Hunter 49 vs Marlow-Hunter 50
How do the Hunter 49 and Marlow-Hunter 50 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Hunter 49 | Hunter 49 | Marlow-Hunter 50 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 49.9 ft15.22 m | 49.9 ft15.22 m |
| Waterline length | 43.8 ft13.36 m | 43.8 ft13.36 m |
| Beam | 14.8 ft4.50 m | 14.8 ft4.50 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 7.0 ft2.13 m |
| Displacement | 32,813 lb14,884 kg | 29,406 lb13,338 kg |
| Ballast | 12,544 lb5,690 kg | 9,093 lb4,125 kg |
| Sail area | 1,013 ft²94.1 m² | 1,277 ft²118.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.81 | 21.45 |
| Displacement / Length | 174 | 156 |
| Comfort ratio | 30.8 | 27.6 |
| Capsize screening | 1.84 | 1.91 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 8.9 | 8.9 |
Hunter 49 vs Marlow-Hunter 50: the short version
- The Hunter 49 and Marlow-Hunter 50 are close in length (49.9 ft15.22 m vs 49.9 ft15.22 m ).
- The Hunter 49 is heavier, displacing about 12% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Marlow-Hunter 50 carries the more powerful rig (21.4 vs 15.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Hunter 49 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Hunter 49 rates better for offshore work (1.84 vs 1.91).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.