Irwin 41 Citation vs X-41
How do the Irwin 41 Citation and X-41 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Irwin 41 Citation | Irwin 41 Citation | X-41 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 40.8 ft12.43 m | 40.5 ft12.35 m |
| Waterline length | 33.3 ft10.14 m | 35.1 ft10.69 m |
| Beam | 13.0 ft3.97 m | 11.9 ft3.64 m |
| Draft | 7.3 ft2.21 m | 8.2 ft2.50 m |
| Displacement | 17,500 lb7,938 kg | 14,991 lb6,800 kg |
| Ballast | 9,500 lb4,309 kg | 6,019 lb2,730 kg |
| Sail area | 787 ft²73.1 m² | 1,058 ft²98.3 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 18.68 | 27.84 |
| Displacement / Length | 212 | 155 |
| Comfort ratio | 24.9 | 23.2 |
| Capsize screening | 2.01 | 1.94 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.7 | 7.9 |
Irwin 41 Citation vs X-41: the short version
- The Irwin 41 Citation and X-41 are close in length (40.8 ft12.43 m vs 40.5 ft12.35 m ).
- The Irwin 41 Citation is heavier, displacing about 17% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the X-41 carries the more powerful rig (27.8 vs 18.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Irwin 41 Citation scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the X-41 rates better for offshore work (1.94 vs 2.01).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.