hunter 340 sailboat data

The Hunter 340 is a 33.75ft b&r designed by Hunter Design Team and built in fiberglass by Hunter Marine (USA) since 1997.

The Hunter 340 is a moderate weight sailboat which is a very high performer. It is stable / stiff and has a low righting capability if capsized. It is best suited as a fast cruiser. The fuel capacity is originally small. There is a short water supply range.

Hunter 340 for sale elsewhere on the web:

Main features

Login or register to personnalize this screen.

You will be able to pin external links of your choice.

See how Sailboatlab works in video

We help you build your own hydraulic steering system - Lecomble & Schmitt

Accommodations

Builder data

Other photos

Modal Title

The content of your modal.

Personalize your sailboat data sheet

Paste a link here:

Give it a title:

And eventually a link to an image for the thumbnail:

Review of Hunter 340

Basic specs..

The boat is typically equipped with an inboard Yanmar diesel engine at 27.0 hp (20 kW), which gives a max speed about 6.2 knots.

The fuel tank has a capacity of 110 liters (29 US gallons, 24 imperial gallons).

Sailing characteristics

This section covers widely used rules of thumb to describe the sailing characteristics. Please note that even though the calculations are correct, the interpretation of the results might not be valid for extreme boats.

What is Capsize Screening Formula (CSF)?

The capsize screening value for Hunter 340 is 2.09, indicating that this boat would not be accepted to participate in ocean races.

What is Theoretical Maximum Hull Speed?

The theoretical maximal speed of a displacement boat of this length is 7.2 knots. The term "Theoretical Maximum Hull Speed" is widely used even though a boat can sail faster. The term shall be interpreted as above the theoretical speed a great additional power is necessary for a small gain in speed.

The immersion rate is defined as the weight required to sink the boat a certain level. The immersion rate for Hunter 340 is about 206 kg/cm, alternatively 1155 lbs/inch. Meaning: if you load 206 kg cargo on the boat then it will sink 1 cm. Alternatively, if you load 1155 lbs cargo on the boat it will sink 1 inch.

Sailing statistics

This section is statistical comparison with similar boats of the same category. The basis of the following statistical computations is our unique database with more than 26,000 different boat types and 350,000 data points.

What is Motion Comfort Ratio (MCR)?

What is L/B (Length Beam Ratio)?

What is Displacement Length Ratio?

What is SA/D (Sail Area Displacement ratio)?

Maintenance

Are your sails worn out? You might find your next sail here: Sails for Sale

If you need to renew parts of your running rig and is not quite sure of the dimensions, you may find the estimates computed below useful.

This section is reserved boat owner's modifications, improvements, etc. Here you might find (or contribute with) inspiration for your boat.

Do you have changes/improvements you would like to share? Upload a photo and describe what you have done.

We are always looking for new photos. If you can contribute with photos for Hunter 340 it would be a great help.

If you have any comments to the review, improvement suggestions, or the like, feel free to contact us . Criticism helps us to improve.

• New Sailboats
• Sailboats 21-30ft
• Sailboats 31-35ft
• Sailboats 36-40ft
• Sailboats Over 40ft
• Sailboats Under 21feet
• used_sailboats
• Apps and Computer Programs
• Communications
• Fishfinders
• Handheld Electronics
• Plotters MFDS Rradar
• Wind, Speed & Depth Instruments
• Anchoring Mooring
• Running Rigging
• Sails Canvas
• Standing Rigging
• Diesel Engines
• Off Grid Energy
• Cleaning Waxing
• DIY Projects
• Repair, Tools & Materials
• Spare Parts
• Tools & Gadgets
• Cabin Comfort
• Ventilation
• Footwear Apparel
• Foul Weather Gear
• Mailport & PS Advisor
• Inside Practical Sailor Blog
• Activate My Web Access
• Reset Password
• Customer Service

• Free Newsletter

Pearson 37 and 37-2 Used Boat Review

DIY Survey Checklist for Used-Boat Buying

Valiant 40: Reshaping the Cruising Hull

Bristol Channel Cutter 28: Circumnavigator’s Choice

Best Crimpers and Strippers for Fixing Marine Electrical Connectors

Thinking Through a Solar Power Installation

How Does the Gulf Stream Influence our Weather?

Can You Run a Marine Air-Conditioner on Battery Power?

Practical Sailor Classic: The Load on Your Rode

Anchor Rodes for Smaller Sailboats

Ground Tackle Inspection Tips

Shoe Goo II Excels for Quick Sail Repairs

Dinghy Outboard Diagnostics

Spring Season Engine Start-Up for Winterized Engines

Solutions for a Stinky Holding Tank

Diesel Performance Additives

Vinyl Boat Lettering DIY Application and Repair

Those Extras you Don’t Need But Love to Have

Hidden Maintenance Problems: Part 3 – Gremlins in the Electrics

Three-Model BBQ Test

Alcohol Stoves— Swan Song or Rebirth?

