Hunter 170 vs Hunter 426
How do the Hunter 170 and Hunter 426 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 426 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 41.8 ft12.75 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 39.2 ft11.94 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 14.2 ft4.32 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 23,600 lb10,705 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,237 lb3,283 kg |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 962 ft²89.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 18.71 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 175 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 26.7 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 1.98 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 8.4 |
Hunter 170 vs Hunter 426: the short version
- The Hunter 426 is the larger boat at 41.8 ft12.75 m LOA versus 17.1 ft5.21 m for the Hunter 170.
- The Hunter 426 is heavier, displacing about 4837% 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 18.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 426 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 426 rates better for offshore work (1.98 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.