Ranger 16 vs Ranger 26
How do the Ranger 16 and Ranger 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Ranger 16 | Ranger 16 | Ranger 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.7 ft5.08 m | 26.3 ft8.00 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 21.8 ft6.63 m |
| Beam | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 8.7 ft2.64 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.90 m | 4.3 ft1.32 m |
| Displacement | 450 lb204 kg | 5,860 lb2,658 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 2,050 lb930 kg |
| Sail area | 154 ft²14.3 m² | 322 ft²29.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 41.96 | 15.85 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 254 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 22.1 |
| Capsize screening | 3.13 | 1.92 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.2 |
Ranger 16 vs Ranger 26: the short version
- The Ranger 26 is the larger boat at 26.3 ft8.00 m LOA versus 16.7 ft5.08 m for the Ranger 16.
- The Ranger 26 is heavier, displacing about 1202% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Ranger 16 carries the more powerful rig (42.0 vs 15.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 26 rates better for offshore work (1.92 vs 3.13).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.