E-Scow vs Stuart Knockabout
How do the E-Scow and Stuart Knockabout 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 | Stuart Knockabout | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 28.0 ft8.53 m | 28.0 ft8.53 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 22.8 ft6.96 m |
| Beam | 6.8 ft2.06 m | 6.9 ft2.11 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.14 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 965 lb438 kg | 4,000 lb1,814 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 2,400 lb1,089 kg |
| Sail area | 323 ft²30.0 m² | 291 ft²27.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 52.92 | 18.48 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 150 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 19.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.73 | 1.74 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.4 |
E-Scow vs Stuart Knockabout: the short version
- The E-Scow and Stuart Knockabout are close in length (28.0 ft8.53 m vs 28.0 ft8.53 m ).
- The Stuart Knockabout is heavier, displacing about 315% 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 18.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Stuart Knockabout rates better for offshore work (1.74 vs 2.73).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.