Allegro 33 vs Douglas 32
How do the Allegro 33 and Douglas 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Allegro 33 
Douglas 32 | Allegro 33 | Douglas 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.2 ft9.81 m | 32.1 ft9.78 m |
| Waterline length | 28.9 ft8.82 m | 24.5 ft7.47 m |
| Beam | 10.9 ft3.33 m | 9.5 ft2.90 m |
| Draft | 4.9 ft1.50 m | 4.7 ft1.42 m |
| Displacement | 13,669 lb6,200 kg | 11,500 lb5,216 kg |
| Ballast | 6,173 lb2,800 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 527 ft²49.0 m² | 459 ft²42.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.75 | 14.41 |
| Displacement / Length | 252 | 349 |
| Comfort ratio | 29.2 | 33.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.83 | 1.68 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 6.6 |
| Average used price | €29,000 | — |
Allegro 33 vs Douglas 32: the short version
- The Allegro 33 and Douglas 32 are close in length (32.2 ft9.81 m vs 32.1 ft9.78 m ).
- The Allegro 33 is heavier, displacing about 19% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Allegro 33 carries the more powerful rig (14.7 vs 14.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Douglas 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Douglas 32 rates better for offshore work (1.68 vs 1.83).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.