E-Scow vs Ranger 28
How do the E-Scow and Ranger 28 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
E-Scow | E-Scow | Ranger 28 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 28.0 ft8.53 m | 28.0 ft8.53 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 21.7 ft6.61 m |
| Beam | 6.8 ft2.06 m | 9.6 ft2.92 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.14 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 965 lb438 kg | 5,081 lb2,305 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 2,792 lb1,266 kg |
| Sail area | 323 ft²30.0 m² | 389 ft²36.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 52.92 | 21.06 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 223 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 16.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.73 | 2.23 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.2 |
E-Scow vs Ranger 28: the short version
- The E-Scow and Ranger 28 are close in length (28.0 ft8.53 m vs 28.0 ft8.53 m ).
- The Ranger 28 is heavier, displacing about 427% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the E-Scow carries the more powerful rig (52.9 vs 21.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 28 rates better for offshore work (2.23 vs 2.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.