Hunter 170 vs Hunter 290
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 290 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 170 | Hunter 170 | Hunter 290 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 28.6 ft8.71 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 26.9 ft8.21 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 10.8 ft3.28 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.3 ft1.62 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 7,400 lb3,357 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 2,550 lb1,157 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 350 ft²32.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 14.75 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 169 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 17.6 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.21 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.0 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 290: the short version
- The Hunter 290 is the larger boat at 28.6 ft8.71 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 290 is heavier, displacing about 1448% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 170 carries the more powerful rig (35.1 vs 14.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 290 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 290 rates better for offshore work (2.21 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.