Hunter 146 vs Phantom
How do the Hunter 146 and Phantom 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 | Phantom | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 14.5 ft4.42 m | 14.5 ft4.42 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 13.8 ft4.22 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.91 m | 2.8 ft0.85 m |
| Displacement | 340 lb154 kg | 134 lb61 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 92 ft²8.5 m² | 105 ft²9.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 30.22 | 64.16 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 23 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 1.5 |
| Capsize screening | 3.73 | 4.30 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 5.0 |
Hunter 146 vs Phantom: the short version
- The Hunter 146 and Phantom are close in length (14.5 ft4.42 m vs 14.5 ft4.42 m ).
- The Hunter 146 is heavier, displacing about 154% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Phantom carries the more powerful rig (64.2 vs 30.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 146 rates better for offshore work (3.73 vs 4.30).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.