Kirby 30 vs Mirage 32
How do the Kirby 30 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 30 | Kirby 30 | Mirage 32 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.7 ft9.04 m | 32.0 ft9.75 m |
| Waterline length | 23.5 ft7.16 m | 26.0 ft7.92 m |
| Beam | 10.3 ft3.12 m | 10.5 ft3.20 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 4.8 ft1.47 m |
| Displacement | 5,350 lb2,427 kg | 8,000 lb3,629 kg |
| Ballast | 2,300 lb1,043 kg | 2,800 lb1,270 kg |
| Sail area | 434 ft²40.3 m² | 433 ft²40.2 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.70 | 17.32 |
| Displacement / Length | 184 | 203 |
| Comfort ratio | 14.7 | 19.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.34 | 2.10 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.8 |
Kirby 30 vs Mirage 32: the short version
- The Mirage 32 is the larger boat at 32.0 ft9.75 m LOA versus 29.7 ft9.04 m for the Kirby 30.
- The Mirage 32 is heavier, displacing about 50% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Kirby 30 carries the more powerful rig (22.7 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 2.34).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.