Archambault A35 vs MG 335
How do the Archambault A35 and MG 335 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Archambault A35 | Archambault A35 | MG 335 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.7 ft10.59 m | 34.8 ft10.59 m |
| Waterline length | 30.5 ft9.29 m | 27.7 ft8.43 m |
| Beam | 11.7 ft3.55 m | 11.3 ft3.43 m |
| Draft | 6.9 ft2.10 m | 6.3 ft1.91 m |
| Displacement | 9,811 lb4,450 kg | 8,900 lb4,037 kg |
| Ballast | 4,387 lb1,990 kg | 3,800 lb1,724 kg |
| Sail area | 727 ft²67.5 m² | 536 ft²49.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 25.38 | 19.97 |
| Displacement / Length | 155 | 188 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.1 | 18.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.18 | 2.17 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.0 |
Archambault A35 vs MG 335: the short version
- The Archambault A35 and MG 335 are close in length (34.7 ft10.59 m vs 34.8 ft10.59 m ).
- The Archambault A35 is heavier, displacing about 10% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Archambault A35 carries the more powerful rig (25.4 vs 20.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The MG 335 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the MG 335 rates better for offshore work (2.17 vs 2.18).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.