Hunter 216 vs Marlow-Hunter 22
How do the Hunter 216 and Marlow-Hunter 22 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 216 | Hunter 216 | Marlow-Hunter 22 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 21.5 ft6.55 m | 21.3 ft6.50 m |
| Waterline length | 18.8 ft5.72 m | 18.8 ft5.71 m |
| Beam | 7.9 ft2.41 m | 7.9 ft2.41 m |
| Draft | 3.5 ft1.07 m | 3.5 ft1.07 m |
| Displacement | 1,351 lb613 kg | 1,700 lb771 kg |
| Ballast | 500 lb227 kg | 500 lb227 kg |
| Sail area | 208 ft²19.3 m² | 215 ft²20.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 27.23 | 24.15 |
| Displacement / Length | 91 | 115 |
| Comfort ratio | 6.8 | 8.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.86 | 2.65 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.8 | 5.8 |
Hunter 216 vs Marlow-Hunter 22: the short version
- The Hunter 216 and Marlow-Hunter 22 are close in length (21.5 ft6.55 m vs 21.3 ft6.50 m ).
- The Marlow-Hunter 22 is heavier, displacing about 26% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 216 carries the more powerful rig (27.2 vs 24.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Marlow-Hunter 22 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marlow-Hunter 22 rates better for offshore work (2.65 vs 2.86).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.