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 17.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 41 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.