AMF Apollo 16 vs Herreshoff Bull's Eye
How do the AMF Apollo 16 and Herreshoff Bull's Eye compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
AMF Apollo 16 | AMF Apollo 16 | Herreshoff Bull's Eye | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 15.8 ft4.80 m | 15.7 ft4.79 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 12.5 ft3.82 m |
| Beam | 5.9 ft1.80 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Draft | 2.6 ft0.79 m | 2.4 ft0.74 m |
| Displacement | 300 lb136 kg | 1,350 lb612 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 750 lb340 kg |
| Sail area | 129 ft²12.0 m² | 155 ft²14.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 46.06 | 20.30 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 307 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 14.8 |
| Capsize screening | 3.54 | 2.11 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 4.7 |
AMF Apollo 16 vs Herreshoff Bull's Eye: the short version
- The AMF Apollo 16 and Herreshoff Bull's Eye are close in length (15.8 ft4.80 m vs 15.7 ft4.79 m ).
- The Herreshoff Bull's Eye is heavier, displacing about 350% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the AMF Apollo 16 carries the more powerful rig (46.1 vs 20.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Herreshoff Bull's Eye rates better for offshore work (2.11 vs 3.54).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.