Landfall 39 vs Marlow-Hunter 37
How do the Landfall 39 and Marlow-Hunter 37 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Landfall 39 | Landfall 39 | Marlow-Hunter 37 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.2 ft11.94 m | 39.1 ft11.91 m |
| Waterline length | 30.6 ft9.32 m | 35.7 ft10.87 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 13.1 ft3.99 m |
| Draft | 5.6 ft1.70 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 23,500 lb10,659 kg | 18,995 lb8,616 kg |
| Ballast | 8,800 lb3,992 kg | 5,727 lb2,598 kg |
| Sail area | 811 ft²75.3 m² | 856 ft²79.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.82 | 19.24 |
| Displacement / Length | 367 | 187 |
| Comfort ratio | 42.4 | 26.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.61 | 1.96 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 8.0 |
Landfall 39 vs Marlow-Hunter 37: the short version
- The Landfall 39 and Marlow-Hunter 37 are close in length (39.2 ft11.94 m vs 39.1 ft11.91 m ).
- The Landfall 39 is heavier, displacing about 24% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marlow-Hunter 37 carries the more powerful rig (19.2 vs 15.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 39 rates better for offshore work (1.61 vs 1.96).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.