Balboa 16 vs M Scow
How do the Balboa 16 and M Scow compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Balboa 16 
M Scow | Balboa 16 | M Scow | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.0 ft4.88 m | 16.0 ft4.88 m |
| Waterline length | 14.7 ft4.47 m | —— |
| Beam | 7.5 ft2.29 m | 5.8 ft1.77 m |
| Draft | 2.4 ft0.74 m | 2.7 ft0.81 m |
| Displacement | 1,000 lb454 kg | 440 lb200 kg |
| Ballast | 400 lb181 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 117 ft²10.9 m² | 147 ft²13.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.72 | 40.66 |
| Displacement / Length | 141 | — |
| Comfort ratio | 7.0 | — |
| Capsize screening | 3.00 | 3.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.1 | — |
Balboa 16 vs M Scow: the short version
- The Balboa 16 and M Scow are close in length (16.0 ft4.88 m vs 16.0 ft4.88 m ).
- The Balboa 16 is heavier, displacing about 127% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the M Scow carries the more powerful rig (40.7 vs 18.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Balboa 16 rates better for offshore work (3.00 vs 3.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.