Living Aboard with an Alcohol Stove

Preparing Yourself for Solo Sailing

How to Select Crew for a Passage or Delivery

Preparing A Boat to Sail Solo

Re-sealing the Seams on Waterproof Fabrics

Chafe Protection for Dock Lines

Waxing and Polishing Your Boat

Reducing Engine Room Noise

Tricks and Tips to Forming Do-it-yourself Rigging Terminals

Marine Toilet Maintenance Tips

• Sailboat Reviews

Like other Hunters, the 34 bears the stamp of a mass-produced boat--but she's better than older Hunters.

When the Hunter 34 was introduced in late 1982, it was the second of the “modern” generation of Hunters, the first being the rather remarkable Hunter 54. The Hunter company has been strongly identified with the long-distance singlehanded racing of its president, Warren Luhrs. Although Luhrs has not been particularly successful in his racing, his own boats have been innovative, and the concepts of innovation and high-tech have to some degree rubbed off on Hunter’s production boats.

Hunter has always gone after the entry-level cruising boat owner, and has traditionally pushed its “Cruise Pac” concept—a boat delivered equipped down to the life jackets, and ready to go. This certainly reduces the amount of decision making required by inexperienced boat owners, and has been a successful marketing strategy. For more experienced sailors who would rather choose their own gear, the Cruise Pac idea is not necessarily a plus.

In just over three years, over 800 Hunter 34s were built. For the 1986 model year, the 34 was phased out in favor of the even more Eurostyled Legend 35.

A number of Hunter 34 owners responding to our survey moved up from smaller boats in the Hunter line—exactly what every builder would like to see happen. All reported that the Hunter 34 was lightyears ahead in both design and workmanship compared to earlier models.

Because the Hunter 34 was only in production for a few years, few changes were made between model years. You are therefore less likely to find major upgrades on older boats than you would find on a boat that has been in production for a long time.

Sailing Performance

The Hunter 34 is a fast boat, particularly in light air. This is due almost entirely to her huge rig, which towers over 51′ above the waterline. Owners report that in winds of from seven to 12 knots, the boat is practically unbeatable in club racing. The typical PHRF rating of 135 for the deep keel boat is faster than most other cruiser/racers of her size.

There is a price to be paid for that speed, however. A number of owners responding to our survey report that the original Hunter 34 is a very tippy boat, in either the deep keel or shoal draft version. In winds of 15 knots true or more, it’s time to reef the main when going upwind. In fact, the boat’s lack of stability is the single most commonly criticized aspect of the Hunter 34’s performance in our survey. One owner was considering cutting several feet off his mast. Others have stepped down from 150% headsails to 135% or smaller overlaps.

Normally, you would expect a boat with a 42% ballast/displacement ratio to be stiff. The keel of the deep-draft Hunter 34, however, has most of its weight and volume up high, while the shoal draft keel, even with its extra 220 pounds of ballast, still has a fairly high vertical center of gravity. This just goes to show that you can’t judge a boat’s stability by its ballast/ displacement ratio—you’ve got to know how far down that weight is, too.

Models late in the production run had more ballast. The 1985 Hunter 34 brochure shows about 450 pounds more ballast than in the 1983 model. For cruising, the additional ballast would be a real plus. For club racing with a full crew, the lighter boats could be sailed faster.

Using headsails smaller than 150% on the Hunter 34 would be a good idea, particularly if you couple them with a modern roller furling system. A 135% jib can more effectively be reduced to 110% than a 150% genoa can be reefed to 120%. Since the boat is sensitive to sail area, a good headsail roller furling system is a must, in our opinion.

According to several owners, the Hunter 34 carries substantial weather helm in anything more than very light air. This may in part be due to the boat’s tenderness. As boats with wide sterns and narrow bows heel, the waterplane becomes substantially asymmetrical, which can give the boat a pronounced tendency to head up.

This weather helm may be exacerbated by an original rudder design that some owners report was both too small and too weak for the boat. Several owners reported cracking of the original rudders, which Hunter replaced with a larger, stronger, “high performance” rudder. Unfortunately, in some cases Hunter only paid part of the replacement costs; owners were stuck with the rest. We wouldn’t want a Hunter 34 without the high performance rudder. The better rudder was standard equipment on 1984 and 1985 models.

The complex B&R rig, with its swept-back spreaders and diamond shrouds, is also a headache for some owners. There’s a lot of rigging for a novice to adjust, and according to our survey, the dealers who commissioned the boats were not necessarily more capable of adjusting the rig than the owners.

One problem with the B&R rig is that, on any point of sail freer than a broad reach, the mainsail will fetch up on the spreaders and shrouds. You can apply patches to keep the spreaders from poking holes in the mainsail, but we think the shrouds are likely to chafe on the sail almost from head to foot when running, no matter what you do.

In addition, the lack of either forward lower shrouds, baby stay, or inner forestay means that if the headstay goes, the rig may follow before you can do anything to prevent it. One owner in our survey reported losing his rig when the roller furling headstay failed. Most new sailors have enough trouble tuning a simple, single spreader rig with double lower shrouds. The multi-spreader, multi-shroud B&R rig may seem incomprehensible to them, and they may never be able to tune the rig for good performance.

