Core Sound 20 Mark 3 vs Flying 15
How do the Core Sound 20 Mark 3 and Flying 15 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Core Sound 20 Mark 3 %20(cropped).jpg?width=960)
Flying 15 | Core Sound 20 Mark 3 | Flying 15 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 20.0 ft6.10 m | 20.0 ft6.10 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 15.0 ft4.57 m |
| Beam | 6.5 ft1.99 m | 7.0 ft2.13 m |
| Draft | 3.9 ft1.20 m | 2.5 ft0.76 m |
| Displacement | 1,500 lb680 kg | 725 lb329 kg |
| Ballast | 438 lb199 kg | 372 lb169 kg |
| Sail area | 180 ft²16.7 m² | 142 ft²13.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.98 | 28.15 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 96 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 5.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.28 | 3.12 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 5.2 |
Core Sound 20 Mark 3 vs Flying 15: the short version
- The Core Sound 20 Mark 3 and Flying 15 are close in length (20.0 ft6.10 m vs 20.0 ft6.10 m ).
- The Core Sound 20 Mark 3 is heavier, displacing about 107% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Flying 15 carries the more powerful rig (28.2 vs 22.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Core Sound 20 Mark 3 rates better for offshore work (2.28 vs 3.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.