Mamba 311 vs Niagara 31
How do the Mamba 311 and Niagara 31 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 | Niagara 31 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.2 ft9.50 m | 31.3 ft9.53 m |
| Waterline length | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 24.3 ft7.39 m |
| Beam | 10.1 ft3.07 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 7,275 lb3,300 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Ballast | 3,527 lb1,600 kg | 3,550 lb1,610 kg |
| Sail area | 560 ft²52.0 m² | 492 ft²45.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 23.86 | 19.68 |
| Displacement / Length | 180 | 250 |
| Comfort ratio | 18.7 | 21.1 |
| Capsize screening | 2.08 | 2.05 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 6.6 |
| Average used price | €16,900 | — |
Mamba 311 vs Niagara 31: the short version
- The Mamba 311 and Niagara 31 are close in length (31.2 ft9.50 m vs 31.3 ft9.53 m ).
- The Niagara 31 is heavier, displacing about 10% 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 19.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Niagara 31 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Niagara 31 rates better for offshore work (2.05 vs 2.08).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.