Hunter 146 vs Hunter Passage 42
How do the Hunter 146 and Hunter Passage 42 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 146 
Hunter Passage 42 | Hunter 146 | Hunter Passage 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 42.5 ft12.95 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 38.0 ft11.58 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 14.0 ft4.27 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 24,000 lb10,886 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,700 lb3,493 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 949 ft²88.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 18.25 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 195 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 28.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 1.94 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 8.3 |
Hunter 146 vs Hunter Passage 42: the short version
- The Hunter Passage 42 is the larger boat at 42.5 ft12.95 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Hunter Passage 42 is heavier, displacing about 6959% 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 18.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter Passage 42 rates better for offshore work (1.94 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.