Dickerson 41 vs Irwin 41 Citation
How do the Dickerson 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.
Dickerson 41 | Dickerson 41 | Irwin 41 Citation | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.0 ft12.50 m | 40.8 ft12.43 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 33.3 ft10.14 m |
| Beam | 12.5 ft3.81 m | 13.0 ft3.97 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 7.3 ft2.21 m |
| Displacement | 24,500 lb11,113 kg | 17,500 lb7,938 kg |
| Ballast | 8,500 lb3,856 kg | 9,500 lb4,309 kg |
| Sail area | 753 ft²70.0 m² | 787 ft²73.1 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.28 | 18.68 |
| Displacement / Length | 350 | 212 |
| Comfort ratio | 38.1 | 24.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.72 | 2.01 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 7.7 |
Dickerson 41 vs Irwin 41 Citation: the short version
- The Dickerson 41 and Irwin 41 Citation are close in length (41.0 ft12.50 m vs 40.8 ft12.43 m ).
- The Dickerson 41 is heavier, displacing about 40% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Irwin 41 Citation carries the more powerful rig (18.7 vs 14.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Dickerson 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Dickerson 41 rates better for offshore work (1.72 vs 2.01).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.