Bayfield 29 vs Dragon
How do the Bayfield 29 and Dragon compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bayfield 29 
Dragon | Bayfield 29 | Dragon | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.0 ft8.84 m | 29.2 ft8.90 m |
| Waterline length | 21.8 ft6.63 m | 18.6 ft5.66 m |
| Beam | 10.2 ft3.10 m | 6.2 ft1.90 m |
| Draft | 3.5 ft1.07 m | 3.9 ft1.20 m |
| Displacement | 7,100 lb3,221 kg | 3,748 lb1,700 kg |
| Ballast | 3,000 lb1,361 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 420 ft²39.0 m² | 298 ft²27.7 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.19 | 19.76 |
| Displacement / Length | 308 | 261 |
| Comfort ratio | 20.9 | 23.3 |
| Capsize screening | 2.12 | 1.60 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 5.8 |
Bayfield 29 vs Dragon: the short version
- The Bayfield 29 and Dragon are close in length (29.0 ft8.84 m vs 29.2 ft8.90 m ).
- The Bayfield 29 is heavier, displacing about 89% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Dragon carries the more powerful rig (19.8 vs 18.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Dragon scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Dragon rates better for offshore work (1.60 vs 2.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.