Ontario 32 vs Viking 28
How do the Ontario 32 and Viking 28 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Ontario 32 
Viking 28 | Ontario 32 | Viking 28 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 28.2 ft8.59 m |
| Waterline length | 26.5 ft8.08 m | 22.0 ft6.71 m |
| Beam | 11.0 ft3.35 m | 8.4 ft2.55 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 9,800 lb4,445 kg | 4,775 lb2,166 kg |
| Ballast | 3,977 lb1,804 kg | 2,250 lb1,021 kg |
| Sail area | 481 ft²44.7 m² | 317 ft²29.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.81 | 17.89 |
| Displacement / Length | 235 | 200 |
| Comfort ratio | 22.1 | 18.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.06 | 1.99 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 6.3 |
Ontario 32 vs Viking 28: the short version
- The Ontario 32 is the larger boat at 32.0 ft9.75 m LOA versus 28.2 ft8.59 m for the Viking 28.
- The Ontario 32 is heavier, displacing about 105% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Viking 28 carries the more powerful rig (17.9 vs 16.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ontario 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Viking 28 rates better for offshore work (1.99 vs 2.06).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.