Nash 26 vs Ranger 26-2
How do the Nash 26 and Ranger 26-2 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Nash 26 
Ranger 26-2 | Nash 26 | Ranger 26-2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 26.0 ft7.92 m | 26.0 ft7.92 m |
| Waterline length | 21.3 ft6.48 m | 19.8 ft6.03 m |
| Beam | 8.5 ft2.59 m | 8.0 ft2.44 m |
| Draft | 3.8 ft1.17 m | 4.8 ft1.45 m |
| Displacement | 5,200 lb2,359 kg | 3,000 lb1,361 kg |
| Ballast | 2,100 lb953 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 288 ft²26.8 m² | 284 ft²26.4 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.35 | 21.85 |
| Displacement / Length | 242 | 173 |
| Comfort ratio | 20.5 | 13.4 |
| Capsize screening | 1.96 | 2.22 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 6.0 |
Nash 26 vs Ranger 26-2: the short version
- The Nash 26 and Ranger 26-2 are close in length (26.0 ft7.92 m vs 26.0 ft7.92 m ).
- The Nash 26 is heavier, displacing about 73% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Ranger 26-2 carries the more powerful rig (21.8 vs 15.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Nash 26 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Nash 26 rates better for offshore work (1.96 vs 2.22).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.