Delta 31 vs Mamba 31
How do the Delta 31 and Mamba 31 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Delta 31 | Delta 31 | Mamba 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 30.7 ft9.35 m | 30.7 ft9.35 m |
| Waterline length | 24.9 ft7.60 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Beam | 10.0 ft3.04 m | 10.1 ft3.07 m |
| Draft | 5.9 ft1.80 m | 5.4 ft1.65 m |
| Displacement | 8,598 lb3,900 kg | 7,716 lb3,500 kg |
| Ballast | 3,505 lb1,590 kg | 3,527 lb1,600 kg |
| Sail area | 436 ft²40.5 m² | 506 ft²47.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.62 | 20.73 |
| Displacement / Length | 248 | 190 |
| Comfort ratio | 23.3 | 19.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.95 | 2.04 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.7 | 6.9 |
| Average used price | — | €12,000 |
Delta 31 vs Mamba 31: the short version
- The Delta 31 and Mamba 31 are close in length (30.7 ft9.35 m vs 30.7 ft9.35 m ).
- The Delta 31 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Mamba 31 carries the more powerful rig (20.7 vs 16.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Delta 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Delta 31 rates better for offshore work (1.95 vs 2.04).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.