Bristol 39 vs Cal 39 Mark II
How do the Bristol 39 and Cal 39 Mark II compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bristol 39 | Bristol 39 | Cal 39 Mark II | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.0 ft11.89 m | 39.0 ft11.89 m |
| Waterline length | 27.5 ft8.39 m | 32.1 ft9.78 m |
| Beam | 10.8 ft3.28 m | 12.0 ft3.66 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 6.7 ft2.03 m |
| Displacement | 17,580 lb7,974 kg | 17,000 lb7,711 kg |
| Ballast | 6,500 lb2,948 kg | 7,000 lb3,175 kg |
| Sail area | 648 ft²60.2 m² | 719 ft²66.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.33 | 17.40 |
| Displacement / Length | 376 | 230 |
| Comfort ratio | 37.1 | 28.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.65 | 1.87 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.0 | 7.6 |
Bristol 39 vs Cal 39 Mark II: the short version
- The Bristol 39 and Cal 39 Mark II are close in length (39.0 ft11.89 m vs 39.0 ft11.89 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Cal 39 Mark II carries the more powerful rig (17.4 vs 15.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Bristol 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Bristol 39 rates better for offshore work (1.65 vs 1.87).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.