AMF Apollo 16 vs Phantom 16
How do the AMF Apollo 16 and Phantom 16 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 | Phantom 16 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 15.8 ft4.80 m | 15.9 ft4.85 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 5.9 ft1.80 m | 7.5 ft2.30 m |
| Draft | 2.6 ft0.79 m | 1.5 ft0.46 m |
| Displacement | 300 lb136 kg | 265 lb120 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 129 ft²12.0 m² | 301 ft²28.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 46.06 | 116.73 |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 3.54 | 4.70 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
AMF Apollo 16 vs Phantom 16: the short version
- The AMF Apollo 16 and Phantom 16 are close in length (15.8 ft4.80 m vs 15.9 ft4.85 m ).
- The AMF Apollo 16 is heavier, displacing about 13% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Phantom 16 carries the more powerful rig (116.7 vs 46.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the AMF Apollo 16 rates better for offshore work (3.54 vs 4.70).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.