Hunter 356 vs Tartan 34 C
How do the Hunter 356 and Tartan 34 C compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 356 
Tartan 34 C | Hunter 356 | Tartan 34 C | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.5 ft10.52 m | 34.4 ft10.49 m |
| Waterline length | 30.6 ft9.32 m | 25.0 ft7.62 m |
| Beam | 12.0 ft3.66 m | 10.2 ft3.10 m |
| Draft | 6.4 ft1.96 m | 8.3 ft2.54 m |
| Displacement | 13,900 lb6,305 kg | 11,200 lb5,080 kg |
| Ballast | 4,000 lb1,814 kg | 5,000 lb2,268 kg |
| Sail area | 632 ft²58.7 m² | 527 ft²49.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.49 | 16.84 |
| Displacement / Length | 217 | 320 |
| Comfort ratio | 24.7 | 28.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.00 | 1.82 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 6.7 |
Hunter 356 vs Tartan 34 C: the short version
- The Hunter 356 and Tartan 34 C are close in length (34.5 ft10.52 m vs 34.4 ft10.49 m ).
- The Hunter 356 is heavier, displacing about 24% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 356 carries the more powerful rig (17.5 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Tartan 34 C scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Tartan 34 C rates better for offshore work (1.82 vs 2.00).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.