Mamba 311 vs Maxi 95
How do the Mamba 311 and Maxi 95 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Mamba 311 | Mamba 311 | Maxi 95 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.2 ft9.50 m | 31.2 ft9.50 m |
| Waterline length | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 25.6 ft7.80 m |
| Beam | 10.1 ft3.07 m | 10.4 ft3.16 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 5.1 ft1.55 m |
| Displacement | 7,275 lb3,300 kg | 11,023 lb5,000 kg |
| Ballast | 3,527 lb1,600 kg | 3,527 lb1,600 kg |
| Sail area | 560 ft²52.0 m² | 506 ft²47.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 23.86 | 16.35 |
| Displacement / Length | 180 | 294 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 27.7 |
| Capsize screening | 2.08 | 1.86 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 6.8 |
| Average used price | €16,900 | €18,000 |
Mamba 311 vs Maxi 95: the short version
- The Mamba 311 and Maxi 95 are close in length (31.2 ft9.50 m vs 31.2 ft9.50 m ).
- The Maxi 95 is heavier, displacing about 52% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Mamba 311 carries the more powerful rig (23.9 vs 16.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Maxi 95 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Maxi 95 rates better for offshore work (1.86 vs 2.08).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.