Dickerson 41 vs Lord Nelson 41
How do the Dickerson 41 and Lord Nelson 41 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 | Lord Nelson 41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.0 ft12.50 m | 41.0 ft12.50 m |
| Waterline length | 31.5 ft9.60 m | 36.2 ft11.03 m |
| Beam | 12.5 ft3.81 m | 12.8 ft3.91 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.7 ft1.73 m |
| Displacement | 24,500 lb11,113 kg | 30,500 lb13,835 kg |
| Ballast | 8,500 lb3,856 kg | 11,000 lb4,990 kg |
| Sail area | 753 ft²70.0 m² | 1,046 ft²97.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.28 | 17.14 |
| Displacement / Length | 350 | 287 |
| Comfort ratio | 38.1 | 41.9 |
| Capsize screening | 1.72 | 1.64 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.5 | 8.1 |
Dickerson 41 vs Lord Nelson 41: the short version
- The Dickerson 41 and Lord Nelson 41 are close in length (41.0 ft12.50 m vs 41.0 ft12.50 m ).
- The Lord Nelson 41 is heavier, displacing about 24% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Lord Nelson 41 carries the more powerful rig (17.1 vs 14.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Lord Nelson 41 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Lord Nelson 41 rates better for offshore work (1.64 vs 1.72).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.