DS-16 vs M Scow
How do the DS-16 and M Scow compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
DS-16 
M Scow | DS-16 | M Scow | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.0 ft4.88 m | 16.0 ft4.88 m |
| Waterline length | 14.3 ft4.37 m | —— |
| Beam | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 5.8 ft1.77 m |
| Draft | 4.0 ft1.22 m | 2.7 ft0.81 m |
| Displacement | 500 lb227 kg | 440 lb200 kg |
| Ballast | 135 lb61 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 155 ft²14.4 m² | 147 ft²13.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 39.37 | 40.66 |
| Displacement / Length | 76 | — |
| Comfort ratio | 4.8 | — |
| Capsize screening | 3.02 | 3.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.1 | — |
DS-16 vs M Scow: the short version
- The DS-16 and M Scow are close in length (16.0 ft4.88 m vs 16.0 ft4.88 m ).
- The DS-16 is heavier, displacing about 14% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the M Scow carries the more powerful rig (40.7 vs 39.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the DS-16 rates better for offshore work (3.02 vs 3.05).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.