Hunter 146 vs Hunter 45
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter 45 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 45 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 46.7 ft14.23 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 39.6 ft12.06 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 13.8 ft4.22 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 22,450 lb10,183 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 10,600 lb4,808 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 922 ft²85.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 18.54 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 162 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 25.2 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 1.96 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 8.4 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter 45: the short version
- The Hunter 45 is the larger boat at 46.7 ft14.23 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter 45 is heavier, displacing about 6503% 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 18.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 45 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.