Comet vs Martin 16
How do the Comet and Martin 16 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Comet 
Martin 16 | Comet | Martin 16 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.0 ft4.88 m | 16.0 ft4.88 m |
| Waterline length | 15.0 ft4.57 m | 16.0 ft4.88 m |
| Beam | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 4.3 ft1.32 m |
| Draft | 1.8 ft0.53 m | 3.3 ft1.01 m |
| Displacement | 260 lb118 kg | 730 lb331 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 330 lb150 kg |
| Sail area | 135 ft²12.5 m² | 100 ft²9.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 53.02 | 19.74 |
| Displacement / Length | 34 | 80 |
| Comfort ratio | 2.7 | 10.0 |
| Capsize screening | 3.45 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.2 | 5.4 |
Comet vs Martin 16: the short version
- The Comet and Martin 16 are close in length (16.0 ft4.88 m vs 16.0 ft4.88 m ).
- The Martin 16 is heavier, displacing about 181% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Comet carries the more powerful rig (53.0 vs 19.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Martin 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 3.45).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.