Columbia 32 vs Com-Pac 25
How do the Columbia 32 and Com-Pac 25 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Columbia 32 | Columbia 32 | Com-Pac 25 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.1 ft9.78 m | 28.2 ft8.59 m |
| Waterline length | 26.5 ft8.08 m | 21.0 ft6.40 m |
| Beam | 9.5 ft2.90 m | 8.5 ft2.59 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 2.5 ft0.76 m |
| Displacement | 9,450 lb4,286 kg | 4,800 lb2,177 kg |
| Ballast | 4,050 lb1,837 kg | 1,900 lb862 kg |
| Sail area | 515 ft²47.8 m² | 265 ft²24.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.43 | 14.90 |
| Displacement / Length | 227 | 231 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.8 | 18.5 |
| Capsize screening | 1.80 | 2.02 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 6.1 |
Columbia 32 vs Com-Pac 25: the short version
- The Columbia 32 is the larger boat at 32.1 ft9.78 m LOA versus 28.2 ft8.59 m for the Com-Pac 25.
- The Columbia 32 is heavier, displacing about 97% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Columbia 32 carries the more powerful rig (18.4 vs 14.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Columbia 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Columbia 32 rates better for offshore work (1.80 vs 2.02).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.