Chance 32/28 vs Douglas 32
How do the Chance 32/28 and Douglas 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Chance 32/28 
Douglas 32 | Chance 32/28 | Douglas 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.1 ft9.78 m | 32.1 ft9.78 m |
| Waterline length | 27.8 ft8.46 m | 24.5 ft7.47 m |
| Beam | 10.0 ft3.05 m | 9.5 ft2.90 m |
| Draft | 5.8 ft1.75 m | 4.7 ft1.42 m |
| Displacement | 12,025 lb5,454 kg | 11,500 lb5,216 kg |
| Ballast | 4,680 lb2,123 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 459 ft²42.6 m² | 459 ft²42.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 13.99 | 14.41 |
| Displacement / Length | 251 | 349 |
| Comfort ratio | 29.8 | 33.1 |
| Capsize screening | 1.75 | 1.68 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.1 | 6.6 |
Chance 32/28 vs Douglas 32: the short version
- The Chance 32/28 and Douglas 32 are close in length (32.1 ft9.78 m vs 32.1 ft9.78 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Douglas 32 carries the more powerful rig (14.4 vs 14.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Douglas 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Douglas 32 rates better for offshore work (1.68 vs 1.75).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.