A-Scow vs Etap 38i
How do the A-Scow and Etap 38i compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
A-Scow | A-Scow | Etap 38i | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 38.0 ft11.58 m | 38.0 ft11.57 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 32.0 ft9.74 m |
| Beam | 8.3 ft2.51 m | 12.7 ft3.87 m |
| Draft | 4.0 ft1.22 m | 5.1 ft1.55 m |
| Displacement | 1,850 lb839 kg | 14,120 lb6,405 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,850 lb2,200 kg |
| Sail area | 500 ft²46.5 m² | 599 ft²55.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 53.09 | 16.41 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 193 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 21.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.69 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.6 |
A-Scow vs Etap 38i: the short version
- The A-Scow and Etap 38i are close in length (38.0 ft11.58 m vs 38.0 ft11.57 m ).
- The Etap 38i is heavier, displacing about 663% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the A-Scow carries the more powerful rig (53.1 vs 16.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Etap 38i rates better for offshore work (2.10 vs 2.69).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.