Hunter 39 vs Hunter 40
How do the Hunter 39 and Hunter 40 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 39 | Hunter 39 | Hunter 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.4 ft12.02 m | 39.6 ft12.06 m |
| Waterline length | 34.7 ft10.57 m | 32.5 ft9.91 m |
| Beam | 12.9 ft3.94 m | 13.4 ft4.09 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 18,077 lb8,200 kg | 17,400 lb7,893 kg |
| Ballast | 5,603 lb2,541 kg | 7,900 lb3,583 kg |
| Sail area | 738 ft²68.6 m² | 787 ft²73.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.14 | 18.75 |
| Displacement / Length | 194 | 226 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.6 | 24.5 |
| Capsize screening | 1.97 | 2.07 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.9 | 7.6 |
Hunter 39 vs Hunter 40: the short version
- The Hunter 39 and Hunter 40 are close in length (39.4 ft12.02 m vs 39.6 ft12.06 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Hunter 40 carries the more powerful rig (18.8 vs 17.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 39 rates better for offshore work (1.97 vs 2.07).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.