Hunter 270 vs Trio 80
How do the Hunter 270 and Trio 80 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 | Trio 80 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Waterline length | 23.3 ft7.09 m | 22.1 ft6.75 m |
| Beam | 8.9 ft2.73 m | 9.2 ft2.80 m |
| Draft | 3.5 ft1.07 m | 4.9 ft1.50 m |
| Displacement | 5,000 lb2,268 kg | 6,834 lb3,100 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 3,086 lb1,400 kg |
| Sail area | 284 ft²26.4 m² | 431 ft²40.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.54 | 19.15 |
| Displacement / Length | 178 | 281 |
| Comfort ratio | 17.3 | 23.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.09 | 1.94 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.3 |
| Average used price | — | €7,600 |
Hunter 270 vs Trio 80: the short version
- The Hunter 270 and Trio 80 are close in length (26.3 ft8.00 m vs 26.3 ft8.00 m ).
- The Trio 80 is heavier, displacing about 37% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Trio 80 carries the more powerful rig (19.1 vs 15.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Trio 80 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Trio 80 rates better for offshore work (1.94 vs 2.09).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.