Cal 28 vs E-Scow
How do the Cal 28 and E-Scow compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Cal 28 | Cal 28 | E-Scow | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 28.0 ft8.53 m | 28.0 ft8.53 m |
| Waterline length | 22.5 ft6.86 m | —— |
| Beam | 9.0 ft2.74 m | 6.8 ft2.06 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 3.8 ft1.14 m |
| Displacement | 6,000 lb2,722 kg | 965 lb438 kg |
| Ballast | 2,200 lb998 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 352 ft²32.7 m² | 323 ft²30.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.06 | 52.92 |
| Displacement / Length | 235 | — |
| Comfort ratio | 20.6 | — |
| Capsize screening | 1.98 | 2.73 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.4 | — |
Cal 28 vs E-Scow: the short version
- The Cal 28 and E-Scow are close in length (28.0 ft8.53 m vs 28.0 ft8.53 m ).
- The Cal 28 is heavier, displacing about 522% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the E-Scow carries the more powerful rig (52.9 vs 17.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Cal 28 rates better for offshore work (1.98 vs 2.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.