Hunter 170 vs Hunter 39
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 39 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 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 39.4 ft12.02 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 34.7 ft10.57 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 12.9 ft3.94 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 18,077 lb8,200 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 5,603 lb2,541 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 738 ft²68.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 17.14 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 194 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 25.6 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 1.97 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 7.9 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 39: the short version
- The Hunter 39 is the larger boat at 39.4 ft12.02 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 39 is heavier, displacing about 3682% 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 17.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 39 rates better for offshore work (1.97 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.