Com-pac 16 vs Martin 16
How do the Com-pac 16 and Martin 16 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Com-pac 16 
Martin 16 | Com-pac 16 | Martin 16 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.0 ft4.88 m | 16.0 ft4.88 m |
| Waterline length | 14.0 ft4.27 m | 16.0 ft4.88 m |
| Beam | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 4.3 ft1.32 m |
| Draft | 1.5 ft0.46 m | 3.3 ft1.01 m |
| Displacement | 1,100 lb499 kg | 730 lb331 kg |
| Ballast | 450 lb204 kg | 330 lb150 kg |
| Sail area | 120 ft²11.1 m² | 100 ft²9.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.02 | 19.74 |
| Displacement / Length | 179 | 80 |
| Comfort ratio | 10.7 | 10.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.32 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.0 | 5.4 |
Com-pac 16 vs Martin 16: the short version
- The Com-pac 16 and Martin 16 are close in length (16.0 ft4.88 m vs 16.0 ft4.88 m ).
- The Com-pac 16 is heavier, displacing about 51% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Martin 16 carries the more powerful rig (19.7 vs 18.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Com-pac 16 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Martin 16 rates better for offshore work (1.92 vs 2.32).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.