Ranger 33 vs Tartan Ten
How do the Ranger 33 and Tartan Ten compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Ranger 33 
Tartan Ten | Ranger 33 | Tartan Ten | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 33.2 ft10.11 m | 33.1 ft10.10 m |
| Waterline length | 26.3 ft8.00 m | 27.0 ft8.23 m |
| Beam | 9.6 ft2.92 m | 9.3 ft2.82 m |
| Draft | 5.0 ft1.52 m | 5.8 ft1.78 m |
| Displacement | 10,500 lb4,763 kg | 7,100 lb3,221 kg |
| Ballast | 4,500 lb2,041 kg | 3,340 lb1,515 kg |
| Sail area | 528 ft²49.1 m² | 487 ft²45.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 17.62 | 21.09 |
| Displacement / Length | 259 | 161 |
| Comfort ratio | 28.2 | 19.6 |
| Capsize screening | 1.75 | 1.93 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 7.0 |
Ranger 33 vs Tartan Ten: the short version
- The Ranger 33 and Tartan Ten are close in length (33.2 ft10.11 m vs 33.1 ft10.10 m ).
- The Ranger 33 is heavier, displacing about 48% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Tartan Ten carries the more powerful rig (21.1 vs 17.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Ranger 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 33 rates better for offshore work (1.75 vs 1.93).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.