Com-pac 16 vs M Scow
How do the Com-pac 16 and M Scow compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Com-pac 16 
M Scow | Com-pac 16 | M Scow | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.0 ft4.88 m | 16.0 ft4.88 m |
| Waterline length | 14.0 ft4.27 m | —— |
| Beam | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 5.8 ft1.77 m |
| Draft | 1.5 ft0.46 m | 2.7 ft0.81 m |
| Displacement | 1,100 lb499 kg | 440 lb200 kg |
| Ballast | 450 lb204 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 120 ft²11.1 m² | 147 ft²13.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.02 | 40.66 |
| Displacement / Length | 179 | — |
| Comfort ratio | 10.7 | — |
| Capsize screening | 2.32 | 3.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.0 | — |
Com-pac 16 vs M Scow: the short version
- The Com-pac 16 and M Scow are close in length (16.0 ft4.88 m vs 16.0 ft4.88 m ).
- The Com-pac 16 is heavier, displacing about 150% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the M Scow carries the more powerful rig (40.7 vs 18.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Com-pac 16 rates better for offshore work (2.32 vs 3.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.