C-Scow vs Core Sound 20 Mark 3
How do the C-Scow and Core Sound 20 Mark 3 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C-Scow 
Core Sound 20 Mark 3 | C-Scow | Core Sound 20 Mark 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 20.0 ft6.10 m | 20.0 ft6.10 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 7.0 ft2.13 m | 6.5 ft1.99 m |
| Draft | 3.3 ft1.01 m | 3.9 ft1.20 m |
| Displacement | 650 lb295 kg | 1,500 lb680 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 438 lb199 kg |
| Sail area | 216 ft²20.1 m² | 180 ft²16.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 46.06 | 21.98 |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 3.23 | 2.28 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
C-Scow vs Core Sound 20 Mark 3: the short version
- The C-Scow and Core Sound 20 Mark 3 are close in length (20.0 ft6.10 m vs 20.0 ft6.10 m ).
- The Core Sound 20 Mark 3 is heavier, displacing about 131% 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 22.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Core Sound 20 Mark 3 rates better for offshore work (2.28 vs 3.23).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.