Hunter 170 vs Marsh Hen
How do the Hunter 170 and Marsh Hen 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 | Marsh Hen | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 17.1 ft5.21 m | 17.3 ft5.28 m |
| Waterline length | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 16.3 ft4.95 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 6.3 ft1.91 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 3.3 ft0.99 m |
| Displacement | 478 lb217 kg | 650 lb295 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 134 ft²12.4 m² | 155 ft²14.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 35.07 | 33.05 |
| Displacement / Length | 121 | 68 |
| Comfort ratio | 4.1 | 5.3 |
| Capsize screening | 3.58 | 2.89 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 4.7 | 5.4 |
Hunter 170 vs Marsh Hen: the short version
- The Hunter 170 and Marsh Hen are close in length (17.1 ft5.21 m vs 17.3 ft5.28 m ).
- The Marsh Hen is heavier, displacing about 36% 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 33.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Marsh Hen scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marsh Hen rates better for offshore work (2.89 vs 3.58).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.