ETAP 28 vs Mirage 275
How do the ETAP 28 and Mirage 275 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
ETAP 28 | ETAP 28 | Mirage 275 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 27.6 ft8.42 m | 27.5 ft8.38 m |
| Waterline length | 22.7 ft6.91 m | 22.5 ft6.86 m |
| Beam | 10.0 ft3.05 m | 9.8 ft3.00 m |
| Draft | 5.4 ft1.65 m | 4.3 ft1.32 m |
| Displacement | 6,610 lb2,998 kg | 6,800 lb3,084 kg |
| Ballast | 2,557 lb1,160 kg | 2,400 lb1,089 kg |
| Sail area | 319 ft²29.6 m² | 334 ft²31.0 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 14.49 | 14.89 |
| Displacement / Length | 253 | 267 |
| Comfort ratio | 19.7 | 20.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.13 | 2.08 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.4 | 6.4 |
ETAP 28 vs Mirage 275: the short version
- The ETAP 28 and Mirage 275 are close in length (27.6 ft8.42 m vs 27.5 ft8.38 m ).
- On sail area/displacement the Mirage 275 carries the more powerful rig (14.9 vs 14.5), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Mirage 275 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Mirage 275 rates better for offshore work (2.08 vs 2.13).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.