Hunter 333 vs Ranger 33
How do the Hunter 333 and Ranger 33 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 333 | Hunter 333 | Ranger 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.2 ft10.11 m | 33.2 ft10.11 m |
| Waterline length | 26.8 ft8.18 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Beam | 10.0 ft3.05 m | 9.6 ft2.92 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 10,500 lb4,763 kg | 10,500 lb4,763 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | 4,500 lb2,041 kg |
| Sail area | 522 ft²48.5 m² | 528 ft²49.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.42 | 17.62 |
| Displacement / Length | 243 | 259 |
| Comfort ratio | 26.3 | 28.2 |
| Capsize screening | 1.83 | 1.75 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 6.9 |
Hunter 333 vs Ranger 33: the short version
- The Hunter 333 and Ranger 33 are close in length (33.2 ft10.11 m vs 33.2 ft10.11 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Ranger 33 carries the more powerful rig (17.6 vs 17.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ranger 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 33 rates better for offshore work (1.75 vs 1.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.