CS 395 vs Endeavour 40
How do the CS 395 and Endeavour 40 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
CS 395 | CS 395 | Endeavour 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.1 ft12.24 m | 40.0 ft12.19 m |
| Waterline length | 31.1 ft9.49 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Beam | 12.7 ft3.87 m | 13.0 ft3.96 m |
| Draft | 7.3 ft2.22 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 12,786 lb5,800 kg | 25,000 lb11,340 kg |
| Ballast | 5,644 lb2,560 kg | 9,000 lb4,082 kg |
| Sail area | 747 ft²69.4 m² | 788 ft²73.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.86 | 14.75 |
| Displacement / Length | 189 | 341 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.8 | 36.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.17 | 1.78 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 7.6 |
CS 395 vs Endeavour 40: the short version
- The CS 395 and Endeavour 40 are close in length (40.1 ft12.24 m vs 40.0 ft12.19 m ).
- The Endeavour 40 is heavier, displacing about 96% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the CS 395 carries the more powerful rig (21.9 vs 14.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Endeavour 40 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Endeavour 40 rates better for offshore work (1.78 vs 2.17).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.