Alpha 160 F vs Kanga 322
How do the Alpha 160 F and Kanga 322 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Alpha 160 F | Alpha 160 F | Kanga 322 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 10.8 ft3.30 m | 10.9 ft3.33 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 2.2 ft0.66 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 | 2.65 | 2.51 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
Alpha 160 F vs Kanga 322: the short version
- The Alpha 160 F and Kanga 322 are close in length (10.8 ft3.30 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 2.65).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.