Corbin 39 vs Landfall 42
How do the Corbin 39 and Landfall 42 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 | Landfall 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.5 ft12.65 m | 41.7 ft12.70 m |
| Waterline length | 32.0 ft9.75 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Beam | 12.1 ft3.68 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 22,800 lb10,342 kg | 21,000 lb9,525 kg |
| Ballast | 9,000 lb4,082 kg | 8,800 lb3,992 kg |
| Sail area | 811 ft²75.3 m² | 709 ft²65.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 16.14 | 14.90 |
| Displacement / Length | 311 | 347 |
| Comfort ratio | 36.6 | 33.5 |
| Capsize screening | 1.70 | 1.81 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.6 | 7.3 |
Corbin 39 vs Landfall 42: the short version
- The Corbin 39 and Landfall 42 are close in length (41.5 ft12.65 m vs 41.7 ft12.70 m ).
- The Corbin 39 is heavier, displacing about 9% 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 14.9), 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 1.81).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.