1996 Hunter 290 vs Hunter 212 — Comparison
1996 Hunter 290
Hunter 212
Specifications Side by Side
| Specification | 1996 Hunter 290 | Hunter 212 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Manufacturer | Hunter | Hunter |
| Year | 1996–2000 | 2003–2008 |
| Type | Sloop | Sloop |
| Country | USA | USA |
| Designer | Glenn Henderson | Glenn Henderson |
| Dimensions | ||
| LOA | 8.84 m (29.0 ft) | 6.35 m (20.8 ft) |
| LWL | 7.47 m (24.5 ft) | 5.56 m (18.2 ft) |
| Beam | 2.97 m (9.7 ft) | 2.26 m (7.4 ft) |
| Draft | 1.52 m (5.0 ft) | 0.99 m (3.2 ft) |
| Weight | ||
| Displacement | 3,493 kg (7,701 lbs) | 680 kg (1,499 lbs) |
| Ballast | 1,361 kg (3,000 lbs) | 168 kg (370 lbs) |
| Sailing | ||
| Sail Area | 38.9 m² (419 ft²) | 16.0 m² (172 ft²) |
| Hull Material | Fiberglass | Fiberglass |
| Keel Type | Fin | Centerboard |
| Engine & Tanks | ||
| Engine | 15 HP | 4 HP |
| Fuel Capacity | 57 L (15.1 gal) | — |
| Water Capacity | 76 L (20.1 gal) | 15 L (4.0 gal) |
| Accommodation | ||
| Berths | 6 | 3 |
| Cabins | 1 | 1 |
Performance Comparison
Detailed Comparison
The 1996 Hunter 290 and Hunter 212 represent two takes on sloop-rigged sailing. The 1996 Hunter 290 is a 1990s design by Hunter from USA, while the Hunter 212 is a 2000s offering from Hunter from USA. The 1996 Hunter 290 was penned by Glenn Henderson. The Hunter 212 was designed by Glenn Henderson.
In terms of size, the 1996 Hunter 290 measures 8.84m (29.0ft) overall with a beam of 2.97m, compared to the Hunter 212 at 6.35m (20.8ft) with a 2.26m beam. The 1996 Hunter 290 is 2.49m longer than the Hunter 212. The 1996 Hunter 290 displaces approximately 414% more than its counterpart, which significantly affects how each boat handles in different sea states.
Looking at performance, the 1996 Hunter 290 has good sail power for versatile performance with an SA/D ratio of 17.17 and 38.9 m² of sail area. The Hunter 212, with an SA/D of 21.04 and 16.0 m² of canvas, offers generous sail power for spirited sailing. The Hunter 212 has the edge in terms of raw sailing performance.
For comfort and safety, the 1996 Hunter 290 offers a moderate motion comfort level (comfort ratio: 20.3) and excellent capsize resistance suitable for offshore voyaging (capsize ratio: 0.78). The Hunter 212 has a comfort ratio of 10.5 and a capsize screening value of 1.03. The ballast ratios are 39.0% for the 1996 Hunter 290 and 24.7% for the Hunter 212, reflecting their respective approaches to stability.
Below deck, the 1996 Hunter 290 provides 6 berths in 1 cabin with 76L of water capacity and 57L of fuel. The Hunter 212 offers 3 berths in 1 cabin with 15L water and unspecified fuel.
Verdict
For cruising: The 1996 Hunter 290 is the better choice for comfortable cruising thanks to its higher comfort ratio, offering a gentler motion at sea that crews will appreciate on longer passages.
For racing: The Hunter 212 has the performance advantage with its superior SA/D ratio, meaning more sail power relative to its displacement for competitive sailing.
For liveaboard: The 1996 Hunter 290 offers more sleeping accommodation, making it better suited for extended living aboard. Consider water and fuel capacity for extended stays away from marinas.