Hunter 19-2 vs Hunter Passage 42
How do the Hunter 19-2 and Hunter Passage 42 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 19-2 
Hunter Passage 42 | Hunter 19-2 | Hunter Passage 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 19.0 ft5.79 m | 42.5 ft12.95 m |
| Waterline length | 15.9 ft4.85 m | 38.0 ft11.58 m |
| Beam | 7.8 ft2.36 m | 14.0 ft4.27 m |
| Draft | 4.7 ft1.42 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 2,000 lb907 kg | 24,000 lb10,886 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 7,700 lb3,493 kg |
| Sail area | 167 ft²15.5 m² | 949 ft²88.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.83 | 18.25 |
| Displacement / Length | 221 | 195 |
| Comfort ratio | 12.0 | 28.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.46 | 1.94 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.3 | 8.3 |
Hunter 19-2 vs Hunter Passage 42: the short version
- The Hunter Passage 42 is the larger boat at 42.5 ft12.95 m LOA versus 19.0 ft5.79 m for the Hunter 19-2.
- The Hunter Passage 42 is heavier, displacing about 1100% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter Passage 42 carries the more powerful rig (18.2 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter Passage 42 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter Passage 42 rates better for offshore work (1.94 vs 2.46).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.