Maxi Magic vs Pearson 26
How do the Maxi Magic and Pearson 26 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Maxi Magic 
Pearson 26 | Maxi Magic | Pearson 26 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 26.1 ft7.97 m | 26.2 ft7.98 m |
| Waterline length | 22.6 ft6.90 m | 21.7 ft6.61 m |
| Beam | 9.1 ft2.76 m | 8.7 ft2.64 m |
| Draft | 5.1 ft1.55 m | 4.0 ft1.22 m |
| Displacement | 4,850 lb2,200 kg | 5,400 lb2,449 kg |
| Ballast | 1,543 lb700 kg | 2,200 lb998 kg |
| Sail area | 404 ft²37.5 m² | 322 ft²29.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.56 | 16.74 |
| Displacement / Length | 187 | 237 |
| Comfort ratio | 16.8 | 20.4 |
| Capsize screening | 2.14 | 1.98 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.4 | 6.2 |
| Average used price | €9,000 | — |
Maxi Magic vs Pearson 26: the short version
- The Maxi Magic and Pearson 26 are close in length (26.1 ft7.97 m vs 26.2 ft7.98 m ).
- The Pearson 26 is heavier, displacing about 11% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Maxi Magic carries the more powerful rig (22.6 vs 16.7), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Pearson 26 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Pearson 26 rates better for offshore work (1.98 vs 2.14).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.