49er vs M Scow
How do the 49er and M Scow compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
49er 
M Scow | 49er | M Scow | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.0 ft4.88 m | 16.0 ft4.88 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 9.0 ft2.74 m | 5.8 ft1.77 m |
| Draft | 4.8 ft1.45 m | 2.7 ft0.81 m |
| Displacement | 207 lb94 kg | 440 lb200 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | —— | 147 ft²13.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | — | 40.66 |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 6.09 | 3.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
49er vs M Scow: the short version
- The 49er and M Scow are close in length (16.0 ft4.88 m vs 16.0 ft4.88 m ).
- The M Scow is heavier, displacing about 113% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- By the capsize screening formula the M Scow rates better for offshore work (3.05 vs 6.09).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.