Hunter 386 vs Wilderness 38
How do the Hunter 386 and Wilderness 38 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 386 
Wilderness 38 | Hunter 386 | Wilderness 38 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 38.3 ft11.66 m | 38.3 ft11.66 m |
| Waterline length | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Beam | 12.6 ft3.83 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 16,000 lb7,257 kg | 9,000 lb4,082 kg |
| Ballast | 5,900 lb2,676 kg | 4,500 lb2,041 kg |
| Sail area | 740 ft²68.7 m² | 596 ft²55.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.65 | 22.04 |
| Displacement / Length | 218 | 149 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.0 | 15.6 |
| Capsize screening | 2.00 | 2.31 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.6 | 7.3 |
Hunter 386 vs Wilderness 38: the short version
- The Hunter 386 and Wilderness 38 are close in length (38.3 ft11.66 m vs 38.3 ft11.66 m ).
- The Hunter 386 is heavier, displacing about 78% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Wilderness 38 carries the more powerful rig (22.0 vs 18.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 386 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 386 rates better for offshore work (2.00 vs 2.31).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.