Flying Scot vs Lightning
How do the Flying Scot and Lightning compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Flying Scot 
Lightning | Flying Scot | Lightning | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 19.0 ft5.79 m | 19.0 ft5.79 m |
| Waterline length | 18.5 ft5.64 m | 15.3 ft4.65 m |
| Beam | 6.8 ft2.06 m | 5.0 ft1.51 m |
| Draft | 4.0 ft1.22 m | 5.0 ft1.51 m |
| Displacement | 850 lb386 kg | 700 lb318 kg |
| Ballast | —— | —— |
| Sail area | 191 ft²17.7 m² | 189 ft²17.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 34.06 | 38.36 |
| Displacement / Length | 60 | 88 |
| Comfort ratio | 5.5 | 7.8 |
| Capsize screening | 2.85 | 2.23 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 5.8 | 5.2 |
Flying Scot vs Lightning: the short version
- The Flying Scot and Lightning are close in length (19.0 ft5.79 m vs 19.0 ft5.79 m ).
- The Flying Scot is heavier, displacing about 21% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Lightning carries the more powerful rig (38.4 vs 34.1), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Lightning scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Lightning rates better for offshore work (2.23 vs 2.85).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.