The boat is very fast upwind, but only average in speed off the wind. With a spinnaker, downwind performance would be greatly improved. The high aspect ratio mainsail simply doesn’t project enough area for efficient downwind sailing, particularly since you can’t square the boom to the mast due to the swept-back spreaders.

Most Hunter 34s are equipped with the Yanmar 3GMF, a three-cylinder, fresh water cooled diesel that puts out about 22.5 hp. This is an excellent engine, although early versions, according to some owners in our survey, were plagued by vibration.

Some of the first Hunter 34s were equipped with the Westerbeke 21 diesel. In our opinion, the Yanmar is a much more desirable engine. For boats to be used in salt water, check to make sure that the engine is fresh water cooled, rather than raw water cooled.

Some early versions of this engine lacked fresh water cooling, and they will not last as long when used in salt water.

Access to the engine for service is good. The Yanmar is more than adequate power for the boat, and she should cruise under power at 5 1/2 knots or more without any trouble. The fuel capacity of 25 gallons should give a range of about 275 miles.

Construction

Hunters are mass-produced boats at the low end of the price scale. The Hunter 34 was the first “small” Hunter to be built with a molded hull liner. A molded liner can add considerable strength to a single-skin boat, and the use of integral molded furniture components can greatly speed assembly. Assembly is the right word, too: these boats are assembled, rather than built.

The original tooling for a hull liner is quite expensive. It is therefore only practical on a boat that is expected to have a fairly large production run.

Not everything about the Hunter 34’s hull liner is a plus, however. According to several owners, any leakage from the stuffing box can be trapped between the liner and the hull, never draining to the bilge. This could not only smell bad after a while, but could possibly cause problems in a cold climate if trapped water freezes without room to expand. The preassembly technique common with liners also means that many systems are installed in ways that can make them difficult to service after the hull, deck, and liner are put together.

Hunter quality control is criticized by some owners in our survey. Complaints include chafed hoses, raw edges, systems hooked up improperly, and leaking ports and hatches. In our opinion, that’s a quality control problem, pure and simple, and it can be a maintenance headache for owners. One owner reported a leaking hull-to-deck joint. When he checked it, he found that many of the bolts had apparently never been torqued down when the hull and deck were joined. We don’t think the boat should have left the factory in that condition.

On the positive side, owners of Hunter 34s who had owned older Hunters report that in general the construction details of the 34 are superior to those of older boats.

Do not expect to find a lot of fancy teak joinerwork on the Hunter 34. Some owners complain that both the interior and exterior teak trim is poorly fitted and poorly finished. Obviously, you could do a lot to improve this if you wanted to—as some owners have—but don’t expect a dramatic increase in the value of the boat for your efforts.

The iron keels of the Hunter 34s can also be a maintenance headache. Some owners say the keels did not come from the factory with adequate protection to avoid rusting—which is almost impossible to prevent with an iron keel. Other owners report that the keel-to-hull seam cracks open, allowing salt water into the joint—which results in more rust. This is a cosmetic problem now, but we think it could over time become a structural problem.

The deck molding has been a source of trouble on some boats. The molded non skid isn’t very nonskid when it gets wet. There are also a number of reports of gelcoat flaws in the deck, including voids and blistering. At least one owner reports that the outer deck laminate in his cockpit has separated from the wood core.

Several owners complain that some molded deck components—cockpit locker covers, anchor well covers—are simply too light, and tend to crack.

The Hunter 34 was one of the first boats under 35′ to offer a tri-cabin layout, and this interior design is frequently cited as a primary reason for buying the boat. Now, of course, it is common for boats this size to have three cabins.

The only real complaint voiced about the interior of the Hunter 34 is the narrowness of the foot of the forward V-berth. Despite being pushed far forward in the hull, the forward cabin feels big due to the long cabin trunk, which extends clear to the anchor well, giving extra headroom over the berth. Standing headroom in the forward cabin drops off to less than 6′ due to the sloping cabin trunk.

Just aft of the forward cabin is a full-width head. This makes a lot of sense in a boat this size, since the combination of head and passageway would make for both a cramped head and a narrow passageway. According to some owner surveys, the plumbing for the toilet leaves a lot to be desired. They report that the holding tank system smells, apparently due to porous hoses and a poor vent design.

Instead of the more common U-shaped dinette, the Hunter 34 has a rather old fashioned dinette with athwartships seating. This certainly makes it easier to convert the dinette to a double berth, but it means that you can seat a maximum of four at the table for dinner. On the port side, the head of the settee berth is used as the seat for the chart table—a design compromise, since that settee is one of only two potential sea berths on the boat.

Original specifications call for a two-burner kerosene stove. Kerosene never caught on as a cooking fuel in this country, partly because it is so difficult to  get high-grade kerosene here. Propane or CNG would be far better choices for cooking fuel, since low-grade kerosene is a dirty fuel, and alcohol is expensive, inefficient, and in our opinion, dangerous.

As you would expect on a boat this size, the aft cabin is pretty small, with limited standing area. Despite the fact that the double berth is mostly under the cockpit, there is adequate headroom over it due to the fact that the cockpit is quite shallow.

