Birdie 32 vs Kirby 30
How do the Birdie 32 and Kirby 30 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Birdie 32 | Birdie 32 | Kirby 30 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.7 ft9.04 m | 29.7 ft9.04 m |
| Waterline length | 26.4 ft8.06 m | 23.5 ft7.16 m |
| Beam | 10.5 ft3.20 m | 10.3 ft3.12 m |
| Draft | 5.6 ft1.70 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 7,716 lb3,500 kg | 5,350 lb2,427 kg |
| Ballast | 3,527 lb1,600 kg | 2,300 lb1,043 kg |
| Sail area | 517 ft²48.0 m² | 434 ft²40.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.18 | 22.70 |
| Displacement / Length | 186 | 184 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.0 | 14.7 |
| Capsize screening | 2.13 | 2.34 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.9 | 6.5 |
| Average used price | €13,000 | — |
Birdie 32 vs Kirby 30: the short version
- The Birdie 32 and Kirby 30 are close in length (29.7 ft9.04 m vs 29.7 ft9.04 m ).
- The Birdie 32 is heavier, displacing about 44% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Kirby 30 carries the more powerful rig (22.7 vs 21.2), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Birdie 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Birdie 32 rates better for offshore work (2.13 vs 2.34).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.