Portman 36 vs Vancouver 36
How do the Portman 36 and Vancouver 36 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Portman 36 | Portman 36 | Vancouver 36 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 36.0 ft10.97 m | 36.0 ft10.97 m |
| Waterline length | 29.3 ft8.94 m | 27.9 ft8.51 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 11.0 ft3.35 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 16,000 lb7,257 kg | 18,052 lb8,188 kg |
| Ballast | 6,000 lb2,722 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Sail area | 545 ft²50.6 m² | 685 ft²63.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 13.73 | 15.93 |
| Displacement / Length | 283 | 370 |
| Comfort ratio | 34.4 | 37.7 |
| Capsize screening | 1.67 | 1.68 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.3 | 7.1 |
Portman 36 vs Vancouver 36: the short version
- The Portman 36 and Vancouver 36 are close in length (36.0 ft10.97 m vs 36.0 ft10.97 m ).
- The Vancouver 36 is heavier, displacing about 13% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Vancouver 36 carries the more powerful rig (15.9 vs 13.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Vancouver 36 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Portman 36 rates better for offshore work (1.67 vs 1.68).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.