A-Scow vs Farr 38
How do the A-Scow and Farr 38 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 | Farr 38 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 38.0 ft11.58 m | 38.3 ft11.66 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 31.2 ft9.50 m |
| Beam | 8.3 ft2.51 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 4.0 ft1.22 m | 6.5 ft1.98 m |
| Displacement | 1,850 lb839 kg | 10,600 lb4,808 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,100 lb1,860 kg |
| Sail area | 500 ft²46.5 m² | 689 ft²64.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 53.09 | 22.85 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 156 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 18.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.69 | 2.19 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 7.5 |
A-Scow vs Farr 38: the short version
- The A-Scow and Farr 38 are close in length (38.0 ft11.58 m vs 38.3 ft11.66 m ).
- The Farr 38 is heavier, displacing about 473% 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 22.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Farr 38 rates better for offshore work (2.19 vs 2.69).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.