The privacy of the tri-cabin layout is very important for a family with children, or owners that like to cruise with another couple. The single fixed berth in the main cabin means that the boat will sleep only five without making up the dinette. “Only” five is a pretty good number in a boat this size, and the most important thing is that it sleeps five in a reasonable level of comfort. All in all, the interior of the Hunter 34 is well thought out and livable.

Conclusions

The general design and finish of the Hunter 34 are far ahead of older boats by the company. The Eurostyling of the deck and interior were pretty unusual when the boat first came out, but fairly typical of boats built five years after the Hunter 34 was introduced.

Nevertheless, this is still a mass-produced boat with what some owners consider mediocre quality control and finishing details. It is a fast sailer, but may be so tippy that it discourages some novices. You should definitely sail the boat before you buy it. The B&R rig may also scare off some new sailors. Because of the problems with the deck molding, a used Hunter 34 should be carefully and professionally surveyed before purchase.

If you want a fast, modern small coastal cruiser with maximum room at minimum cost, a Hunter 34 would be a good choice. But remember that you’re buying a mass-produced boat, and it’s not realisitic to expect custom quality at this price.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Thank you for the comprehensive report. It is very practical and enlightening allowing a potential buyer to make an educated decisiion

I have a deep keel version of the 1999 Hunter 340 – Trinity. She has excellent pointing characteristics allowing her to sail up to 15 degrees off the apparent, and we win races as a result. However, it takes a bit of wind to move her with our 110% headsail. She’s best around 15 knots apparent; above that reefing is advised going to windward. I don’t consider her tippy, but certainly if you push her, you’ll get lots of helm and the rail in the water. I’ve raced her single handed in Georgian Bay in 35-42 knots apparent, winning the Meaburywood Trophy in 2021, an inter-club race of 15 boats. I like her a lot but being on the cusp of retiring, I am looking for a bigger boat to allow longer range cruising.

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Log in to leave a comment

Latest Videos

Hanse 410: What You Should Know | Boat Tour

Sailboat vs Fishing Boat – Rules of the Road

Catalina 445: What You Should Know | Boat Review

How to Wax and Polish Your Boat

• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell My Personal Information
• Online Account Activation
• Privacy Manager

• Forums New posts Unanswered threads Register Top Posts Email
• What's new New posts New Posts (legacy) Latest activity New media
• Media New media New comments
• Boat Info Downloads Weekly Quiz Topic FAQ 10000boatnames.com
• Classifieds Sell Your Boat Used Gear for Sale
• Parts General Marine Parts Hunter Beneteau Catalina MacGregor Oday
• Help Terms of Use Monday Mail Subscribe Monday Mail Unsubscribe

Hunter 340 capable for ocean crossings

• Thread starter Velero23904
• Start date Jun 6, 2007
• Hunter Owner Forums

Velero23904

We recently purchase a Hunter 340 which we really like. This boat is intended for a intermediate step before a larger boat for open ocean crossings. Our intentions are to sail down the Pacific coast from Vancouver to Mexico to Sea of Cortez. Then possibly either to the South Pacific or Caribbean/Europe. Even though the salesperson says this is rated for bluewater cruising I am skeptical that it could take the riggers of open ocean work. I am asking the experts for their oppinions, that is you the users. Is this boat capable of open ocean work?  

Few Hunters are ocean ready PT,Your imagination is noteworthy. However, Hunter's aren't designed or engineered to be ocean going vessels. Yea, some guys have rowed a canoe across the Atlantic - but they have support folks following them and have immediate recovery access. You don't.Hunter's are built to be coastal cruisers. Their design (capsize stability, roll over, and rigging) are not designed for constant heavy seas. Neither are the companion ways, lazerettes (most don't even have latches), or rudder strength.What are they designed for? Travelling inland waters, coastal and sheltered waters and the like. Also, a Hunter 34 would be hard pressed to live on for those many days unless you like "camping out" with limited necessitites.Having said all this, it is possible to travel the distances you discribed by careful planning your route along the coastline, careful weather watches and not trying to do any marathons. Many 34 footers travel the ICW without problem. The bottom line is it's not so much the boat as the experience and skill of the captain. Here's were judgement and decision-making make all the difference. If you're one of those - go for it.  

Preparation I agree with many of the points made by Ron, but I have a 1998 Hunter 376 and would be very happy to sail the trade routes around the world. I have already sailed the Atlantic, through the Panama to the Galapagos and on through the Pacific in a Beneteau 44 without any fear the yacht would not make it. However, whatever make of yacht you use it must be prepared well. Such things as poor latches on the Hunter lazerettes must be changed to ensure they remain secure whatever the weather. I have also changed the Lewmar Coastline forward hatches on my 376 for the Ocean version as they were just not heavy enough to be totally secure. Many of the yachts going around the world via the trade winds are well prepared high volume type production units such as Jeanneau and Beneteau which are similar to Hunters. However, there are also many of the classic yachts such as Swan, Halberg Rassey, Island Packet etc. There are many very old yachts, some of which look very tired and neglected.One thing is for certain the larger the yacht the more comfortable and sea kindly it is.Also remember Trade wind sailing is not like sailing in the Southern Ocean or the more extreme weather area's of the world.If you are well prepared and have the necessary sailing ability then I would go for it.  

