Etap 26 vs MacGregor 26
How do the Etap 26 and MacGregor 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Etap 26 
MacGregor 26 | Etap 26 | MacGregor 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 25.8 ft7.85 m | 25.8 ft7.87 m |
| Waterline length | 21.6 ft6.60 m | 23.0 ft7.01 m |
| Beam | 9.0 ft2.75 m | 7.7 ft2.36 m |
| Draft | 5.3 ft1.60 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 5,084 lb2,306 kg | 2,250 lb1,021 kg |
| Ballast | 1,568 lb711 kg | 1,500 lb680 kg |
| Sail area | 286 ft²26.6 m² | 241 ft²22.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.48 | 22.46 |
| Displacement / Length | 224 | 83 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.3 | 9.5 |
| Capsize screening | 2.10 | 2.36 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 6.4 |
Etap 26 vs MacGregor 26: the short version
- The Etap 26 and MacGregor 26 are close in length (25.8 ft7.85 m vs 25.8 ft7.87 m ).
- The Etap 26 is heavier, displacing about 126% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the MacGregor 26 carries the more powerful rig (22.5 vs 15.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Etap 26 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Etap 26 rates better for offshore work (2.10 vs 2.36).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.