Etap 35i vs MG 335
How do the Etap 35i and MG 335 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Etap 35i | Etap 35i | MG 335 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 34.8 ft10.62 m | 34.8 ft10.59 m |
| Waterline length | 29.0 ft8.84 m | 27.7 ft8.43 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 11.3 ft3.43 m |
| Draft | 5.1 ft1.55 m | 6.3 ft1.91 m |
| Displacement | 11,464 lb5,200 kg | 8,900 lb4,037 kg |
| Ballast | 3,836 lb1,740 kg | 3,800 lb1,724 kg |
| Sail area | 504 ft²46.8 m² | 536 ft²49.8 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.86 | 19.97 |
| Displacement / Length | 210 | 188 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.2 | 18.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.04 | 2.17 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.2 | 7.0 |
Etap 35i vs MG 335: the short version
- The Etap 35i and MG 335 are close in length (34.8 ft10.62 m vs 34.8 ft10.59 m ).
- The Etap 35i is heavier, displacing about 29% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the MG 335 carries the more powerful rig (20.0 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Etap 35i scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Etap 35i rates better for offshore work (2.04 vs 2.17).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.