C-Scow vs Com-Pac Horizon Cat
How do the C-Scow and Com-Pac Horizon Cat compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C-Scow | C-Scow | Com-Pac Horizon Cat | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 20.0 ft6.10 m | 20.0 ft6.10 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 17.8 ft5.41 m |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 8.3 ft2.54 m |
| Draft | 3.3 ft1.01 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 650 lb295 kg | 2,500 lb1,134 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 600 lb272 kg |
| Sail area | 216 ft²20.1 m² | 205 ft²19.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 46.06 | 17.81 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 200 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 12.4 |
| Capsize screening | 3.23 | 2.46 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 5.6 |
C-Scow vs Com-Pac Horizon Cat: the short version
- The C-Scow and Com-Pac Horizon Cat are close in length (20.0 ft6.10 m vs 20.0 ft6.10 m ).
- The Com-Pac Horizon Cat is heavier, displacing about 285% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the C-Scow carries the more powerful rig (46.1 vs 17.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Com-Pac Horizon Cat rates better for offshore work (2.46 vs 3.23).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.