Kirby 30 vs Mirage 33
How do the Kirby 30 and Mirage 33 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 33 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 29.7 ft9.04 m | 33.5 ft10.21 m |
| Waterline length | 23.5 ft7.16 m | 26.8 ft8.15 m |
| Beam | 10.3 ft3.12 m | 11.7 ft3.56 m |
| Draft | 5.5 ft1.68 m | 5.0 ft1.52 m |
| Displacement | 5,350 lb2,427 kg | 9,300 lb4,218 kg |
| Ballast | 2,300 lb1,043 kg | 3,500 lb1,588 kg |
| Sail area | 434 ft²40.3 m² | 468 ft²43.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.70 | 16.93 |
| Displacement / Length | 184 | 217 |
| Comfort ratio | 14.7 | 18.9 |
| Capsize screening | 2.34 | 2.22 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.5 | 6.9 |
Kirby 30 vs Mirage 33: the short version
- The Mirage 33 is the larger boat at 33.5 ft10.21 m LOA versus 29.7 ft9.04 m for the Kirby 30.
- The Mirage 33 is heavier, displacing about 74% 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 16.9), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Mirage 33 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Mirage 33 rates better for offshore work (2.22 vs 2.34).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.