Antrim 20 vs Buccaneer 200
How do the Antrim 20 and Buccaneer 200 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Antrim 20 
Buccaneer 200 | Antrim 20 | Buccaneer 200 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 20.4 ft6.22 m | 20.4 ft6.22 m |
| Waterline length | 17.5 ft5.33 m | 17.3 ft5.28 m |
| Beam | 8.0 ft2.44 m | 8.0 ft2.44 m |
| Draft | 4.0 ft1.22 m | 17.3 ft5.28 m |
| Displacement | 1,850 lb839 kg | 2,100 lb953 kg |
| Ballast | 750 lb340 kg | 750 lb340 kg |
| Sail area | 226 ft²21.0 m² | 189 ft²17.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 23.99 | 18.44 |
| Displacement / Length | 154 | 180 |
| Comfort ratio | 9.7 | 11.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.61 | 2.50 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.6 | 5.6 |
Antrim 20 vs Buccaneer 200: the short version
- The Antrim 20 and Buccaneer 200 are close in length (20.4 ft6.22 m vs 20.4 ft6.22 m ).
- The Buccaneer 200 is heavier, displacing about 14% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Antrim 20 carries the more powerful rig (24.0 vs 18.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Buccaneer 200 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Buccaneer 200 rates better for offshore work (2.50 vs 2.61).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.