Hunter 146 vs Hunter HC 50
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter HC 50 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 HC 50 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 50.0 ft15.24 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 45.0 ft13.72 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 15.0 ft4.57 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 18,000 lb8,165 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 5,600 lb2,540 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 1,274 ft²118.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 29.68 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 88 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 16.2 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.29 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 9.0 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter HC 50: the short version
- The Hunter HC 50 is the larger boat at 50.0 ft15.24 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter HC 50 is heavier, displacing about 5194% 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 29.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter HC 50 rates better for offshore work (2.29 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.