Corbin 39 vs Irwin 41
How do the Corbin 39 and Irwin 41 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Corbin 39 | Corbin 39 | Irwin 41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.5 ft12.65 m | 41.5 ft12.65 m |
| Waterline length | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 35.1 ft10.69 m |
| Beam | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 13.5 ft4.11 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 4.5 ft1.37 m |
| Displacement | 22,800 lb10,342 kg | 25,000 lb11,340 kg |
| Ballast | 9,000 lb4,082 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Sail area | 811 ft²75.3 m² | 803 ft²74.6 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.14 | 15.03 |
| Displacement / Length | 311 | 259 |
| Comfort ratio | 36.6 | 32.6 |
| Capsize screening | 1.70 | 1.85 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.6 | 7.9 |
Corbin 39 vs Irwin 41: the short version
- The Corbin 39 and Irwin 41 are close in length (41.5 ft12.65 m vs 41.5 ft12.65 m ).
- The Irwin 41 is heavier, displacing about 10% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Corbin 39 carries the more powerful rig (16.1 vs 15.0), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Corbin 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Corbin 39 rates better for offshore work (1.70 vs 1.85).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.