3.35 vs Kanga 322
How do the 3.35 and Kanga 322 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
3.35 | 3.35 | Kanga 322 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 11.0 ft3.35 m | 10.9 ft3.33 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 2.1 ft0.65 m | 2.1 ft0.65 m |
| Draft | —— | —— |
| Displacement | 35 lb16 kg | 39 lb18 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | —— | —— |
| SA / Displacement | — | — |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 2.60 | 2.51 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
3.35 vs Kanga 322: the short version
- The 3.35 and Kanga 322 are close in length (11.0 ft3.35 m vs 10.9 ft3.33 m ).
- The Kanga 322 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- By the capsize screening formula the Kanga 322 rates better for offshore work (2.51 vs 2.60).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.