Marlow-Hunter 42SS vs Nimbus 42
How do the Marlow-Hunter 42SS and Nimbus 42 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Marlow-Hunter 42SS | Marlow-Hunter 42SS | Nimbus 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.3 ft12.57 m | 41.4 ft12.62 m |
| Waterline length | 36.0 ft10.97 m | 34.2 ft10.42 m |
| Beam | 13.2 ft4.01 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 6.7 ft2.03 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 19,098 lb8,663 kg | 23,325 lb10,580 kg |
| Ballast | 5,425 lb2,461 kg | 10,000 lb4,536 kg |
| Sail area | 970 ft²90.1 m² | 854 ft²79.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.72 | 16.74 |
| Displacement / Length | 183 | 261 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.4 | 34.3 |
| Capsize screening | 1.97 | 1.75 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.0 | 7.8 |
Marlow-Hunter 42SS vs Nimbus 42: the short version
- The Marlow-Hunter 42SS and Nimbus 42 are close in length (41.3 ft12.57 m vs 41.4 ft12.62 m ).
- The Nimbus 42 is heavier, displacing about 22% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marlow-Hunter 42SS carries the more powerful rig (21.7 vs 16.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Nimbus 42 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Nimbus 42 rates better for offshore work (1.75 vs 1.97).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.