Hunter 426 vs Marlow-Hunter 40
How do the Hunter 426 and Marlow-Hunter 40 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 426 | Hunter 426 | Marlow-Hunter 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.8 ft12.75 m | 41.3 ft12.57 m |
| Waterline length | 39.2 ft11.94 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Beam | 14.2 ft4.32 m | 13.2 ft4.01 m |
| Draft | 6.5 ft1.98 m | 5.2 ft1.57 m |
| Displacement | 23,600 lb10,705 kg | 19,700 lb8,936 kg |
| Ballast | 7,237 lb3,283 kg | 6,027 lb2,734 kg |
| Sail area | 962 ft²89.4 m² | 1,006 ft²93.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.71 | 22.07 |
| Displacement / Length | 175 | 188 |
| Comfort ratio | 26.7 | 26.2 |
| Capsize screening | 1.98 | 1.95 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.4 | 8.0 |
Hunter 426 vs Marlow-Hunter 40: the short version
- The Hunter 426 is the larger boat at 41.8 ft12.75 m LOA versus 41.3 ft12.57 m for the Marlow-Hunter 40.
- The Hunter 426 is heavier, displacing about 20% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marlow-Hunter 40 carries the more powerful rig (22.1 vs 18.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 426 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Marlow-Hunter 40 rates better for offshore work (1.95 vs 1.98).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.