Well, I sure disagree about the "camping out" part. I never before heard someone claim that bluewater boats were superior for living on as distinguished from sailing on - especially in the 34' range.Compare the specs on a Pacific Seacraft 34:http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1712363&ybw=&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=32744&url=with a Hunter 340:http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1687647&ybw=&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=2944&url=I'd prefer to cross the Atlantic in the PS, but once I got to the Med, I'd rather cruise on the 340.  

Pacific Seacraft or Hunter Doug,I think we're in agreement. The Hunter's are great cruisers, but not my first choice for a blue water crossing. Yes, I know even some of the traditional "bluewater" vessels leave a lot to be desired when it comes to creature comforts. But they're generally better equiped to go the distance (time at sea and miles).My comment about "camping out" refers to the fact that many Hunter mid-size boats don't have the basics for long duration sailing. I'm refering to gen-sets for power (Hunter hasn't come around to production wind or solar generators for general battery recharging), power for refrigeration, navigation, etc, etc., exposed cockpits to the elements and other single systems (no backups). In a new Hunter, you'll get a basic VHF (not SSB) radio, charger/inverter (if you're lucky), depth and speed equipment. All the other necessary communication and navigation stuff, to include enclosures are after-market add-ons. I don't think I want to do the Atlantic with just the minimum on board.  

Larry Jackel

A 340 is not for blue water, at least not for me We had a '99 340 for 6 years and enjoyed it very much. Most of our sailing was confined to Barnegat Bay, NJ, but every year we sailed up the New England Coast, usually as far as Newport, RI or Martha's Vineyard, but once to Bar Harbor, ME including a leg 40 miles from land. As long as winds were below the 15 knot range as was well. But going to windward, either on sail or on power in higher winds on the ocean, or in even Buzzards Bay was bad news. The shape of the hull is such that the boat pounds severely in moderately steep chop. The 340 is also tender and needs to be reefed early. On our cruises we always paid great attention to the weather forecasts, but we could never be sure that we would not run into unexpected white-knuckle conditions.We now sail a 2005 H44 which has vastly superior sailing characteristics. I would not take a 340 down the Pacific Coast with so few safe harbors along the way. But maybe I am just too cautious.  

OK, Ron - you have a point We cruised the Bahamas/Caribbean on an old (16 yrs when we bought her) Hunter 34. We spent almost as much on cruising equipment as we did on the boat - SSB, smart charger/inverter, watermaker, davits, rib dingy, solar panels, wind generator, AGM batteries, etc. It was all aftermarket and custom installed. I notice that the PS in the link doesn't have any of these things except SSB and AGM bateries. Few of these things are standard equipment on any new boat. A used bluewater boat is probably more likely to have extra cruising eqipment. But that's because it's more likely to have been used for cruising not because the manufacturer builds all of them that way. Probably, it's better to have equipment factory installed, but if you buy used ....... Either way it costs extra, and any cruiser class boat can be equipped to be more or less self-sufficient.  

It's all relevant... I think we as individuals have much different expectations of what we "think" and what's possible. Unsure why this is other than the old American think of "Bigger is Better". I worked with a Japanese Electrical Engineer for 10 years. Prior to coming to the USA he'd built a 23' boat in Japan, since his stay in the USA was going to be long he sold everything before coming, including the 23' sailboat. He'd spoke of his boat many times during the years. After he returned to Japan for a visit he learned the new owner of the 23' boat had sailed it Around the World (single handed). The trip was documented in a Japanese Sailing magazine. I have a copy of the magazine... but I can read only the numbers and study the pictures. I would only guess that the Japanese Captain would have thought that your 340 would be much better than the tiny 23 footer!  

NautiMoments

I agree......just wanted to confirm what I thought Ron,I also think that the H340 is not appropriate for open ocean, I just wanted to get others thoughts on this. We find the boat quite comfortable with lots of below storage, drawers, etc. but topside storage is a premium. As Larry pointed out, we have also found that the flatter hull shape has caused some pounding, although we are still learning the boat. We are thinking that about a 40'er would be right for us and had our eye on the Beneteau 393 before we purchased this one but could not find moorage in our area. I do not want to sink a bunch of money on offshore equipment for a unsuitable boat. I do not want to buy a major project boat and this is why I am looking more at the production boats. Also, my total budget is in about the 200 thousand bracket, which is also a limiting factor. In your minds is the Hunter line of boat, in the 40' range, built for tradewind style offshore use?What would you buy knowing that you have around $150,000 and would probably spend another 50-60 thousand on cruising equipment?  

