Kirby 25 vs Mirage 32
How do the Kirby 25 and Mirage 32 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Kirby 25 
Mirage 32 | Kirby 25 | Mirage 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 25.2 ft7.67 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Waterline length | 20.8 ft6.32 m | 26.0 ft7.92 m |
| Beam | 8.8 ft2.67 m | 10.5 ft3.20 m |
| Draft | 4.2 ft1.27 m | 4.8 ft1.47 m |
| Displacement | 3,150 lb1,429 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Ballast | 1,150 lb522 kg | 2,800 lb1,270 kg |
| Sail area | 289 ft²26.8 m² | 433 ft²40.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 21.52 | 17.32 |
| Displacement / Length | 157 | 203 |
| Comfort ratio | 12.3 | 19.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.39 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.1 | 6.8 |
Kirby 25 vs Mirage 32: the short version
- The Mirage 32 is the larger boat at 32.0 ft9.75 m LOA versus 25.2 ft7.67 m for the Kirby 25.
- The Mirage 32 is heavier, displacing about 154% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Kirby 25 carries the more powerful rig (21.5 vs 17.3), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Mirage 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Mirage 32 rates better for offshore work (2.10 vs 2.39).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.