Bayfield 29 vs Shipman 28
How do the Bayfield 29 and Shipman 28 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Bayfield 29 
Shipman 28 | Bayfield 29 | Shipman 28 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.0 ft8.84 m | 29.1 ft8.86 m |
| Waterline length | 21.8 ft6.63 m | 21.0 ft6.40 m |
| Beam | 10.2 ft3.10 m | 8.5 ft2.60 m |
| Draft | 3.5 ft1.07 m | 5.1 ft1.55 m |
| Displacement | 7,100 lb3,221 kg | 6,173 lb2,800 kg |
| Ballast | 3,000 lb1,361 kg | 2,667 lb1,210 kg |
| Sail area | 420 ft²39.0 m² | 307 ft²28.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.19 | 14.60 |
| Displacement / Length | 308 | 298 |
| Comfort ratio | 20.9 | 23.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.12 | 1.86 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.2 | 6.1 |
| Average used price | — | €5,100 |
Bayfield 29 vs Shipman 28: the short version
- The Bayfield 29 and Shipman 28 are close in length (29.0 ft8.84 m vs 29.1 ft8.86 m ).
- The Bayfield 29 is heavier, displacing about 15% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Bayfield 29 carries the more powerful rig (18.2 vs 14.6), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Shipman 28 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Shipman 28 rates better for offshore work (1.86 vs 2.12).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.