The short answer is No - but I think it’s safe to say that no Beneteaus, Catalinas, or Hunters are going to be on anyone’s top ten list for crossing oceans or circumnavigating. Nevertheless, there are more than a few people doing this with them anyway. See: http://www.cruiser.co.za/hostmelon.asp - 15 years cruising all over the world on a Jeanneau Sun Fizz (this boat isn’t on anyone’s top ten list either).You need to refine your cruising plans and spend some time thinking about your cruising life style before you decide what boat you need/want. You say you might sail down to the Sea of Cortez and then go onto sail the South Pacific. Well, from the Sea of Cortez to the Marquesas is about a 4 week sail. You can pick your season and a couple days of weather forecasts when you start, but most of the time you will be 100s or 1000s of miles from land. You and your boat will simply have to weather whatever the sea cares to give you. What are you going to do in the South Pacific? Sailing back to the Pacific Northwest is not a trivial task. Or, you might sail the Caribbean and Europe. Sailing from the US East Coast to the Med. involves about a 2 week Atlantic crossing, possibly with a stop in the middle at Bermuda. What are you going to do in the Med/Europe? Stay forever? There is no good reason to sail the Caribbean unless you are going to do so slowly and leisurely - I imagine the Med. is the same. There is a temptation to think that if you just had a bombproof bluewater boat, you could keep your cruising plans vague because it would safely take you anywhere in the world. The truth is that the biggest single reason that people abandon cruising is that it turned out not to be fun living on the particular boat they chose to do it in. As an example here are two reasonably well equipped, comparably priced, cruising boats:http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1620930&ybw=&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=6064&url=And:http://yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1699466&ybw=&units=Feet&currency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=1783&url=Most people would consider the Mariner a bluewater boat; few would consider the Hunter to be a bluewater boat. I know nothing about them beyond the ads, but assuming that they are both in good condition - if I were sailing from Mexico to French Polynesia, I would choose the Mariner. If I were cruising the Caribbean, I would definitely choose the Hunter. If I was also determined to cruise the Med., I would still choose the Hunter. Would I carefully choose my season and weather window before crossing the Atlantic in the Hunter? Yes. If I were crossing in the Mariner, would I do the same thing? Yes. My preferences are based on my experience (which does not include crossing oceans - although I have sailed to Bermuda) and knowledge of my personal cruising life-style. Yours may be different, but unless your cruising life-style is very unusual, 90% of the time you will not be sailing anywhere - you will be anchored or tied up in a marina.For whatever it's worth, I have sailed on an old Hunter Legend 40 in very rough weather and it was definitely less uncomfortable than it would have been on our old H34. I don't think that rough weather is comfortable on any boat, but over the course of several days, the degree of discomfort can make a real difference.  

Hard to define exact long term cruising plans Doug, you are right that we should define our long term cruising plans before we start, but that is very hard. We will be retired. We need to see if we like the lifestyle, therefore the trip down the west coast and cruising the Sea of Cortez for a year should give us a good indication. If we do not like it we can either sell the boat down there, truck it back from San Diago to Vancouver or sail/motor it back up. Maybe we like the lifestyle but in shorter doses, so we leave the boat on the hard and come home for their hurricane season, which is our summer. Then move the boat to the next area and do the same. If we like the lifestyle we could continue down the coast through the Panama to the Caribbean. Then, after a year or so, cross with a group such as the ARC, to the Med. Again, coming back from the Med we could sell the boat or sail it back; at this point Dockwise would be too expensive.ORwe could go across to South Pacific, probably with the "Puddle Jumpers" that sails from Puerto Vallarta to the Marquesas. We must stay flexible at this point, thus the trip down the west coast is the only thing in stone right now, we maybe soft stone.Choosing a boat is hard. I am not sure I would want a spade rudder but prefer a skeg hung rudder. I would like to have more performance that a full skeg, heavy displacement hull provides. That said, I believe that they will provide the most seakindly ride. One boat I like is the Valiant 40 but I am sure there is many more out there that are great. Doug, your statement "The truth is that the biggest single reason that people abandon cruising is that it turned out not to be fun living on the particular boat they chose to do it in." means to me that you need to choose wisely and keep the Admiral happy. We are not people who require luxury but we do need simple functional comfort. My luck is that my wife loves sailing as much as I do, if I could pry the helm out of her hands.There is also certain equipment I would want to add to a boat. One is windvane steering, which does not fit on the sugar scoop stern of a lot of production boats easily.  

OK - here's something worth considering: Since you are considering the Caribbean, try a 1 week charter in St. Thomas or St. Lucia. This is not cheap; it won't let you do quite what you would likely do if you were cruising your own boat; and the boat will not be equipped the way you would want for extended cruising. But, you can easily have a 38-40 footer; it will definitely be a light weight mass production boat; it will give you some idea of what this kind of island hopping cruising is like; and unless you are extremely unlucky, you will have a blast. The reason this is worth doing is that more than a few people have set out to sail the world, hit the Caribbean, and then stayed for years - it can be that good; and you do not need a bluewater boat to do it.BTW - the boat you really want was recently sold - asking price was 200K - don't know what it went for:http://www.boatus.com/cruising/ithaka/specs.aspValiants are definitely considered bluewater boats - they are also notorious for blisters:http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/valian40.htm  

