C&C 41 vs Irwin 41 Citation
How do the C&C 41 and Irwin 41 Citation compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
C&C 41 | C&C 41 | Irwin 41 Citation | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.8 ft12.42 m | 40.8 ft12.43 m |
| Waterline length | 33.3 ft10.16 m | 33.3 ft10.14 m |
| Beam | 12.9 ft3.94 m | 13.0 ft3.97 m |
| Draft | 7.8 ft2.38 m | 7.3 ft2.21 m |
| Displacement | 17,500 lb7,938 kg | 17,500 lb7,938 kg |
| Ballast | 8,000 lb3,629 kg | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Sail area | 812 ft²75.4 m² | 787 ft²73.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 19.27 | 18.68 |
| Displacement / Length | 211 | 212 |
| Comfort ratio | 25.2 | 24.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.99 | 2.01 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 7.7 |
C&C 41 vs Irwin 41 Citation: the short version
- The C&C 41 and Irwin 41 Citation are close in length (40.8 ft12.42 m vs 40.8 ft12.43 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the C&C 41 carries the more powerful rig (19.3 vs 18.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The C&C 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the C&C 41 rates better for offshore work (1.99 vs 2.01).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.