Flying Phantom Essentiel vs Interlake
How do the Flying Phantom Essentiel and Interlake compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Flying Phantom Essentiel | Flying Phantom Essentiel | Interlake | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 18.0 ft5.50 m | 18.0 ft5.49 m |
| Waterline length | —— | —— |
| Beam | 8.4 ft2.55 m | 6.3 ft1.91 m |
| Draft | —— | 4.6 ft1.40 m |
| Displacement | 375 lb170 kg | 650 lb295 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 236 ft²21.9 m² | 175 ft²16.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 72.61 | 37.31 |
| Displacement / Length | — | — |
| Comfort ratio | — | — |
| Capsize screening | 4.64 | 2.89 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | — |
Flying Phantom Essentiel vs Interlake: the short version
- The Flying Phantom Essentiel and Interlake are close in length (18.0 ft5.50 m vs 18.0 ft5.49 m ).
- The Interlake is heavier, displacing about 73% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Flying Phantom Essentiel carries the more powerful rig (72.6 vs 37.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Interlake rates better for offshore work (2.89 vs 4.64).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.