If I was unsure of the lifestyle and wanted to... take an extended cruise to prove whether it worked for us, what better place than my own back yard. We've made three extended (two month) cruises in PNW waters. The first year was the Gulf Island group including Desolation Sound, next was Discovery Island group and last year was the Broughton Island group. What a wonderful experience to spend a year gunkholing around these assorted island groups. A place to fall in love with.Terry  

We met people in Trinidad who sail the Caribbean 6 mo. per year, have the boat hauled for hurricane season, and then fly back to the PNW - where they have an island home and another sailboat. Must be nice.  

newly anonymous

folks have been reading too much sales literature It's always the newbies who ask the "bluewater boat" question on this site. Always.The term "bluewater boat" was coined by some marketing guy to convince us all that a heavy-displacement, canoe-sterned wallower was somehow superior to any boat that can actually point to weather. When the term was originally coined it was used to deprecate such vessels as the Cal 40 and the Morgan OI 41, two vessels that have distinguished themselves as passagemakers. Nowdays, the same sales guys are trying to convince you that their vessels are superior to any production boat that outsells whatever they're trying to hype. (And, of course, they'll almost convince you that Valiants and/or Pacific Seacraft aren't actually "production boats.")Put down the sales literature and pick up a tiller. Once you've got enough sea time under your belt you'll know whether a particular vessel is capable of any passage you're likely to undertake. At that point you'll probably understand that in getting from point A to point B more waterline is generally better than less, but that otherwise every boat's a compromise. What the sales guys aren't telling you is that their so-called bluewater boats are going to take an extra week to get from here to Hawaii as compared to my Hunter. So it goes.  

Design vs. Equipment Very few boats are sold with adequate equipment for blue water cruising, since it will add substantial cost with low value if the owner plans the coastal cruising that makes up 95% of all cruising in sailboats. Equipment includes upgrades to rigging, sails, ground tackle, hull, storage, safety, electric and communications systems. The Transpac Race Manual has a good checklist for many of these systems. Henk Meuzelaar posted a photo essay a while back that shows his mods to a 40+ foot Hunter to prepare it for extended cruising in the South Pacific.Design is another question. Some boats were simply not designed for extended blue water cruises. Performance ratios provide good indicators of the compromises the designer made for any specific design. With a capsize screen of 2.1, and a comfort factor of 21.5, the Hunter 340 is clearly not designed for blue water cruising. But it is a roomy and comfortable coastal cruiser - we really enjoyed the 340 we chartered in the North Channel.Length, by the way does not mean blue water safety. With a capsize screen of 1.85 and a comfort factor of 26.0, the Cherubini Hunter 33 is a good blue water design - although most are not eguipped for it. There are other designs at and below 30 feet that show up well.A review of previous threads on this subject (search the archives for "bluewater" will reveal a number of other ideas beyond this discussion to date. I highly recommend them.DavidLady Lillie  

length and safety certainly correspond Would you rather outrun a gale in a boat with a hull speed of nine knots or seven knots?How much more fatiqued will your crew be making a passage in 15 days than the other crew who makes the same passage in ten?How much more hobby-horsing will a 33 footer do in six-foot wind chop as compared to a 46 footer?How much less spray makes it into the cockpit when your dodger is 40 feet aft of the bow?How much bigger a wave is it going to take to knock down a boat displacing 15 tons than a boat displacing five?get real. you can have your capsize ratio any day. I'll take LWL. (Capsize ratio on my H46LE, by the way, is 1.866.)  

Phil Herring

It's not really about the boat anyway People have crossed oceans in everything you can think of, many, many times. Just for example, the Around Alone boats would fit no one's classic blue water boat specs. It's all about the skipper and the preparation. A good skipper can safely cruise pretty much anything. An ill-prepared skipper may well need a rescue from their Pacific Seacraft.  

OK John, I'll bite. The Hunter 466 actually compares closely to the 70's H 33 according to the specs on this site. "Your comment" - my response"Would you rather outrun a gale in a boat with a hull speed of nine (8.9) knots or seven knots?" - I doubt any cruising boats often outrun gales. The 28% higher hull speed is an advantage, though."How much more fatiqued will your crew be making a passage in 15 days than the other crew who makes the same passage in ten?" - That's 12.8 days versus 10. And the real answer is what does the crew want to be doing? I thought blue water cruising is about relaxing on passages. Fatigue really relates to comfort, on which the boats are equivalent."How much more hobby-horsing will a 33 footer do in six-foot wind chop as compared to a 46 footer?" - Longer overhangs and d/l on the 33 (real helps in rough weather) make these boats roughly equivalent for comfort. The comfort factor on the 33 is 26.0, on the 46 26.7. Most blue water cruising involves long swells, anyway."How much less spray makes it into the cockpit when your dodger is 40 feet aft of the bow?" - Good question. The vertical bow on the 466 is probably allowing _more_ spray over the rails than the 20% overhang on the 33's bow. In 25 knots of wind, most of that spray will arrive at your cockpit. Also, the relatively lower cockpit on the 33 (since there is no kingsize stateroom below it) gives much more protection to the cockpit from the cabin structure."How much bigger a wave is it going to take to knock down a boat displacing 15 tons than a boat displacing five?" - According to extensive tests after the Fastnet disaster, displacement has no impact on a wave's ability to roll over a boat. Any breaking wave taller than the beam of a boat will roll over a boat it catches broadside. A 15 foot broadside breaking wave will roll both boats over. The key safety question is will the boat recover after being rolled upside down. Here, the capsize ratio tells us that the boats are roughly equivalent, with a slight advantage to the 33! (33:1.85; 466:1.89) "get real. you can have your capsize ratio any day. I'll take LWL. (Capsize ratio on my H46LE, by the way, is 1.866.)" - You just proved my point! If the designer of your 46LE had given it the broad beam of a modern sled, (with a capsize ratio over 2.1) you would be unlikely to roll back to vertical.Boat design _is_ important to boat performance, regardless of the length. In this case, a modern 466 looks a lot like the 33 on the points you raised, with the sole exception of hull speed. In fact there are a number of modern 40 footers that are _not_ designed for blue water, as the 340 is clearly not. There are good books on cruising boat design that explore the real issues. I'd encourage anyone planning blue water cruising to buy a couple, and get comfortable with those issues before choosing a boat.DavidLady Lillie  

