Landfall 39 vs Mirage 39
How do the Landfall 39 and Mirage 39 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Landfall 39 | Landfall 39 | Mirage 39 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 39.2 ft11.94 m | 39.2 ft11.94 m |
| Waterline length | 30.6 ft9.32 m | 32.8 ft10.01 m |
| Beam | 11.5 ft3.51 m | 12.5 ft3.81 m |
| Draft | 5.6 ft1.70 m | 6.2 ft1.88 m |
| Displacement | 23,500 lb10,659 kg | 16,000 lb7,257 kg |
| Ballast | 8,800 lb3,992 kg | 6,000 lb2,722 kg |
| Sail area | 811 ft²75.3 m² | —— |
| SA / Displacement | 15.82 | — |
| Displacement / Length | 367 | 202 |
| Comfort ratio | 42.4 | 24.6 |
| Capsize screening | 1.61 | 1.98 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 7.4 | 7.7 |
Landfall 39 vs Mirage 39: the short version
- The Landfall 39 and Mirage 39 are close in length (39.2 ft11.94 m vs 39.2 ft11.94 m ).
- The Landfall 39 is heavier, displacing about 47% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- The Landfall 39 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Landfall 39 rates better for offshore work (1.61 vs 1.98).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.