Hunter 270 vs Marieholm 26
How do the Hunter 270 and Marieholm 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 270 | Hunter 270 | Marieholm 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Waterline length | 23.3 ft7.09 m | 20.2 ft6.15 m |
| Beam | 8.9 ft2.73 m | 7.4 ft2.25 m |
| Draft | 3.5 ft1.07 m | 4.1 ft1.24 m |
| Displacement | 5,000 lb2,268 kg | 5,512 lb2,500 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 2,535 lb1,150 kg |
| Sail area | 284 ft²26.4 m² | 374 ft²34.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.54 | 19.18 |
| Displacement / Length | 178 | 299 |
| Comfort ratio | 17.3 | 27.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.09 | 1.67 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.0 |
| Average used price | — | €6,000 |
Hunter 270 vs Marieholm 26: the short version
- The Hunter 270 and Marieholm 26 are close in length (26.3 ft8.00 m vs 26.3 ft8.00 m ).
- The Marieholm 26 is heavier, displacing about 10% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marieholm 26 carries the more powerful rig (19.2 vs 15.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Marieholm 26 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marieholm 26 rates better for offshore work (1.67 vs 2.09).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.