Don S/V ILLusion

this is a frivilous argument between a number of folks who never did it. There is a sailor now posting his updates on the Sailnet Hunter forum from Indonesia aboard his H 326. As Phil said, it's the skipper, not the boat.  

• This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register. By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. Accept Learn more…

Great choice! Your favorites are temporarily saved for this session. Sign in to save them permanently, access them on any device, and receive relevant alerts.

• Sailboat Guide

Hunter 340 is a 33 ′ 9 ″ / 10.3 m monohull sailboat designed by Hunter Design Team and built by Hunter Marine starting in 1997.

• 2 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 3 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 4 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 5 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 6 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 7 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 8 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 9 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 10 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 11 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 12 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 13 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 14 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 15 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 16 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 17 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 18 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 19 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 20 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 21 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 22 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 23 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 24 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 25 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 26 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 27 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 28 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 29 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 30 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 31 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 32 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 33 / 49 Green Cove Springs, FL, US 2002 Hunter 340 $50,000 USD View
• 34 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 35 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 36 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 37 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 38 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 39 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 40 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 41 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 42 / 49 Apollo Beach, FL, US 1998 Hunter 340 $60,000 USD View
• 43 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 44 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 45 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 46 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 47 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View
• 48 / 49 Clearwater, FL, US 2001 Hunter 340 $22,000 USD View
• 49 / 49 Hamilton, ON, CA 1997 Hunter 340 $51,129 USD View

Rig and Sails

Auxilary power, accomodations, calculations.

The theoretical maximum speed that a displacement hull can move efficiently through the water is determined by it's waterline length and displacement. It may be unable to reach this speed if the boat is underpowered or heavily loaded, though it may exceed this speed given enough power. Read more.

Classic hull speed formula:

Hull Speed = 1.34 x √LWL

Max Speed/Length ratio = 8.26 ÷ Displacement/Length ratio .311 Hull Speed = Max Speed/Length ratio x √LWL

Sail Area / Displacement Ratio

A measure of the power of the sails relative to the weight of the boat. The higher the number, the higher the performance, but the harder the boat will be to handle. This ratio is a "non-dimensional" value that facilitates comparisons between boats of different types and sizes. Read more.

SA/D = SA ÷ (D ÷ 64) 2/3

• SA : Sail area in square feet, derived by adding the mainsail area to 100% of the foretriangle area (the lateral area above the deck between the mast and the forestay).
• D : Displacement in pounds.

Ballast / Displacement Ratio

A measure of the stability of a boat's hull that suggests how well a monohull will stand up to its sails. The ballast displacement ratio indicates how much of the weight of a boat is placed for maximum stability against capsizing and is an indicator of stiffness and resistance to capsize.

Ballast / Displacement * 100

Displacement / Length Ratio

A measure of the weight of the boat relative to it's length at the waterline. The higher a boat’s D/L ratio, the more easily it will carry a load and the more comfortable its motion will be. The lower a boat's ratio is, the less power it takes to drive the boat to its nominal hull speed or beyond. Read more.

D/L = (D ÷ 2240) ÷ (0.01 x LWL)³

• D: Displacement of the boat in pounds.
• LWL: Waterline length in feet

Comfort Ratio

This ratio assess how quickly and abruptly a boat’s hull reacts to waves in a significant seaway, these being the elements of a boat’s motion most likely to cause seasickness. Read more.

Comfort ratio = D ÷ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x Beam 1.33 )

• D: Displacement of the boat in pounds
• LOA: Length overall in feet
• Beam: Width of boat at the widest point in feet

Capsize Screening Formula

This formula attempts to indicate whether a given boat might be too wide and light to readily right itself after being overturned in extreme conditions. Read more.

CSV = Beam ÷ ³√(D / 64)

Deep Keel: 6.0’.

Embed this page on your own website by copying and pasting this code.

• About Sailboat Guide

©2024 Sea Time Tech, LLC

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.