Irwin 41 vs Landfall 42
How do the Irwin 41 and Landfall 42 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Irwin 41 | Irwin 41 | Landfall 42 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 41.5 ft12.65 m | 41.7 ft12.70 m |
| Waterline length | 35.1 ft10.69 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Beam | 13.5 ft4.11 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 4.5 ft1.37 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 25,000 lb11,340 kg | 21,000 lb9,525 kg |
| Ballast | 8,000 lb3,629 kg | 8,800 lb3,992 kg |
| Sail area | 803 ft²74.6 m² | 709 ft²65.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 15.03 | 14.90 |
| Displacement / Length | 259 | 347 |
| Comfort ratio | 32.6 | 33.5 |
| Capsize screening | 1.85 | 1.81 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.9 | 7.3 |
Irwin 41 vs Landfall 42: the short version
- The Irwin 41 and Landfall 42 are close in length (41.5 ft12.65 m vs 41.7 ft12.70 m ).
- The Irwin 41 is heavier, displacing about 19% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Irwin 41 carries the more powerful rig (15.0 vs 14.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Landfall 42 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 42 rates better for offshore work (1.81 vs 1.85).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.