Hunter 146 vs Marlow-Hunter 31
How do the Hunter 146 and Marlow-Hunter 31 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 | Marlow-Hunter 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 32.4 ft9.86 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 29.7 ft9.04 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 11.8 ft3.61 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 5.4 ft1.65 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 11,854 lb5,377 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,380 lb1,533 kg |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 581 ft²54.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 17.88 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 203 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 22.4 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 2.08 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.3 |
Hunter 146 vs Marlow-Hunter 31: the short version
- The Marlow-Hunter 31 is the larger boat at 32.4 ft9.86 m LOA versus 14.5 ft4.42 m for the Hunter 146.
- The Marlow-Hunter 31 is heavier, displacing about 3386% 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 17.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marlow-Hunter 31 rates better for offshore work (2.08 vs 3.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.